Post on 27-Sep-2020
DIALING IN FOR THE AALHE WEBINAR? Toll-free: +1 (800) 000-0000 Participant code: 00000
What the Degree Qualifica0ons Profile IS – and What it ISN’T”
An AALHE Webinar Presented by Paul L. Gaston Trustees Professor, Kent State University
Favorite vegetable
Quali-Flower
Favorite animal
Quali-Bear
Favorite state
Quali-Fornia
Above all, the DQP is about quality-‐-‐
Above all, the DQP is about quality—
without which degree comple9on targets are
meaningless.
GOAL 2025 Lumina Founda9on is commiCed to increasing the
propor9on of Americans with high-‐quality degrees, cer9ficates and other creden9als to 60
percent by 2025.
EASY SOLUTION?
1 Pass legisla9on affirming that every American who is at least 35 years old has accumulated “life experience” that is the equivalent of 60 hours of college credit.
2 Award an associate degree to everyone who can present 60 hours of college credit.
3 MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
3 MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! EXCEPT
3 MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! EXCEPT WITHOUT QUALITY CREDENTIALS, NOTHING IS ACCOMPLISHED
Which is why Lumina Founda9on commissioned the DQP—
Which is why Lumina Founda9on commissioned the
DQP— to ensure that earned degrees are meaningful in quality and
substance—
Which is why Lumina Founda9on commissioned the
DQP— to ensure that earned degrees are meaningful in quality and
substance— and to support a broadly shared understanding of what quality
and substance mean.
What particular questions about the DQP you would like to have answered in the course of the webinar?
Our learning outcomes (DQP 101)
• Those who know liCle or nothing about the Degree Qualifica9ons Profile will learn – why it was created in the first place – what it intends (and does not intend) – how it has been (and is being) used
Prompts for the Profile 1
• An increased emphasis on accountability – Declining state support, rising tui9on – Student loan defaults
• A corresponding emphasis on assessment – An increasing priority on the part of accreditors – Rise of “performance funding”
Prompts for the Profile 2
• Europe’s “Bologna Process” – A coordinated effort to secure European ascendency through higher educa9on reform
– An “accountability loop” assuming European and na9onal learning outcomes frameworks
• Strong examples of learning outcomes frameworks (UK, Scandinavia, Australia)
Prompts for the Profile 3
Degree comple9on goals in the US – President Obama’s declared intent to restore US leadership in the percentage of ci9zens with college degrees
– Lumina Founda9on’s 20/25 goal: to increase the percentage of Americans with high-‐quality degrees and creden9als to 60 percent by the year 2025
Prompts for the Profile 4
– Arum/Roksa: Academically Adri> – Derek Bok, Our Underachieving Colleges – Employer reports of graduates’ inadequacies
– Faculty members’ impressions concerning student skills
Prompts for the Profile 5
• Policy makers increasingly cri9cal of higher educa9on—and inclined to intrude – Spellings Commission recommenda9ons – Department of Educa9on concerns about accredita9on
– NACIQI recommenda9ons
So, in response . . .
Behind the DQP, 3 Principles
1 Higher educa9on must tell its story more effec9vely—or others may write our story for us
Behind the DQP, 3 Principles
1 Higher educa9on must tell its story more effec9vely—or others may write our story for us
2 Increasing the number of degrees awarded is meaningless unless there is a guarantee of quality
Behind the DQP, 3 Principles
1 Higher educa9on must tell its story more effec9vely—or others may write our story for us
2 Increasing the number of degrees awarded is meaningless unless there is a guarantee of quality
3 A degree qualifica9ons profile should address these concerns in ways that insEtuEons, faculty members, students, and many others can USE
Why a Degree Profile?
• The DP “describes concretely what is meant by each of the degrees addressed.”
• The DP “illustrates how students should be expected to perform at progressively more challenging levels.”
