This document discusses comparing institutional and student perspectives on the non-economic benefits of completing a college degree. It reviews literature on the purposes of higher education and how students and institutions view undergraduate education. The study aims to understand what matters to students during their four college years and how a bachelor's degree fulfills ambitions for advanced skills and competencies by graduation. It involves a literature review and analysis of student surveys and frameworks for degree qualifications to explore how institutional and student goals for higher education align.

1. What
is
the
purpose
of
higher
educa1on?:
Comparing
ins1tu1onal
and
student
perspec1ves
on
the
“non-­‐economic”
benefits
of
comple1ng
a
college
degree
AERA
2014
ANNUAL
MEETING
Special
Thanks
To:
Dr.
Larry
H.
Ludlow,
Boston
College;
Dr.
Gavin
T.L.
Brown,
The
University
of
Auckland;
Dr.
Charles
Fadel,
Harvard
University
Roy
Y.
Chan
Ph.D.
student
Boston
College
Lynch
School
of
Educa5on
roy.chan@bc.edu
Monday,
April
6,
2014

2. Introduc1on
• New
pressures
have
challenged
the
tradi5onal
purpose
of
higher
educa5on
(AAC&U,
2012)
• Creates
tension
between
higher
educa5on
as
a
public
good
versus
higher
educa5on
as
a
private
benefit
(Marginson,
1997)
• Colleges
and
universi5es
are
under
pressure
to
measure
students’
general
skills
through
assessments
but
also
to
enhance
their
core
competencies
and
disposi5ons
such
as
knowledge,
aQtudes,
and
beliefs
for
entry
into
the
global
knowledge-­‐based
economy.

3. Introduc1on
Knowledge
Gap
• Current
knowledge
gap
between
the
“economic
benefits”
and
“non-­‐economic
benefits”
for
comple5ng
a
bachelor’s
degree
(Zaback,
Carlson,
&
Crellin,
2012)
• Benson,
Esteva,
and
Levy
(2013)
emphasized
that
a
bachelor’s
degree
program
from
California’s
higher
educa5on
system
s5ll
remains
a
good
investment
• Hout
(2012)
concluded
that
individuals
who
complete
higher
educa5on
earn
more
money,
live
healthy
lives,
and
contribute
more
to
society.

4. Introduc1on
Assessments
• Increasing
number
of
assessments
to
understand
and
measure
student
learning
progress
(AAU,
2013):
– Collegiate
Learning
Assessment
(CLA)
– Na5onal
Survey
of
Student
Engagement
(NSSE)
– Degree
Qualifica5ons
Profile
by
the
Lumina
Founda5on
– UCLA
Coopera5ve
Ins5tu5onal
Research
Program
(2013)
“2012
Freshman
Survey”
• Arum
and
Roksa
(2011)
argued
that
45
percent
of
students
made
no
gains
in
their
wri5ng,
complex
reasoning,
or
cri5cal-­‐thinking
skills
during
their
first
two
years
of
college
and
36
percent
failed
to
show
any
improvement
over
the
four
years
of
college
(Liu,
Bridgeman,
&
Adler,
2012).
• However,
limited
informa5on
about
how
the
data
are
used
(or
even
publicized)
vastly
lags
behind
in
the
worldwide
landscape
of
higher
educa5on
today
(Kuh
et
al.,
2014).

5. Purpose
of
Study
• OBJECTIVE:
To
compare
and
contrast
ins5tu5onal
and
student
perspec5ves
on
the
goals
and
purposes
of
comple5ng
a
bachelor’s
degree.
– To
understand
what
mahers
in
college
during
students
four
cri5cal
years
• “UCLA
Freshman
Survey”
between
1967
and
2013
– To
determine
the
“value-­‐added”
for
comple5ng
a
bachelor’s
degree
today
• Lumina
Founda5on
“Degree
Qualifica5ons
Profile
(DQP)”
– To
offer
prac5cal
sugges5ons
as
to
how
ins5tu5onal
and
student
percep5ons
on
goals
and
purposes
could
be
further
evaluated
• IEBC’s
“Tuning”
American
Higher
Educa5on

6. Research
Ques1ons
• What
do
current
literature
suggests
to
be
the
goals
and
purposes
of
higher
educa5on?
• How
do
students
and
ins5tu5ons
make
sense
of
undergraduate
educa5on
in
the
21st
century?
• In
what
ways
do
a
college
degree
fulfill
higher
educa5on
ambi5ons
for
advanced
skills,
generic
competencies,
and
high-­‐ideals
by
the
5me
students’
graduate
from
university?

