Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Accountability compliance, and student learning as competing rationales for assessment: a case study of us tuning in practice

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Tertiary Education and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the long presence of assessment and quality assurance in US higher education, questions and concerns about higher education quality in this higher education system have been salient for the last several decades. Compliance and student learning are two frequently competing rationales for the implementation of assessment practices. This article explores assessment processes in three public universities in the United States to illustrate common challenges harmonizing these two rationales. The analysis compared institutions along four dimensions: (a) accountability, (b) educational mission, (c) assessment framework, and (d) student learning outcomes. Based on the present analysis, we argue that assessment for accreditation compliance and assessment for student learning are in fact different processes, based on the way they are implemented in US institutions. As a result, we claim that assessment for accreditation compliance is insufficient for improving higher education quality when student learning is taken into consideration. By studying the application of tuning in the United States, this paper also contributes to cross-national analyses and the comparative literature in higher education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adelman, C. (2008). Learning accountability from Bologna: A higher education policy primer. Institute for higher education policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adelman, C. (2009). The Bologna process for US eyes: Re-learning higher education in the age of convergence. Institute for higher education policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baas, L., Rhoads, J. C., & Thomas, D. B. (2016). Are quests for a “culture of assessment” mired in a “culture war” over assessment? A Q-methodological inquiry. SAGE Open, 6(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banta, T. W. (2011). A bird’s-eye view of assessment: Selections from editor’s notes (Vol. 6). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

  • Barrow, M. (1999). Quality management systems and dramaturgical compliance. Quality in Higher Education, 5(1), 27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaich, C. F., & Wise, K. (2016). Don't let the promise of better measures tomorrow excuse inaction today. In R. Arum, J. Roksa, & A. Cook (Eds.), Improving quality in American higher education: Learning outcomes and assessments for the 21st century. (1st ed., pp. 317–321). Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanco Ramírez, G., & Luu, D. H. (2018). A qualitative exploration of US institutional accreditation in three Canadian Universities. Studies in Higher Education, 43(6), 989–1001. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1203891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, J. (2017). Higher education civic learning and engagement: A Massachusetts case study. Promising practices. Education Commission of the States.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1976/2010). Assessing the impact of planned social change. [Originally published as Paper #8, Occasional Paper Series, December, 1976] Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 7(15), 3–43.

  • Cheng, M. (2011). The perceived impact of quality audit on the work of academics. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(2), 179–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelius-Bell, A., & Bell, P. A. (2020). Partnership as student power: Democracy and governance in a Neoliberal University. Radical Teacher, 118(Fall), 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, B. E., Reason, R. D., Tobolowsky, B. F., Brower, R. L., Patterson, S., Luczyk, S., & Roberts, K. (2017). Lip service or actionable insights? Linking student experiences to institutional assessment and data-driven decision making in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(6), 835–862.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cret, B. (2011). Accreditations as local management tools. Higher Education, 61(4), 415–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • De la Harpe, B., & David, C. (2012). Major influences on the teaching and assessment of graduate attributes. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(4), 493–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elken, M., & Stensaker, B. (2018). Conceptualising ‘quality work’in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 24(3), 189–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmel, N. (2013). Sampling and choosing cases in qualitative research: A realist approach. . Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erikson, M. G., & Erikson, M. (2019). Learning outcomes and critical thinking—good intentions in conflict. Studies in Higher Education, 44(12), 2293–2303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewell, P. T. (1997). Organizing for learning: A new imperative. AAHE Bulletin, 50(4), 3–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewell, P. T. (2009). Assessment: Accountability and improvement: Revisiting the tension. (Occasional Paper No. 1). Champaign: National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment

  • Ewell, P. T. (2013). The Lumina degree qualifications profile (DQP): Implications for assessment. (Occasional Paper No. 16). Champaign: National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment

  • Fulcher, K. H., Smith, K. L., Sanchez, E. R., Ames, A. J., & Meixner, C. (2017). Return of the pig: Standards for learning improvement. Research & Practice in Assessment, 11, 10–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, D. M., Smart, K. L., & Bennett, M. M. (2017). Examining espoused and enacted values in AACSB assurance of learning. Journal of Education for Business, 92(5), 255–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Havnes, A., & Prøitz, T. S. (2016). Why use learning outcomes in higher education? Exploring the grounds for academic resistance and reclaiming the value of unexpected learning. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(3), 205–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsen, M. L., Baekgaard, M., Moynihan, D. P., & van Loon, N. (2018). Making sense of performance regimes: Rebalancing external accountability and internal learning. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(2), 127–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jankowski, N. A., Timmer, J. D., Kinzie, J., & Kuh, G. D. (2018). Assessment that matters: Trending toward practices that document authentic student learning. . National institute for learning assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenks, V., & Green, A. (2020). Appraisal of the curricular assessment process. Research and Practice in Assessment, 14(1), 44–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. (2018). On academic capitalism. Critical Policy Studies, 12(1), 104–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelchen, R. (2018). Higher education accountability. Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinash, S., McGillivray, L., & Crane, L. (2018). Do university students, alumni, educators and employers link assessment and graduate employability? Higher Education Research & Development, 37(2), 301–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D., Ikenberry, S. O., Jankowski, N. A., Cain, T. R., Ewell, P. T., Hutchings, P., & Kinzie, J. (2015). Beyond compliance: Making assessment matter. Change, 47(5), 8–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, O. L. (2017). Ten years after the Spellings commission: From accountability to internal improvement. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 36(2), 34–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, L., & Nagarajan, S. V. (2015). Accreditation requirements in allied health education: Strengths, weaknesses and missed opportunities. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 6(1), 2–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGowan, V. (2017). Higher education institutional transparency of general education competencies, assessment measures, and analysis of assessment data. The Journal of General Education, 66(3–4), 252–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNaughton, S. M. (2013). Competency discourses: an analysis of secondary and tertiary assessments. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(6), 975–992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, R. (2019). Evaluating new priorities for assessment in higher education. In C. Bryan & K. Clegg (Eds.), Innovative assessment in higher education: A handbook for academic practitioners. (2nd ed., pp. 37–47). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. (2000). The audit society–second thoughts. International Journal of Auditing, 4(1), 111–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratasavitskaya, H., & Stensaker, B. R. (2010). Quality management in higher education: Towards a better understanding of an emerging field. Quality in Higher Education, 16(1), 37–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2016). An introduction to qualitative research: Learning in the field. Los Angeles: Sage.

  • Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoepp, K. (2019). The state of course learning outcomes at leading Universities. Studies in Higher Education, 44(4), 615–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spooner, M. (2017). Qualitative research and global audit culture. In The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 894–914). SAGE

  • Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stitt-Bergh, M., Kinzie, J., & Fulcher, K. (2018). Refining an approach to assessment for learning improvement. Research & Practice in Assessment, 13(Winter), 27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G., & Myers, K. (2015). The anatomy of the case study. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College Student Retention: Research Theory and Practice, 8(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles: Sage.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bertolon School of Business, Salem State University, Salem, MA, USA

    Fernando E. Colina

  2. Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, 207 Campion Hall , Chestnut Hill, MA, 02467, USA

    Gerardo L. Blanco

Authors
  1. Fernando E. Colina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gerardo L. Blanco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerardo L. Blanco.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Colina, F.E., Blanco, G.L. Accountability compliance, and student learning as competing rationales for assessment: a case study of us tuning in practice . Tert Educ Manag 27, 129–142 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-021-09069-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-021-09069-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation