Ernest Boyer (1990) offers clear leadership in changing the role of faculty. He identifies four basic tasks:
As colleges and universities attempt to apply the Boyer model of scholarship in teaching, a number of people have reflected on their success to date. Donald A. Schon (1995) believes that a new epistemology is needed. He uses a metaphor to compare traditional research to high ground where manageable problems lend themselves to solutions through the use of research-based theory and techniques valued within academic institutions. Classroom research and scholarship about learning, however, are messy, more like a swamp. Schon notes that the techniques needed for conducting classroom and learning research do not fi t the usual models.
At the same time that colleges and universities are attempting to embrace the Boyer model for scholarship in teaching, Terry O’Banion and a group of colleagues have identified the need to put learning first in community colleges. He provides six principles to serve as guides for institutions attempting to transform themselves into what he terms “learning colleges.”
Two widely read 1997 publications by O’Banion, a monograph entitled Creating More Learning-Centered Community Colleges and the book A Learning College for the 21st Century offer guidelines for becoming a learning college and cite examples of some attempts. As he lays out his descriptions of the learning college, he poses two key questions that should be asked whenever decisions are made within such a college: First, does this decision improve learning? and second, how do we know? It is the second question that requires an attitude of reflection and assessment.
O’Banion expands upon a paradigm shift described by Robert Barr and John Tagg (1995) in the article “From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education.” They offered a shift from the instructional paradigm, which places teaching at the center, to a learning paradigm which regards learning and the learner as central. They contrast these paradigms as they relate to mission and purpose, criteria for success, teaching/ learning structures, learning theory, productivity/funding, and the nature of roles of faculty.
Developmental education, long viewed as the stepchild of community colleges, is rising in stature as student success and the learning colleges have enjoyed great attention. Developmental education is defined as courses or services provided for the purpose of helping underprepared college students attain their academic goals. The term “underprepared” student refers to any student who needs to develop his or her cognitive or affective abilities in order to succeed in a postsecondary educational experience. Where once there was a long-standing controversy whether to include remediation in higher education, now that doors have opened wider to include people previously not included in higher education, more people better understand the value of developmental education. As growing numbers of students arrive at college underprepared for success in college level work, educators are more open to mandating assessment, advising, and placement in developmental courses
Robert McCabe (2000) has assumed the personal mission of educating legislators, public policy makers, and educators alike to the need for all to act in concert in addressing the needs of underprepared students in this country. His book, No One to Waste, offers a wake-up call. He cites the escalating need for developmental education since academic proficiency is deteriorating among high school graduates and population growth is occurring mainly among groups previously not well represented in higher education.
Like McCabe, Hunter Boylan (2000) provides a plethora of research and examples of best practice in his book,
What Works: Research-Based Practices in Developmental Education. This book offers a blueprint for designing new departments or transforming those already in existence. It offers readily understandable information for educators who do not specialize in developmental education.
Dr. McCabe recognizes the need for collaboration among various levels in education and is leading a new project through the League for Innovation in the Community College that does just that. In The Bridge Partnership, community colleges and high schools work together to increase the number of students who aspire to go on to college, to accelerate their preparation, and to smooth the transition to college entry and success. Sixty-five community colleges and more than ninety high schools in twenty states are participating.
Though recommended outside education, a call for greater use of reflection and assessment to improve accountability was also heard within education. In a 1986 speech entitled, Taking Teaching Seriously, K. Patricia Cross stated, “I can think of no action that would do quite as much for the improvement of teaching and learning as to let a thousand classroom laboratories bloom across the nation. Their purpose would be to discover more effective teaching methods for the classroom researchers themselves, and to establish a foundation of knowledge about college teaching that maximizes learning.” These laboratories would be steeped in assessment and classroom research (O’Banion, 1997).
Two years later she and T.A. Angelo wrote the book Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for Faculty that offered more than fifty techniques for assessment that faculty could apply immediately. Angelo and Cross identified a fundamental premise “that classroom teachers need a continuing flow of accurate information about what students are learning and how they are responding to the teacher’s efforts to teach them. Classroom assessment is practiced through the use of Classroom assessment techniques (CATs) that can be used by any teacher of any discipline to assess students’ learning during the semester while there is still time to make change.” This book became the bible of thousands of teachers and staff development leaders.
