More on Transparency by Design and classifying America’s colleges and universities
An earlier post to this blog dealt with Transparency by Design, an effort by a dozen higher education institutions – Capella University included – that serve adult students at a distance to publicly report on what those students will actually learn. Recently, Bob Morse of U.S. News & World Report, commented on Transparency by Design in his blog Morse Code.
Transparency by Design is intended to assert the strengths of adult serving colleges and universities and online higher education: that we are outcomes-based and data rich. It is also our hope that demonstrating learning outcomes may help states in their struggle to figure out how to deal with adult-serving, online institutions that operate across state borders – that they will recognize those institutions that are committed to quality and will work with us to encourage other similar institutions to participate in Transparency by Design.
Recently, Alan Contreras of the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization authored an interesting commentary on the vast array of degree providers in the United States and the differences in types of degrees offered. He rightly identifies the complexity of what he refers to as “tiers” of providers. And he calls on the states to develop shared nomenclature and classification of degrees by type.
I certainly empathize with Alan about his deep and abiding concern with diploma mills and unscrupulous providers. But, I am not certain I can embrace his call for classification of degree by type. Where will degrees developed for adults and for online delivery fit into such a scheme? My suspicion is that they would not go to the top of the list. And that would not be due to lack of quality but, rather, a classification scheme that Alan says starts with the “elites” institutions. This seems to me to be one more example of the disproportionate emphasis that we place on a traditional view of higher education that too often ignores the other 85 percent, those students who don’t come to campus for full-time study directly out of high school.
Isn’t a transparent, public accounting of learning outcomes a better way to address quality than another classification scheme? Doesn’t it make sense to ask schools what learning outcomes they intended to deliver, and how they measure whether their graduates achieved those outcomes? Isn’t that what demonstrating quality is all about?
Let me know what you think.
Mike
Share This4 Responses to “More on Transparency by Design and classifying America’s colleges and universities”
Carole Mottaz Says:
As humans we seem to have this passion for “making order in our lives”. For some, this means putting everything into little boxes where it can be easily retrieved. It seems to me that classifying degrees by type is an example of this.
Although there is a place for categorizing and stereotyping, it has limited utility. But it is so tempting to do because it is literally “verbal” comfort food.
I believe that those of us who don’t need comfort food very often like to try new things and be more “forward looking”. We aren’t afraid to try something that may fail.
The beauty of transparent, public accounting of learning outcomes is that it allows the flexibility to try new things and, at the same time, see how well they are doing. If a class or course doesn’t work – due to lack of focus, interest, quality standards, etc. – I have every faith that Capella University will say, “We are glad we tried that but it doesn’t work so let’s move on”. The organization isn’t intimidated by learning from its own mistakes. As a result, I am sure that fewer “mistakes” are being made.
The biggest issue with a system such as classifying degrees is that there are no mistakes because, unless a degree fits into one of the boxes, it will be relegated to the biggest “outcast” box. The opportunity for growth is severely limited.
This reminds me of my personal issue of administration vs leadership. In my humble opinion, too many schools are run by skilled adminsitrators who have limited leadership skills. They can keep the paperclips in line but are not innovative instructional leaders. Thus, too little academic progress is made.
Truly, if nothing is ventured then nothing can be gained. And continuing to force round pegs into square holes still – surprising enough – doesn’t work.
I resoundedly support accountability but not categorization.
Cheryl Covey Says:
I support accountability as well. I chose Capella for the quality education it provides and the type of degree I was seeking.
What is education if you are not working toward outcomes? I researched and talked to a few online universities that to me seemed like they were just mainstreaming an education. That was not my intention when I began taking online courses.
I am just one of those people who like to work at home because of work and family commitments and completing my degree at home was perfect.
I fully expect to be assessed as to whether or not I have achieved the outcomes set forth by the instructor in my courses. Because if I have not achieved the outcomes, why am I spending my money for a quality education.
In my opinion, Categorization will be a huge mistake.
johnathan rose, PhD,MBA Says:
Transparency is an absolute if Distance Learning is going to be defined by one singular critical element–that being acceptance ande desire by employers small and large alike to seek out distance learners for employment.Absent that drive by employers equates to distant learning being a distant cousin to traditional college eduaction and sucessful carrer building.
Leave a Reply
Let us know what you think. All comments will be reviewed prior to going live. Comments that are profane or obscene, or unrelated to the topic of the post will not be published.
Welcome to The Other 85 Percent. So what does "the other 85 percent" refer to? Research has shown that only about 15 percent of higher education students still fit the traditional definition of young adults age 18 to 22 who live on campus and go to school full time. more
- July 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
-
Capella University
Changing Higher Education
eLearning Roadtrip
The Presidents’ Forum
Transparency By Design
Sue Says:
I am probably about to offend some people here but I don’t think success is about the school. It is about the student. Is the student willing to do the work and make the sacrifices to get to the top of whatever they want to do? Are they willing to spend time at conferences networking? Research? Internships? Do they want to go to the top? Not wanting to get to the top is ok too. Personally, I am driven to develop the skills that I need to get where I want to go (and to dodge those who chose to make me a target because of this). It isn’t always fun and pretty. And it is not something that has been presented to me on a silver platter.
I have known people who went to school at Ivy League schools and I have known people who went to small state colleges. I know alot of people in between. When you look at all of them, what it boils down to is their own personal motivation.
The “outcomes” are driven by the students because, in the end, it is them who decides if they are going to succeed or not. Tiering degrees is pointless.
Now, if we wanted to talk about accreditation, yes, that is of utmost important and deals 100% with the school.
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:39 pm