7. Methods
• Comprehensive
Literature
Review
Search
• Between
September
2012
and
January
2014
• Cri5cal
Interpre5ve
Synthesis
(CIS)
– Dixon-­‐Woods
et
al.
(2006)
=
to
establish
theories
and
concepts
from
diverse
bodies
of
exis5ng
literatures
through
systema5c
review
and
meta-­‐
ethnography
methodologies.
• Ques5ons
the
ways
in
which
the
problems,
assump5ons,
and
solu5ons
are
constructed
• Iden5fies
the
“synthe5c
constructs”
of
both
internal
purposes
and
external
purposes,
and
the
complex
interplay
between
them

8. Overview
of
Data
Set
• Peer-­‐reviewed
ar5cles,
books,
magazines,
and
newspapers
published
between
2000
and
2014
– Does
not
include
“economic”
benefits
• Selected
20
peer-­‐reviewed
ar5cles,
11
books,
3
magazine/newspaper
ar5cles,
and
2
policy
briefs
– 1)
Educa5on
Resources
Informa5on
Center
(ERIC)
– 2)
Educa5on
Research
Complete
(EBSCO)
– 3)
Academic
Search
Premier
– 4)
ProQuest
– 5)
Scopus
– 6)
Google
Scholar
– 7)
Amazon.com
– 8)
Chronicle
of
Higher
Educa7on
– 9)
Inside
Higher
Educa7on

9. Literature
Review
Ins7tu7onal
Perspec7ve
on
Bachelor’s
Degree
• ACCU
(2013)
=
to
prepare
students
for
civic
learning
and
democra5c
engagement
• Lagemann
and
Lewis
(2012)
=
to
prepare
young
adults
with
civic
educa5on
(civic
values,
ideals,
and
virtues)
• Saltmarsh
and
Hartley
(2012)
=
to
serve
a
democra5c-­‐
centered
civic
engagement
and
to
develop
fully
rounded
intellectually
sophis5cated
and
caring
person
• Haigh
and
Clifford
(2011)
=
to
develop
students’
employability
skills,
moral
values,
and
competencies
• Kiziltepe
(2010)
=
to
prepare
students
to
acquire
skills
in
interpersonal
competence,
mul5-­‐cultural
understanding,
skills
in
problem
solving,
a
sense
of
purpose,
and
confidence

10. Literature
Review
Student
Perspec7ve
on
Bachelor’s
Degree
• Lumina
Founda5on
and
Gallop
Poll
(2014)
=
95
percent
of
Americans
expected
the
purpose
of
higher
educa5on
is
to
“get
a
good
job.”
• Barber,
Donnelly,
and
Rizvi
(2013)
=
to
have
the
“college
experience”
(mee5ng
students,
socialize,
explore
new
ideas,
make
friends,
lead
organiza5on)
• Levine
and
Dean
(2012)
=
to
make
them
feel
secure,
to
be
autonomous
grown-­‐ups,
to
seek
in5macy,
and
to
live
in
an
Internet
world.
• As5n
et
al.
(2011)
=
to
prepare
them
for
employment
(94%)
and
graduate
educa5on
(81%).
• Kenneh,
Reed,
and
Lam
(2011)
=
for
self-­‐improvement,
achieving
life
goals,
societal
contribu5ons,
career,
money,
family
expecta5ons

