CEQ SNAPSHOT REPORT - College Educational Quality

CEQ SNAPSHOT REPORT
College Educational Quality at two selective research institutions:
Are they pushing the boundaries of student’s capabilities?
In the first pilot of the College Educational Quality (CEQ) project, the research team measured the
pulse of educational quality at two selective research institutions (one public and one private)—by
getting inside the classroom (more than 150 class observations) and investigating curricula (more
than 150 syllabi analyzed). At these two institutions, we studied academic rigor (in terms of the
quality of cognitive complexity required1, the amount of academic work2, and the standards and
expectations assigned3) and teaching quality (teaching in-depth subject matter ideas, accessing and
transforming prior knowledge, supporting learning4).
Results painted a picture of a college education that is certainly not in crisis (as suggested by Arum
and Roksa’s (2011) Academically Adrift), but perhaps not maximizing its educational capacity.
The good news:
 Most students attended class (82% of enrolled students).
 Instructors are relatively effective in orchestrating subject matter ideas in great depth.
 The cognitive complexity of courses is about what should be expected of college level.
Room for improvement:
 Of the students who attended class, more than half (but not most) students were actively engaged
in the course material.
 Only about half of students were expected to participate during class, and these expectations were
often not tied to grading.
 Most classes focus on understanding and applying rather than analyzing and evaluating course
material.
 Instructors were less effective at understanding students’ prior knowledge and in supporting
cognitive and emotional features of students’ learning (important aspects of college teaching;
Neumann, 2014).
This pilot study gives us a window into the educational quality of two research institutions. Yet, we
need to know more about whether these findings would hold true at other institutions and
institutional types. To answer these next questions, the College Educational Quality project will
pursue a second, multi-institutional benchmarking pilot of 7-10 institutions in fall of 2014.
Based on Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Based on decades of research on the importance of time on task (Fisher et. al., 1978; Stallings, 1980) and quality of effort
(Astin, 1993)
3 Based on current frameworks on standards and grade inflation in higher education (e.g. Hu, 2005)
4 Based on Neumann’s (2014) claims on teaching and learning in higher education
CORBIN M. CAMPBELL, Ph.D. ~ 212-531-5182 ~ [email protected] ~ http//www.tc.columbia.edu/ceq
1
2
ACADEMIC RIGOR: LUKE-WARM AT TWO SELECTIVE RESEARCH INSITUTIONS
When testing the water of in-class academic rigor at our two pilot sites, we found the temperature to be lukewarm. Far more promising than Academically Adrift (Arum & Roksa, 2010) might suggest, we found that
most students attended class (82% of enrolled students) and more than a half were actively engaged in class.
The average class mostly asks students to understand and apply course materials, and occasionally analyze it
– true both in class observations and in the required readings/assignments from syllabi. This is about what
we would expect for college level coursework, according to Bloom. Yet, we also found that the coursework
was perhaps not pushing the boundaries of students’ capabilities. In the average class, instructors expected
about half of the students to be prepared and participate in class. On average, participation was set as an
expectation in the syllabus, but not tied to grading. According to syllabi, in the average class, several readings
were assigned and some (but not most) were long/complex; the assignments required a moderate amount of
work.
TEACHING QUALITY: INSTRUCTORS TEACH SUBJECT IDEAS IN DEPTH, BUT DOES THIS TRANSLATE TO LEARNING?
Courses, on average, scored between “somewhat effective” and “effective” at orchestrating in-depth subject
matter ideas (e.g. creating multiple representations of the ideas; giving students an opportunity to engage
thoughtfully with the ideas; introducing students to how the ideas play out in the field). Yet, we know that in
order to facilitate learning, students must connect the new course content with their prior knowledge
(Neumann, 2014). Instructors scored between “ineffective” and “somewhat effective” at surfacing and
understanding student’s prior knowledge. Students are more likely to learn subject matter ideas when their
instructor supports and engages their learning process (Neumann, 2014). Instructors scored between
“ineffective” and “somewhat effective” at supporting learning (e.g. helping students to realize the difference
between old and new subject matter ideas; supporting students who are challenged by the contrast between
old and new ideas).
DO COURSE CHARACTERISTICS MAXIMIZE ACADEMIC RIGOR AND TEACHING QUALITY?
Our findings showed that certain course characteristics had a positive influence on academic rigor and
teaching quality. Classes that lasted longer than 60 minutes and classes that were smaller in size (5-25
students) were found to have a higher level of academic rigor and teaching quality. Higher levels of academic
rigor and teaching quality were also found in classes that included activities and discussion and classes where
students asked questions.
Most courses observed in the two selective research institutions had some of these characteristics…
 Most were longer than an hour (69%)
 In most courses, students asked questions during class (85%)
But many courses had features that did not maximize the potential for academic rigor and teaching quality:
 Many had a larger class size (68% of observed classes had more than 25 students)
 Only about half included a class activity (54%)
 Less than half included class discussion (41%)
REFERENCES
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of
Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hu, S. (2005). Beyond Grade Inflation: Grading Problems in Higher Education. ASHE Higher Education Report,
30 (6), 1–99.
Neumann, A. (2014). Staking a Claim on Learning: What We Should Know about Learning in Higher Education
and Why. Review of Higher Education, 37, 249-267.
CORBIN M. CAMPBELL, Ph.D. ~ 212-531-5182 ~ [email protected] ~ http//www.tc.columbia.edu/ceq

Download Report