What a Degree Profile Is Intended To Do
è Offer reference points for students, faculty, advisors, accredita9on
è Create expecta9ons for curricula that are clearly inten9onal, coherent, cumula9ve
è Encourage assessment è Support ins9tu9onal repor9ng è Provide a baseline for ins9tu9ons seeking to
clarify their dis9nc9veness è Clarify the incremental nature of degree levels,
thereby encouraging progression
What a Degree Profile Is NOT Intended To Do
è Standardize degrees è Define what should be taught è Prescribe pedagogy è Encourage rankings, internally or externally
Organiza9on of the Degree Profile
Five areas of learning • Integra9ve Knowledge • Specialized Knowledge • Intellectual Skills • Applied Learning • Civic Learning shown as interrelated areas, not silos
The outcomes themselves
è Are summa9ve—and may be approached by more than one path
è Are illustra9ve, not exhaus9ve è Challenge colleges to measure and affirm
students’ achievement of proficiencies but do not promote rankings
è Assume and build on the outcomes defined for prior levels
Some uses of the DQP under way—possible future direc9ons?
42
1
The Profile is being used as a rubric for iden9fying gaps in outcomes statements
43
2
The Profile is being used as a standard for measuring specificity and measurability of outcomes—for both internal use and external repor9ng.
44
3 Students may use the Profile as a CPS (curricular posi9oning system) for under-‐standing and naviga9ng their degree paths
45
4
When learning objec9ves of degrees are clear and widely understood . . .
46
4
When learning objec9ves of degrees are clear and widely understood the curriculum can be more clearly aligned with them.
47
4
When learning objec9ves of degrees are clear and widely understood the curricula can be more clearly aligned with them. Then students, faculty, other stakeholders (including employers) will understand more clearly why we do what we do . . .
48
4 When learning objec9ves of degrees are clear and widely understood the curricula can be more clearly aligned with them. Then students, faculty, and other stakeholders (including employers) will under-‐stand more clearly why we do what we do and why they do what they do.
49
5A
Students studying at the associate level may understand more clearly the incremental learning offered by the baccalaureate and be able to make a more fully informed decision about further study.
50
5B
Students studying at the baccalaureate level may understand more clearly the incremental learning offered by the master’s and be able to make a more fully informed decision about further study.
51
6
Degree recipients will be beCer able to interpret their creden9als to poten9al employers and graduate programs—and to offer assurance of their readiness.
52
7
Ins9tu9ons could share a common plaoorm for interpre9ng accredita9on results to their publics.
53
8-‐∞
The projects, ini9a9ves, mappings, alignments, and explora9ons that YOU might develop
DQP 501 (Advanced)
Don’t worry— you’ve sa9sfied the prerequisite!
Our learning outcomes (DQP 501)
• Those who know the DQP well will learn – how the “new” DQP differs from the “beta” version
– what integra9on with the Tuning Process means – what next steps are likely
Why a “second edi9on”?
• As users have reported on their experience, the authors, NILOA, and Lumina have listened
• The DQP now reflects the thoughoul input of hundreds of individuals and organiza9ons who have reviewed and used it
Is the “new DQP” a radical revision?
Is the “new DQP” a radical revision?
• Short answer:
Is the “new DQP” a radical revision?
• Short answer: NO.
A radical revision? Longer answer:
A radical revision? Longer answer: Those engaged in implementa0on or adapta0on of the DQP may be confident that its structure and contents have not been substan0ally altered. But there are significant enhancements that respond to advice and experience.
What are some no9ceable changes?
• New proficiency statements concerning ethical reasoning
• Greater emphasis on global learning • Stronger and more descrip9ve statements concerning quan9ta9ve reasoning
• Lexicon for terms used in the DQP
And . . . Greater emphasis on • Independent inves9ga9on at all degree
levels • Analy9cal, coopera9ve approaches to
learning that transcend fields of study • Integra9on of intellectual skills with
broad, specialized, applied, and civic learning
And, finally . . .
Acknowledgement of creden9als not (yet) defined at this stage of the qualifica9ons profile work • Cer9ficates • Other short-‐cycle creden9als • Professional prac9ce doctorates • The Ph.D.
More “user friendly”?
DQP now responds to requests by direc9ng users to resources that support the assessment of DQP proficiencies
More “user friendly”?
DQP now proposes a preliminary lexicon that defines higher educa9on terms as used in the DQP
More “user friendly”?
DQP now clarifies “family resemblances” between the DQP and the Tuning Process
More “user friendly”?
DQP 2.0 responds to recurring ques9ons and issues concerning the DQP
More “user friendly”?
DQP now includes examples of ins9tu9onal and organiza9onal experience in using the DQP
Frequent Flyer?
If so, you may find helpful a chart that illustrates the two DQP “levels”
Tuning
QUALITY Frameworks
Degree Supplement
What is the “Tuning Process?”