12. Findings
9
common
themes
• 1)
Social
democra7c
values
and
ac7on;
civic
engagement.
This
theme
relates
to
the
inten5on
that
upon
gradua5on
students
will
take
an
ac5ve
role
in
society,
service,
and
co-­‐curricular
ac5vi5es,
with
ac5ve
concern
for
involvement
in
civic
concerns.
• 2)
Advanced
intellectual
skills.
This
theme
relates
to
high-­‐level
cogni5ve
and
intellectual
skills
such
as
problem
solving,
analy5c
and
cri5cal
thinking,
and
crea5vity.
• 3)
Advanced
communica7on
skills.
This
theme
relates
to
sophis5cated
abili5es
to
communicate
orally,
in
wri5ng,
and
through
ICT-­‐supported
media
so
as
to
effec5vely
transmit
informa5on,
persuade,
argue,
and
so
on.
• 4)
Interpersonal
skills.
This
theme
focuses
on
students
gaining
competence
around
rela5onships
with
others.
This
includes
leading
in
condi5ons
of
complex
social
diversity,
exercising
tolerance,
curiosity,
ingenuity,
and
imagina5on.
• 5)
Voca7onal
&
employment
preparedness.
This
theme
has
to
do
with
using
a
bachelor’s
degree
educa5on
as
a
means
of
gaining
a
highly
remunera5ve
job
and/or
career
or
having
the
skills
that
permit
entry
into
a
desirable
future
career.
• 6)
Personal
life
quality
enhancement.
This
theme
has
to
do
with
developing
a
personal
sense
of
purpose,
perspec5ve,
and
iden5ty
such
that
the
quality
of
one’s
own
life
is
improved.
• 7)
Personal
integrity.
This
theme
relates
to
becoming
aware
of
dissonance
and
resonance
and
having
the
competence
to
make
decisions
in
accordance
with
personal
morality
and
values.
• 8)
Graduate
school
educa7on
preparedness.
This
theme
focuses
on
the
skills,
knowledge,
and
competencies
required
when
entering
graduate
programs
in
a
specific
discipline.
• 9)
Family
expecta7ons/reasons.
This
theme
relates
to
fulfilling
obliga5ons
to,
expecta5ons
of,
and
aspira5ons
of
one’s
family
as
the
prime
mo5va5on
for
comple5ng
a
university
degree.

13. Findings
• Student
goals
and
purposes
=
Very
instrumental
and
oren
personal
reasons
– Money,
Jobs,
Mee5ng
New
Friends,
Finding
Love,
Acquire
Knowledge,
Study
Abroad,
Pre-­‐requisites
for
Graduate
School,
To
Get
Away
from
Home
• Higher
educa5on
ins5tu5on
aims
and
purposes
=
highly
ideal
life-­‐
and
society-­‐changing
consequences.
– Core
competencies
and
generic
skills,
such
as,
problem
solving,
crea5vity,
communica5on,
cri5cal
thinking,
and
crea5vity
skills
that
are
deemed
necessary
for
success
in
the
21st
century

14. Ok,
we
get
it
Roy?
There’s
a
misalignment.
Has
this
been
true
historically?
Let’s
look
at
data
I’ve
studied
from
UCLA
HERI
“Freshman
Survey”
between
1967
and
2013

15. Percentage
of
freshmen
students
who
believe
that
being
well
off
financially
is
“Essen1al”:
(CATHOLIC
UNIVERSITIES)
Key
Summary
• In
1967,
only
37%
believe
that
money
was
essen5al.
In
2013,
that
has
increased
to
82%.
• Freshmen
students
believe
that
money
is
“essen5al”
for
pursuing
a
college
degree
at
Catholic
Universi5es
• Increase
may
likely
be
due
to
the
college
costs
or
the
debt
that
would
be
incurred
from
tui5on
expense
*
This
data
was
generated
by
Roy
Y.
Chan
through
SPSS
on
April
5,
2014.
Any
use
of
this
data
should
be
consulted
by
Roy
Y.
Chan
at
roy.chan@bc.edu.
Thanks!

16. Percentage
of
freshmen
students
who
believe
that
being
well
off
financially
is
“Essen1al”:
(PUBLIC
VS.
PRIVATE
UNIVERSITIES)
Key
Summary
• In
1967,
only
42%
of
public
universi5es
and
44%
of
private
universi5es
believe
that
money
was
essen5al.
In
2013,
that
has
increased
to
82%
and
80%.
• Historically,
freshmen
students
ahending
public
universi5es
expect
financial
stability
more
than
private
universi5es
• Regardless
of
ins5tu5onal
type,
there
is
a
slight
drop
in
1993.
Likely
due
to
more
job
opportuni5es
and
the
end
of
Cold
War
era.
*
This
data
was
generated
by
Roy
Y.
Chan
through
SPSS
on
April
5,
2014.
Any
use
of
this
data
should
be
consulted
by
Roy
Y.
Chan
at
roy.chan@bc.edu.
Thanks!

17. Percentage
of
freshmen
students
who
es1mate
they
will
have
a
“very
good
chance”
to
get
a
job:
(CATHOLIC
UNIVERSITIES)
Key
Summary
• In
1973,
52%
of
freshmen
students
at
Catholic
universi5es
believe
that
a
college
educa5on
will
help
them
get
a
job.
In
2013,
that
number
has
stayed
the
same.
• There
is
a
significant
drop
between
1977
and
1997.
This
may
likely
be
due
to
poor
job
market,
changing
demographics,
and
higher
college
enrollments
and
federal
loan
programs
*
This
data
was
generated
by
Roy
Y.
Chan
through
SPSS
on
April
5,
2014.
Any
use
of
this
data
should
be
consulted
by
Roy
Y.
Chan
at
roy.chan@bc.edu.
Thanks!