In a paper published in 1997, Developing Professional Fitness Through Classroom Assessment and Classroom Research, Cross compares professional fitness for faculty to the physical fitness craze throughout society. She identifies five conditions for the professional development of community college faculty as scholarly teachers, able to apply their knowledge of learning to the improvement of their teaching.
Like Patricia Cross, Dan Apple has placed significant emphasis on the role of assessment in developing the philosophy and practices of Process Education. The fact that a whole section of the Guidebook is dedicated to assessment is testimony to the importance that process educators place on assessment. A key distinction made by PE practitioners is that assessment and evaluation are distinctly different from one another and those differences need to be understood (Distinctions between Assessment and Evaluation). There is also the belief that all learners need to become strong self-assessors if they are to foster their own growth and become self-growers (Becoming a Self-Grower).
Though these movements appear to be separate, they have a great deal in common and are part of the massive transformation process. All of them focus on improving learning, and all of them identify assessment as critical throughout the process of learning, both to determine what has been learned and to document that learning has occurred. (Within the text below key words are bolded in order to reinforce the commonality of the themes throughout these movements.)
For example, the Boyer Commission’s report on the scholarship of teaching is often identified as the source of the emerging emphasis on reflection, assessment, and good measurement in research. When considering the impact of the new scholarship model for colleges and universities, Schon states, “The epistemology appropriate to the new scholarship must make room for the practitioner’s reflection in and on action. It must account for and legitimize not only the use of knowledge produced in the academy, but the practitioner’s generation of actionable knowledge in the form of models or prototypes that can be carried over, by reflective transfer, to new practice situations. The new scholarship calls for an epistemology of reflective practice which includes what Kurt Lewin describes as action research.”
Observations about the Vanguard Project by Kay McClenney (2002), its evaluator, fit very closely with both the scholarship of teaching and the assessment movement.
Accrediting agencies are serving as catalysts throughout higher education for fostering learning, assessing effectiveness, and increasing accountability. The National Policy Board on Higher Education Institutional Accreditation (NPB) representing the nine regional accreditation associations and seven higher education associations has placed new emphasis on learning as part of the accreditation process. No longer is it enough for institutions of higher learning to simply evaluate resources, processes, governance, institutional objectives, and institutional missions. “To elevate the importance of student learning…core standards should emphasize student learning” (e.g., O’Banion, 1997).
The National Association of Developmental Education defines developmental education as helping “underprepared students prepare, prepared students advance, and advanced students excel.” Inherent in this motto is a commitment to careful assessment of entry-level needs and assessment of learning along the way.
Parker Palmer (1992) prods educators to consider a movement approach to educational reform. He distinguishes a movement approach from an organizational approach which uses bureaucracies to define the limits of social reality within which change must happen. A movement approach to change begins with individuals and has four stages:
The four areas of change articulated in this module enjoy varying degrees of success. This module has not offered an inclusive list of changes in higher education, but it does discuss some of the most significant. The obstacles to change, however, are many. Terry O’Banion may have best articulated them when he identified education as “time bound, place bound, role bound and bureaucracy bound.” The Faculty Guidebook is testimony to educators from a wide variety of institutions who wish to stop leading “divided lives.” In contributing to the research and practice that form the heart of this Guidebook, they make their contribution to the transformation of higher education.
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27 (6), 13-25.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1988). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for faculty. Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, University of Michigan.
Cross, K. P. (1997). Developing professional fitness through classroom assessment and classroom research. Phoenix, AZ: The League for Innovation in the Community College.
McCabe, R. (2000). No one to waste: A report to public decision-makers and community college leaders. Washington, DC: The American Association of Community Colleges.
McClenney, K. (2002). League for Innovation in the Community College. Learning from the learning colleges: Lessons from the journey. Retrieved on June 17, 2005 from
< www.league.org/league/projects/lcp/ lessons_learned.htm>O’Banion, T. (1997a). Creating more learning-centered community colleges, Phoenix, AZ: The League for Innovation in the Community College.
O’Banion, T. (1997b). A learning college for the 21st century. Westport, CT: Oryx Press for the American Council on Education and the American Association of Community Colleges.
Palmer, P. J. (1992). Divided no more: A movement approach to educational reform. Change, 24, (2), 10 –17.
Schon, D. A. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology: Knowing-in-action. Change, 27, 26-34.