W W W. C G S N E T. O R G V O L U M E 4, N U M B E R 3 A P R I L

Transcription

1 GradEdge Insights and Research on Graduate Education W W W. C G S N E T. O R G V O L U M E 4, N U M B E R 3 A P R I L Implications of Competency Based Learning for Graduate Education: A Point-Counterpoint Discussion In this point-counterpoint discussion, Katrina Rogers, President, Fielding Graduate University, and George Walker, Consultant and former Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies at Cleveland State University; Graduate Dean at Indiana University and Florida International University; and former Director of the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate, share their views on competency based learning and its implications for graduate education. Katrina Rogers: Experienced graduate educators have seen educational fads come and go. The resurfacing of discussions about competency based learning (CBL), however, marks it as a trend not to be ignored. CBL is neither new, nor particularly radical. At its foundation is the understanding that learning outcomes can be measured by the demonstration of specific skills or a set of behaviors that demonstrate mastery of defined knowledge. One example where there is logical coherence between measurable competencies and learning is the acquisition of research competencies, such as methods, design, data collection, analysis, and the like. At the graduate level, such research learning may take place in laboratories, the classroom, independent study, participation in research projects and through the preparation and defense of theses and dissertations. Proponents of CBL are ecumenical in offering this approach regardless of discipline. In contrast to the traditional measure of the credit hour, this model separates learning from the confines of seat time, suggesting that as long as a student can demonstrate mastery of the concepts set forth as objectives, they are making academic progress. This notion links to related concepts such as prior learning assessment (PLA) and self-paced learning. Once learning is separated from the credit hour, it becomes possible for graduate students to demonstrate competencies gained outside formal learning environments. PLA provides a methodology for assessing learning regardless of modality including knowledge and skill acquired through work experience, and for autodidacts by self-motivated learning. So long as an explicit structure is in place to assess competence, CBL and PLA offer higher education opportunities to embrace more diverse student backgrounds and learning styles, and to accept the idea that individuals learn in different ways and at varying paces. In turn, this educational strategy increases opportunity and access. CBL could and I think should have a significant impact on graduate education. As an increasing number of undergraduate institutions embrace CBL, graduate learners are more likely to have experienced these programs upon entry to graduate school. This means that their expectations for graduate study may be quite different than from those who had only experienced traditional approaches. In addition, preparing graduate students for the professoriate in the pedagogy of CBL becomes increasingly important. In this spirit of exploration, this brief essay considers implications of CBL for the various constituents and elements that comprise a university. Implications for graduate students: Because CBL requires the identification of competencies to be learned, students are provided with greater clarity as to expectations appropriate for their education. This approach essentially is an elaboration-- and, depending on subject matter, an extensive one--of current accreditor expectations that faculty specify and assess learning outcomes for courses and academic degrees. It requires graduate faculty to achieve more extensive consensus on what students are expected to know and be able to do. In programs where students can design some of their own competencies with faculty mentoring, it also provides an avenue for them to more actively engage in their own learning process, potentially creating a stronger development of self-efficacy. As students become more active learners, graduate faculty can likewise pay closer attention to their teaching and mentoring, resulting in a less hierarchical educational environment. Inside Data Sources Did You Know?