18. Percentage
of
freshmen
students
who
es1mate
they
will
have
a
“very
good
chance”
to
get
a
job:
(PUBLIC
VS.
PRIVATE
UNIVERSITIES)
Key
Summary
• In
1973,
50%
of
students
at
pubic
universi5es
and
57%
of
private
universi5es
believe
that
a
college
educa5on
will
help
students
get
a
job.
In
2013,
that
number
has
remained
the
same
but
has
significantly
dropped
at
private
universi5es
to
42%
• There
is
a
significant
drop
once
again
between
1977
and
1997
*
This
data
was
generated
by
Roy
Y.
Chan
through
SPSS
on
April
5,
2014.
Any
use
of
this
data
should
be
consulted
by
Roy
Y.
Chan
at
roy.chan@bc.edu.
Thanks!

19. So,
how
should
higher
educa=on
leaders
increase
students’
chance
to
acquire
acquiring
a
job
during
college?
ANSWER:
“Tuning
USA”

20. What
is
“Tuning
USA”?
• Founded
in
2009
by
Ins5tute
for
Evidence-­‐Based
Change
(IEBC)
and
funded
by
Lumina
Founda5on
• “Faculty
iden5fies
what
a
student
should
know
and
be
able
to
do
in
a
chosen
discipline
when
a
degree
has
been
earned
-­‐
an
associate,
bachelor’s
or
master’s.”
• Six
states
are
now
“tuning”
higher
educa5on
– Indiana,
Minnesota,
Utah,
Texas,
Kentucky,
and
Montana
• Incorporates
Lumina’s
Degree
Qualifica5ons
Profile
(DQP)
– DQP
=
examines
ins5tu5onal
level
(specialized
knowledge)
– Tuning
=
examines
disciplines
level
(discipline
specific
knowledge)

23. Purpose
of
“Tuning”
American
higher
educa1on?
• 1)
To
beher
align
the
goals
and
purposes
of
a
college
degree
• 2)
To
facilitate
student
success
and
reten5on,
especially
among
students
from
underrepresented
groups
• 3)
To
simplify
the
process
for
students
transferring
credits
between
ins5tu5ons
• 4)
To
emphasize
lifelong
learning
and
undervalued
transfer
skills
(sor
skills)
• 5)
To
increase
transparency
in
higher
educa5on
systems
among
different
countries
• 6)
To
ensure
that
the
knowledge
and
applied
skills
associated
with
coursework
match
with
civic,
societal,
and
workforce
need.

27. FAQ
• 1)
Q:
Is
“tuning”
leading
to
standardiza5on?
A:
No.
“Tuning”
is
a
reference
point
for
ins5tu5ons
to
design
their
own
degrees.
The
goal
is
to
not
unionize;
rather,
to
discuss
what
is
unique
with
the
program
(i.e.,
highlight
the
"dis5nctness”)
• 2)
Q:
How
did
the
DQP
start?
A:
To
respond
to
the
AACU
LEAP
ini5a5ve
• 3)
Q:
So,
in
simple
language,
what
is
“tuning”
again?
A:
To
simply
create
a
degree
profile
for
each
major

28. Next
Steps
• Conduct
qualita5ve
study
on
faculty
members
percep5on
of
“tuning”
higher
educa5on
– Compara5ve
Case
Study
between
Xi’an,
China
and
Aus5n,
Texas
• Examine
undergraduate
business
degree
programs
• Pilot
Study:
Interviews
–
July
2014
in
Xi’an,
China
– August
2014
in
Texas,
USA
• Data
Collec5on:
January
2015
and
June
2015