Tuning
QUALITY Frameworks
Degree Supplement
Developed in Europe in association with the Bologna Process, “Tuning” convenes faculty members in particular disciplines to develop learning outcomes for that discipline at each stage of the program.
Tuning Europe Tuning USA
Differences between continents
TUNING EUROPE • Faculty from many nations representing their disciplines • Focus on baccalaureate • Faculty driven
• Many languages
TUNING USA • Discipline faculty within selected states • Community colleges • Student participation
• One language
Affinities between concepts DQP Defines what students should know and be able to do as a condition for award of the associate, bachelor’s, and master’s degrees—regardless of discipline.
TUNING USA Defines what students should know and be able to do at each stage of a program within a specific discipline.
What students within specific disciplines should know and be able to do at each stage of a coherent and cumulative curriculum within that discipline.
What students awarded a degree (associate, bachelor’s, master’s) should know and be able to do through a coherent and cumulative curriculum integrating general and disciplinary education.
Tuning USA
DQP
CLOSE KIN
Information gathered from Tuning has illuminated revision of the DQP.
Responses to the DQP—especially from employers—has provided a perspective useful to those engaged in Tuning.
Tuning USA
DQP
The more thoroughly Tuning is informed by the DQP, the more coherence there will be among the different Tuning efforts, discipline by discipline, state by state.
The greater the awareness in the DQP of the experience gained through Tuning USA, the more credible and substantive will be its implementation.
Tuning USA
DQP
Tuning offers to the DQP the experience of defining incremental and cumulative stages towards degrees within disciplines.
The DQP offers Tuning a new standard of specificity and concreteness in defining learning outcomes for the degree.
Tuning USA
DQP
Tuning USA
DQP
Increasingly, institutions and organizations will find coordinated implementation of DQP/Tuning the most effective path to greater quality and effectiveness.
DQP TUNING
Some will find that developing degree-level outcomes as an umbrella for the development of disciplinary level outcomes seems most logical.
TUNING DQP
Others will find that engaging faculty in developing disciplinary level outcomes prior to developing degree level outcomes makes the most sense.
Tuning USA
DQP
And some will find developing both at the same time—with lots of communication between the two processes—the most effective approach.
A new resource . . .
. . . now available from Lumina Foundation
http://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/roadmap.pdf
Take a minute to copy the URL or simply Google DQP/Tuning implementation
Assessment & DQP/Tuning���Three Principles
1 The statements of learning outcomes in the DQP are meant to invite—not to prescribe—assessment
2 Because those who use the DQP determine the level at which the outcomes are to be met, the most effective assessments may be developed locally
3 In response to considerable feedback, the DQP (2014) offers resources for assessment, including sample approaches, that users may find helpful
Assessment & the DQP ���For Instance
1 Faculty members might be asked to identify the DQP learning outcomes that they emphasize in a particular course
2 For each outcome, faculty members might identify assignments they currently use that lead to outcomes assessable in terms of the outcome statements: e.g., exam questions, papers, performance instructions, lab exercises, etc.
One approach, cont’d
3 Having reviewed such traditional measures, faculty committees might propose one or more approaches to genuine “assessment”
4 Several recommended assessments for each learning outcome, throughout the curriculum, could emerge
5 Rubrics of performance and grading remain in the hands of individual faculty
US Higher Ed
Bologna Reforms
DQP Tuning USA
Global ACen9on
Bologna Mundus
ELO’s
Assessment
The thread that 9es together a global aspira9on for Higher Educa9on
Intentionality
The spool that keeps the thread of inten9onality
from unraveling
Commitment to QUALITY
Just three more slides
If you are aCending the Texas A&M conference February 21-‐24, I would enjoy mee9ng you. I’m offering a workshop for NILOA on Sunday morning, 9:30-‐12:30, and will remain at the conference through Monday aternoon.
If you would like a copy of the DQP, let me know or order a copy
at Lumina.org
SHAMELESS COMMERCE DIVISION (Two books you might find interes9ng)
Both available from Amazon.com, Stylus Publishing, B&N or (best of all) through your local hometown bookstore.
���Some elements of this AALHE webinar have been adapted
from earlier presentations. ������
An AALHE Webinar Presented by Paul L. Gaston
Trustees Professor, Kent State University
OFFICE 330-672-6003 pgaston@kent.edu