2 Implications for faculty and graduate pedagogy: CBL presents a challenge for faculty in all disciplines as it calls for specification of the competencies, that is, the knowledge and skills required at various levels of learning. At many universities, including my institution, we have universitywide, program-wide, and course specific competencies, many of which are vigorously discussed by faculty colleagues with respect to meaning and measurement. CBL is particularly useful at the program level because it offers an opportunity for faculty members to engage as a group about the components of a quality program. In addition, discussions of CBL pedagogy offer possibilities for faculty development. At the doctoral level, for example, such discussions have the potential for refining what constitutes preparation of a scholar or practitioner and the outcomes criteria needed for assessment. As we look ahead to educating the next generation of graduate faculty and researchers, graduate schools need to be preparing to build faculty expertise to deliver programs that incorporate CBL that suit their respective disciplines, and also recognize the expectations of more active learners. Implications for data collection: CBL requires that data collection and analysis are aligned in such a way that an institution can measure learning outcomes over time from individual, course, and programmatic standpoints. Data can be dis-aggregated as well to compare outcomes across student, program, and campus characteristics to explore causes and potential corrections to unsatisfactory levels of learning. This process invites cross-disciplinary comparisons of the strength of CBL and PLA pedagogy and sparks discussion and debate about the teaching and learning environment. Implications for accreditation: CBL puts institutional goals and the capacity to assess them at the forefront of quality assurance. Regional and professional accreditors should embrace CBL as another approach for institutions to use for assessing learning that will vary by the nature of the knowledge or skill to be assessed. CBL can make use of varied program delivery options including online and hybrid education as well as selfpaced and mentor based learning, thereby expanding the ways in which institutional goals can be achieved. Graduate learning is about more than mastering a skill set. CBL invites us to explore how we account for the cumulative process of learning and the transformative quality of learning. As graduate leaders, we need to encourage graduate faculty to discuss how they develop the diverse competencies expected of advanced level learners within diverse academic disciplines. As they help students master disciplinary competencies, faculty members could be examining how to engage graduate students in the kind of challenges that lead to breakthroughs in understanding self and others. This nourishment of the soul that is frequently mentioned is also a fundamental part of the endeavor of education. As one faculty member recently said to me, I acknowledge the importance of CBL, but are we losing the poetry of learning that quality that ineffably may lead our students over their life course to live up to their highest potential but may not be immediately evident? Part of the challenge for us as graduate school deans and faculty is to ensure that there is always some poetry some opportunity for serendipity to create those moments of learning that can lead to personal and intellectual transformation. We only do that by constantly challenging our assumptions as graduate leaders. In essence, we need to model that habit of mind for our students, many of whom will become the next generation of faculty that will serve both graduate and undergraduate learners in the coming decades. George Walker: CBL has several intriguing attributes outlined above by my colleague Dr. Katrina Rogers. This suggests to me that CBL may be a useful additional tool for student learning in graduate education in particular circumstances. In fact, we already employ something loosely akin to CBL in determining if a student should be promoted to doctoral candidacy in graduate school (preliminary or qualifying written and oral examinations) and for determining if the student is ready for a final thesis defense or indeed should be granted the Ph.D. These activities are not directly related to credit hours or grades in specific classes and are based on reaching a certain competency level. My experience is that there is a considerable variation in the expectations associated with these competences in various disciplines and on different campuses. My concern with CBL is the unproven notion, as Dr. Rogers implies, that CBL would be particularly useful across the board in graduate education. This idea seems a bit premature, at least, and quite problematic, if it becomes a mantra by powerful external legislators! Dr. Rogers has experience with CBL in a graduate school with a particular blend of graduate disciplines largely focused on graduating scholar-practitioners well suited to specific professions. The faculty culture in her institution may well be somewhat different than the mindset at a typical research university. More on this later, but first I would like to briefly summarize some thoughts on doctoral education. I believe the focus of doctoral education is not just to help students acquire knowledge and skills, but to further develop the passion and ability to innovate and apply that knowledge with a sense of social and disciplinary responsibility. In fact, knowledge, competencies, and skills often have finitely useful lifetimes. A desirable characteristic of Ph.D. holders should be that they are idea leaders and positive change agents, scholarleaders who can imagine new approaches, skills, and competencies that will render obsolete existing competencies. For this to occur, an overemphasis on testing existing concrete competencies misses the mark. I believe it will be very tempting for us to focus on competencies and skills that are most easily measured. The habits of mind I envisage are more likely to emerge from a deep engagement with a robust intellectual community of students and experienced scholar-innovators both within and outside the academy. In fact, a narrow focus on practically measurable competencies may result in the overproduction of intellectual technicians, as opposed to producing the highly motivated life-long learners and innovators that our civil society requires. Balance of approaches and astute application of CBL is the key. Dr. Rogers discusses the implication for adopting CBL such as the opportunity for the faculty to discuss the pedagogy of CBL and using it for faculty development. She also points out the importance of data collection and analysis. She mentions the important role for accrediting bodies and assessment of learning styles. These are important considerations and opportunities. However, they are opportunities that, if the past is any guide, we will probably not utilize to the degree advocates imagine. (Again, there may be a difference of culture and experience between Dr. Rogers institution and the traditional research university.) And without deep pedagogical discussions, data collection, assessment, and considerable oversight by accrediting bodies, we are in Page 2 GradEdge

3 danger of doing exactly the thing we want to avoid short changing the graduate student by diminishing the quality of their graduate learning experience. The opportunities mentioned require a level of uncommon engagement in the academy. That engagement is desirable, but often not present in our current culture at many research universities. We need to change our culture, but that will take time. Gaining experience and selected application of CBL is the key. It is the best and worst of times for the discussion of CBL at traditional research universities. It is certainly necessary and timely for us to evolve. However, because it also occurs at a time of legislative budget cuts and simultaneously with a general call for more accountability and efficiency, there is a danger. The danger is that external stakeholders (i.e., public officials) may see CBL as a panacea and be emboldened to strongly suggest we use it quickly and across the board in graduate education. What is a wise and responsible way for us to proceed? After summarizing my thoughts in the next paragraph I will make a couple of brief suggestions. Competency based learning, if utilized judiciously, may deliver on the promise of helping improve the graduate student learning experience. However, many of our faculty and administrators at traditional research universities do not have the experience of using this tool widely in graduate education. Thus, we need to first learn and then lead. If we do not, external forces may come into play that will be harmful to student learning and the academy s independence and reputation. Individual graduate schools can contribute and lead on their campuses by: 1. Encouraging discussions and learning about CBL at Graduate Council meetings. 2. Working with the provost, academic deans, and department chairs to start a few new projects using CBL. These projects should have appropriate assessment mechanisms built in from the beginning. This may require some start-up funds or faculty release time. National higher education associations (particularly the Council of Graduate Schools) and accrediting bodies can promote wise use of CBL by including sessions at meetings that inform and recognize good practices. These may arise from the work of individual graduate schools and universities as suggested above. Inclusion of non-traditional universities that already heavily utilize CBL should certainly be encouraged. CBL is an example where the diversity of graduate schools in the United States is an asset. As the purveyors of one of the world s finest graduate level education systems, we can design multiple learning models that attract an array of student constituencies. To reap the promise of this diversity, we need to work and learn from the experience of each. In the cause of serving a diversity of students and stakeholders, we should hold each other to this higher purpose of delivering a quality learning experience for the heterogeneous population that wants and deserves access to a graduate education. By Katrina S. Rogers, President, Fielding Graduate University, and George Walker, Consultant and former Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies at Cleveland State University; Graduate Dean at Indiana University and Florida International University; and former Director of the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate Registration is now Open! April 2015 Page 3

4 Data Sources: Trends in Degrees Awarded to International Students It is no secret that international students have been applying to, enrolling in, and graduating from U.S. graduate programs in growing numbers for many years. First-time graduate enrollment increased by 11.5% between fall 2012 and fall 2013 alone, and by 6.9% on average between fall 2003 and fall 2013 (Allum, 2014a). In fact, international graduate student enrollment increased in nine of the past 10 years (Allum, 2014b). Data from the Educational Testing Service (2014) and the Institute for International Education (2014) corroborate these trends, and there is little evidence to suggest that such increases are likely to change in the immediate future. Much of what is known about the growth of international graduate student populations, however, masks potential differences by degree objective. While institutions of higher education are generally known to have larger numbers of master s students than doctoral students, most data collection efforts are focused on graduate student populations in aggregate. The CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey is beginning to collect data and reporting findings in ways that disaggregate applications, offers of admission, and enrollment of students according to whether their degree objective is a master s/certificate degree or doctoral degree. Phase I of the survey, for example, focuses on the preliminary number of applications received for fall 2015 by degree objective for all broad fields of study, for all regions of the world, and for eight selected countries. Moreover, the survey population has been expanded to include not only CGS member institutions, but also institutions who are members of the four regional