29. References
• AAC&U.
Associa5on
of
American
Colleges
and
Universi5es.
(2012).
A
crucial
moment:
College
learning
and
democracy’s
future.
Report
of
the
Na5onal
Task
Force
on
Civic
Learning
and
Democra5c
Engagement.
Washington,
D.C.:
Author.
• AAU.
Associa5on
of
American
Universi5es.
(2013).
AAU
survey
on
undergraduate
student
objec7ves
and
assessment.
Washington,
DC:
Author.
Retrieved
from
hhp://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=14849
• Arum,
R.
&
Roksa,
J.
(2011).
Academically
adriX:
Limited
learning
on
college
campuses.
Chicago,
IL:
University
Of
Chicago
Press.
• As5n,
A.
W.
(1977).
Four
cri7cal
years.
San
Francisco,
CA:
Jossey-­‐Bass
Publishers.
• As5n,
A.
W.,
As5n,
H.
S.,
&
Lindholm,
J.
A.
(2011).
Cul7va7ng
the
spirit:
How
college
can
enhance
students’
inner
lives.
San
Francisco,
CA:
Jossey-­‐Bass.
• As5n,
A.W.,
Oseguera,
L.,
Sax,
L.J.,
&
Korn,
W.S.
(2002).
The
American
freshman:
Thirty-­‐five
year
trends.
Los
Angeles:
Higher
Educa5on
Research
Ins5tute.
• Avery,
C.
&
Turner,
S.
(2012).
Student
loans:
Do
college
students
borrow
too
much
-­‐
or
not
enough.
Journal
of
Economic
Perspec7ves,
26(1),
165–192.
• Baker,
V.
L.,
Baldwin,
R.
G.,
&
Makker,
S.
(2012).
Where
are
they
now?
Revisi5ng
Breneman’s
study
of
liberal
arts
colleges.
Liberal
Educa7on,
98(3),
48-­‐53.
• Barber,
M.,
Donnelly,
K.,
&
Rizvi,
S.
(2013).
An
avalanche
is
coming:
Higher
educa7on
and
the
revolu7on
ahead.
London,
UK:
Ins5tute
for
Public
Policy
Research.
• Barrie,
S.
C.
(2008).
“Iden5ty
transi5ons:
Developing
graduate
ahributes.”
Paper
presented
at
Effec5ve
Teaching
&
Learning
Conference,
Queensland,
Australia.
• Bath,
D.,
Smith,
C.,
Stein,
S.,
&
Swann,
R.
(2004).
Beyond
mapping
and
embedding
graduate
ahributes:
bringing
together
quality
assurance
and
ac5on
learning
to
create
a
validated
and
living
curriculum.
Higher
Educa7on
Research
and
Development,
23(3),
313-­‐328.
• Benneh,
W.
J.
&
Wilezol,
D.
(2013).
Is
college
worth
it?:
A
former
US
Secretary
of
Educa7on
and
a
liberal
arts
expose
the
broken
of
higher
educa7on.
Nashville,
TN:
Thomas
Nelson.
• Benson,
A.,
Esteva,
R.,
&
Levy,
F.
(2013).
“The
economics
of
B.A.
ambivalence:
The
case
of
California
higher
educa5on”
(September
13,
2013).
doi:
10.2139/ssrn.2325657
• Bok,
D.
(2013).
Higher
educa7on
in
America.
Princeton,
NJ:
Princeton
University
Press.
• Bui,
K.
(2002).
First-­‐genera5on
students
four-­‐year
university:
background
characteris5cs,
reasons
pursuing
higher
educa5on,
first-­‐year
experiences.
College
Student
Journal,
36(1),
3-­‐11.
• Chickering,
A.
W.
&
Reisser,
L.
(1993).
Educa7on
and
iden7ty.
San
Francisco,
CA:
Jossey-­‐Bass
Publishers.
• Conte,
J.,
&
Levine,
C.
(1997).
Student
mo5va5ons,
learning
environments,
and
human
capital
acquisi5on:
Toward
an
integrated
paradigm
of
student
development.
Journal
of
College
Student
Development,
38(3),
229–243.
• Delbanco,
A.
(2012).
College:
What
it
was,
is,
and
should
be.
Princeton,
New
Jersey:
Princeton
University
Press.
• DeVi5s,
J.
L.
(2013).
Contemporary
colleges
and
universi7es.
New
York,
NY:
Peter
Lang
Publishing,
Inc.
• Dixon-­‐Woods,
M.,
Cavers,
D.,
Agarwal,
S.,
Annandale,
E.,
Arthur,
A.,
&
Harvey,
J.
(2006).
Conduc5ng
a
cri5cal
interpre5ve
synthesis
of
the
literature
on
access
to
healthcare
by
vulnerable
groups.
BMC
Medical
Research
Methodology,
6(35).
Retrieved
on
December
9,
2013,
from
hhp://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-­‐2288/6/35.
• Edmundson,
M.
(2013).
Why
teach?:
In
defense
of
a
real
educa7on.
New
York,
NY:
Bloomsbury
Publishing.
• Entwistle,
N.
J.,
&
Peterson,
E.
R.
(2004).
Concep5ons
of
learning
and
knowledge
in
higher
educa5on:
Rela5onships
with
study
behaviour
and
influences
of
learning
environments.
Interna7onal
Journal
of
Educa7onal
Research,
41,
407-­‐428.
• Hacker,
A.
&
Driefus,
C.
(2011).
Higher
educa7on?
How
colleges
are
was7ng
our
money
and
failing
our
kids
and
what
we
can
do
about
it.
New
York,
NY:
St.
Mar5n’s
Griffin.
• Haigh,
M.,
&
Clifford,
V.
A.
(2011).
Integral
vision:
A
mul5-­‐perspec5ve
approach
to
the
recogni5on
of
graduate
ahributes.
Higher
Educa7on
Research
and
Development,
30(5),
573-­‐584.
• Hansen,
E.T.
(2011).
Liberated
consumers
and
the
liberal
arts
college.
In
E.
C.
Lagemann
&
H.
Lewis,
What
is
college
for?
The
public
purpose
of
higher
educa7on,
(pp.
63-­‐85).
New
York,
NY:
Teachers
College
Press.
• Hanstedt,
P.
(2012).
General
educa7on
essen7als:
A
guide
for
college
faculty.
San
Francisco,
CA:
Jossey-­‐Bass.
• Henderson-­‐King,
D.
&
Smith,
M.
(2006).
Meanings
of
educa5on
for
university
students:
academic
mo5va5on
and
personal
values.
Social
Psychology
of
Educa7on,
9,
195-­‐221.
• Hubball,
H.
&
Pearson,
M.
L.
(2011).
Scholarly
approaches
to
curriculum
evalua5on:
cri5cal
contribu5ons
for
undergraduate
degree
program
reform
in
a
Canadian
context.
In
M.
Saunders,
P.
Trowler
&
V.
Bamber
(Eds.),
Reconceptualising
evalua7on
in
higher
educa7on:
The
prac7ce
turn
(pp.
186-­‐199).
New
York:
Open
University
Press
McGraw-­‐Hill.
• Humphreys,
D.
&
Kelly,
P.
(2014).
How
the
liberal
arts
and
sciences
majors
fair
in
employment:
A
report
on
earnings
and
long-­‐term
career
paths.
Washington,
D.C.:
AACU
and
NCHEMS.
• Keeling,
R.
P.
&
Hersh,
R.
H.
(2012).
We’re
losing
our
minds:
Rethinking
American
higher
educa7on.
New
York,
NY:
Palgrave
Macmillan.
• Kenneh,
D.,
Reed,
M.,
&
Lam,
D.
(2011).
The
importance
of
directly
asking
students
their
reasons
for
ahending
higher
educa5on.
Issues
in
Educa7onal
Research,
21(1),
65-­‐74.
• Kiziltepe,
Z.
(2010).
Purposes
and
iden55es
of
higher
educa5on,
and
relatedly
the
role
of
the
faculty.
Egi7m
Aras7rmalari
-­‐
Eurasian
Journal
of
Educa7onal
Research,
40,
114-­‐132.