graduate associations but not members of CGS. Results generated by this redesign should provide a new way of examining trends in international graduate student application, admission, and enrollment trends, and in anticipation of this new report, this article examines trends in degree production among temporary residents using data from the U.S. Department of Education s National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Over the 17-year period between 1996 and 2012, there were considerable increases in master s and doctoral degree production among international students (see Table 1). There was an 85% increase in the number of residents at U.S. institutions of higher education, from 48,256 in 1996 to 89,944 in During this same time period, there was a 47% increase in the number of residents, from 11,454 in 1996 to 16,885 in Differences by Degree Objective The number of master s degrees awarded in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) to temporary residents nearly doubled between 1996 and 2012, from 20,937 to 39,798. The number of residents in all other fields increased from 13,006 in 1996 to 22,912 in 2012, a 76% gain. Growth in degree production at the master s level was largely driven by business and engineering. In 2012, the field of business constituted 30% of all master s degrees awarded to temporary residents, and the field of engineering constituted 20% of all residents. Not only are these the two largest fields of study at the master s level, they have also grown the most rapidly over the past 17 years. More than one-half (53%) of the total growth in master s degree production among temporary residents came from increases in the fields of engineering and business. The number of master s degrees awarded in the field of business nearly doubled between 1996 and 2012, from 14,313 to 27,234. The number of master s degrees in engineering increased 90% during the same time period, from 9,131 in 1996 to 18,384 in There was a 142% increase in the number of master s degrees awarded in computer and information sciences between 1996 and 2012, and a 131% increase in master s degrees in mathematics and statistics during the same time period. Table 1: Degrees Awarded to Temporary Residents by Degree Objective and Field of Study, Selected Years Page 4 GradEdge

5 Although the number of doctoral degrees awarded to temporary residents increased between 1996 and 2012, the increases were not as large as those at the master s level. The number of doctoral degrees in STEM increased 50% from 1996 to 2012, from 8,648 to 12,992. The number of doctoral degrees in business, which were comparatively smaller than the number of business degrees awarded at the master s level, increased from 424 in 1996 to 679 in 2012, or 60%. The number of doctoral degrees awarded in all other fields increased 35% between 1996 and 2012, from 2,382 to 3,214. More doctoral degrees are awarded to temporary residents in engineering than any other field of study. In 2012, 29% of all residents were awarded in engineering. Engineering, physical sciences, and biological and biomedical sciences constitute 55% of all residents in The number of doctoral degrees awarded increased 58% in engineering, 66% in biological and biomedical sciences, and 35% in physical sciences between 1996 and There was a 121% increase in the number of doctoral degrees awarded in computer and information sciences between 1996 and 2012, and a 50% increase in the number of doctoral degrees awarded in mathematics and statistics during the same time period. Long-term Trends Although the overall growth in the number of master s degrees awarded has outpaced the overall growth in the number of doctoral degrees awarded between 1996 and 2012, master s degree production appears to be somewhat more volatile than doctoral degree production over the longterm. (see Figure 1). This may be partly explained by the fact that fewer doctoral degrees are awarded each year compared to master s degrees. This trend may also be explained by the fact that it takes longer for economic, public policy, and other conditions to be reflected due to the length of doctoral programs. For instance, between 1997 and 2003, master s degree production enjoyed various levels of increases. In 2004, three years after 9/11, master s degree production declined by 6%, followed by two more years of declines before increasing again in Similarly, between 1999 and 2006, doctoral degree production among international students enjoyed various levels of increases. Beginning in 2007, and for the next two years, doctoral production Figure 1: Number of Degrees Awarded to Temporary Residents by Degree Objective, decreased before increasing again in In retrospect, it appears as though changes in student visa policies immediately following 9/11 may have interrupted growth in graduate enrollment among temporary residents. It is likely that increases in applications from, admissions of, and enrollment among international graduate students will continue for the foreseeable future. As data collection improves, so too will our understanding of the drivers of these changes, and our ability to inform policy and practice. Phase I of the CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey will be released in the spring of 2015, offering the next generation of data on this topic. By Jeff Allum, Director, Research and Policy Analysis, Council of Graduate Schools References: Allum, J. (2014a). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 2003 to Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Allum, J. (2014b). CGS International graduate admissions survey, phase III: final offers of admission and enrollment. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Institute of International Education. (2014). International students by academic level and place of origin, 2013/14. Open doors report on international educational exchange. Retrieved from Educational Testing Service. (2014). A snapshot of the individuals who took the GRE revised general test. Retrieved from taker_data_2014.pdf. DID YOU KNOW? Did you know that about 44% of incoming freshmen say they plan on earning a master's degree, while 21% want to earn a doctorate or professional degree? April 2015 Page 5