30. • Kuh,
G.D.,
Jankowski,
N.,
Ikenberry,
S.O.,
&
Kinzie,
J.
(2014).
Knowing
what
students
know
and
can
do:
The
current
state
of
student
learning
outcomes
assessment
in
US
colleges
and
universi7es.
Urbana,
IL:
University
of
Illinois
and
Indiana
University,
Na5onal
Ins5tute
for
Learning
Outcomes
Assessment
(NILOA).
• Lagemann,
E.
C.
&
Lewis,
H.
(2012).
Renewing
the
civic
mission
of
American
higher
educa5on.
In
E.
C.
Lagemann
&
H.
Lewis,
What
is
college
for?
The
public
purpose
of
higher
educa7on,
(pp.
9-­‐45).
New
York,
NY:
Teachers
College
Press.
• Lam,
B.
H.
&
Kwan,
K..
P.
(1999).
Students’
expecta5ons
of
university
educa5on.
In
J.
Jones
and
K.P.
Kwan,
(Eds.)
Evalua7on
of
the
Student
Experience
Project:
Vol.
3.,
The
Video
Interview
Project:
Listening
to
Our
Students
Talk,
(pp.
11-­‐20).
City
University
of
Hong
Kong,
Centre
for
the
Enhancement
of
Learning
and
Teaching.
• Levine,
A.
&
Dean,
D.
(2012).
Genera7on
on
a
7ghtrope:
A
portrait
of
today’s
college
student.
San
Francisco,
CA:
Jossey-­‐Bass
Publica5ons.
• Liu,
O.
L.,
Bridgeman,
B.,
&
Adler,
R.
M.
(2012).
Measuring
learning
outcomes
in
higher
educa5on:
Mo5va5on
mahers.
Educa7onal
Researcher,
41(9),
December
2012,
352-­‐362.
• Lumina
Founda5on
(2011).
“The
degree
qualifica5ons
profile.”
Indianapolis,
IN:
Lumina
Founda5on
for
Educa5on,
Inc.,
January
2011.
Retrieved
from:
hhp://www.luminafounda5on.org/publica5ons/The_Degree_Qualifica5ons_Profile.pdf
• Maxwell,
N.
(2007).
From
knowledge
to
wisdom.
London
Review
of
Educa7on,
5,
97-­‐115.
• McArthur,
J.
(2011)
Reconsidering
the
social
and
economic
purposes
of
higher
educa5on.
Higher
Educa7on
Research
&
Development,
30(6),
737-­‐749.
• McHenry,
L.
B.
(2007).
Commercial
influences
on
the
pursuit
of
wisdom.
London
Review
of
Educa7on,
5,
131-­‐142.
• Menges,
R.
J.,
&
Aus5n,
A.
E.
(2001).
Teaching
in
higher
educa5on.
In
V.
Richardson
(Ed.),
Handbook
of
Research
on
Teaching
(4th
ed.,
pp.
1122-­‐1156).
Washington,
DC:
AERA.
• Nussbaum,
M.
C.
(2012).
Not
for
profit:
Why
democracy
needs
the
humani7es.
Princeton,
New
Jersey:
Princeton
University
Press.
• Palmer,
P.
J.,
Zajonc,
A.,
Scribner,
M.,
&
Nepo,
M.
(2010).
The
heart
of
higher
educa7on:
A
call
to
renewal.
San
Francisco,
CA:
Jossey-­‐Bass
Publica5ons.
• Pascarella,
E.
&
Terenzini,
P.
(2005).
How
college
affects
students:
Three
decades
of
research.
San
Francisco,
CA:
Jossey-­‐Bass
Publishers.
• Perry,
W.
G.
(1968).
Forms
of
intellectual
and
ethical
development
in
the
college
years:
A
scheme.
New
York:
Holt,
Rinehart,
&
Winston.
• Polanyi,
M.
(1974).
Personal
knowledge:
Towards
a
post-­‐cri7cal
philosophy.
Chicago,
IL:
University
of
Chicago
Press.
• Pryor,
J.
H.,
Eagan,
K.,
Palucki
Blake,
L.,
Hurtado,
S.,
Berdan,
J.,
&
Case,
M.
H.
(2012).
The
American
freshman:
Na7onal
norms
Fall
2012.
Los
Angeles,
CA:
Higher
Educa5on
Research
Ins5tute,
UCLA.
• Psacharapoulos,
G.,
&
Patrinos,
H.
A.
(2004).
Returns
to
investment
in
educa5on:
A
further
update.
Educa7on
Economics,
12(2),
111–134.
• Ramaley,
J.
&
Leskes,
A.
(2002).
Greater
expecta5ons:
A
new
vision
for
learning
as
a
na5on
goes
to
college.
Washington,
D.C.:
Associa5on
of
American
Colleges
and
Universi5es(AACU).
Retrieved
from:
hhp://www.greaterexpecta5ons.org/report/execu5veoverview.html
• Readings,
B.
(1997).
The
university
in
ruins.
Cambridge,
MA:
Harvard
University
Press.
• Rowland,
S.
(2002).
Overcoming
fragmenta5on
in
professional
life:
The
challenge
for
academic
Development.
Higher
Educa7on
Quarterly,
56(1),
52-­‐64.
• Rudolph,
F.
(1962).
The
American
college
and
university.
Atlanta,
GA:
The
University
of
Georgia
Press.
• Saltmarsh,
J.
&
Harley,
M.
(2012).
“To
serve
a
larger
purpose”:
Engagement
for
democracy
and
the
transforma7on
of
higher
educa7on.
Philadelphia,
PA:
Temple
University
Press.
• Selingo,
J.
(2013).
College
unbound:
The
future
of
higher
educa7on,
and
what
it
means
for
students.
New
York,
NY:
New
Harvest.
• Stephens,
D.
(2013).
Hacking
your
educa7on:
Ditch
the
lectures,
save
tens
of
thousands,
and
learn
more
than
your
peers
ever
will.
New
York,
NY:
Perigee
Trade.
• Stoecker,
R.&
Tryon,
E.
(2009).
The
unheard
voices:
Community
organiza7ons
and
service-­‐learning.
Philadelphia,
PA:
Temple
University
Press.
• Sullivan,
W.
(2011).
Professional
educa5on:
Aligning
knowledge,
exper5se,
and
public
purpose.
In
E.
C.
Lagemann
&
H.
Lewis,
What
is
college
for?
The
public
purpose
of
higher
educa7on,
(pp.
104-­‐131).
New
York,
NY:
Teachers
College
Press.
• Time/Carnegie
Corpora5on
of
New
York
(2012).
“Higher
educa5on
poll.”
Published
on
October
18,
2012.
Retrieved
from:
hhp://na5on.5me.com/2012/10/18/higher-­‐educa5on-­‐poll
• Trowler,
P.
(2011).
The
higher
educa5on
policy
context
of
evalua5ve
prac5ces.
In
M.
Saunders,
P.
Trowler
&
V.
Bamber
(Eds.),
Reconceptualising
evalua7on
in
higher
educa7on:
The
prac7ce
turn
(pp.
18-­‐31).
New
York:
Open
University
Press
McGraw-­‐Hill.
• Washburn,
J.
(2005).
University
Inc.:
The
corporate
corrup7on
of
American
higher
educa7on.
New
York,
NY:
Basic
Books.
• Wahy,
K.
(2006).
Addressing
the
basics:
academics'
view
of
the
purpose
of
higher
educa5on.
Australian
Educa7onal
Researcher,
33(1),
23-­‐39.
• Westerheijden,
D.
F.,
Stensaker,
B.,
&
Rosa,
M.
J.
(Eds.).
(2007).
Quality
assurance
in
higher
educa7on:
Trends
in
regula7on,
transla7on
and
transforma7on.
Dordrecht,
NL:
Springer.
• Wise,
S.
L.
&
Cohen,
M.
R.
(2009).
Test-­‐taking
effort
and
score
validity:
The
influence
of
the
students'
concep5ons
of
assessment.
In
D.
M.
McInerney,
G.
T.
L.
Brown
&
G.
A.
D.
Liem
(Eds.),
Student
perspec7ves
on
assessment:
What
students
can
tell
us
about
assessment
for
learning
(pp.
187-­‐205).
Charlohe,
NC:
Informa5on
Age
Publishing.
• Yale
Report
(1828).
“Yale
Report
of
1828.”
New
Haven,
CT:
Yale
College.
• Zaback,
K.,
Carlson,
A.,
&
Crellin,
M.
(2012).
The
economic
benefit
of
postsecondary
degrees:
A
state
and
na5onal
level
analysis.
Boulder,
CO:
State
Higher
Educa5on
Execu5ve
Officers.
• Zemsky,
R.
(2013).
Checklist
for
change:
Making
American
higher
educa7on
a
sustainable
enterprise.
New
Brunswick,
NJ:
Rutgers
University
Press.
• Zilberberg,
A.,
Brown,
A.
R.,
Harmes,
J.
C.,
&
Anderson,
R.
D.
(2009).
How
can
we
increase
student
mo5va5on
during
low-­‐stakes
tes5ng?
Understanding
the
student
perspec5ve.
In
D.
M.
McInerney,
G.
T.
L.
Brown
&
G.
A.
D.
Liem
(Eds.),
Student
perspec7ves
on
assessment:
What
students
can
tell
us
about
assessment
for
learning
(pp.
255-­‐278).
Charlohe,
NC:
Informa5on
Age
Publishing.
• Zimmerman,
B.
J.,
Bonner,
S.,
&
Kovach,
R.
(1996).
Developing
self-­‐regulated
learners:
Beyond
achievement
to
self-­‐efficacy.
Washington,
DC:
American
Psychological
Associa5on
References

31. Ques1ons?
Comments?
• E-­‐mail:
roy.chan@bc.edu
• Web:
hhp://www.bc.edu
*NOTE:
This
Powerpoint
is
available
for
download
at:
hop://www.rychan.com