Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Tuning USA: Meeting the Challenges of US Higher Education John H. Yopp, PhD Strategic Partnerships, Tuning USA David W. Marshall, PhD Associate Director,

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Tuning USA: Meeting the Challenges of US Higher Education John H. Yopp, PhD Strategic Partnerships, Tuning USA David W. Marshall, PhD Associate Director,"— Presentation transcript:

1 Tuning USA: Meeting the Challenges of US Higher Education John H. Yopp, PhD Strategic Partnerships, Tuning USA David W. Marshall, PhD Associate Director, Tuning USA

2 Presentation Goals Discuss how the unique features of U.S. higher education versus other national educational systems challenge the Tuning USA process Show how these challenges are being addressed and the role of the Institute for Evidence-Based Change (IEBC) in the process Provide a progress report on Tuning USA from its origins in 2009 to its current state 2

3 European Origins Tuning USA, like other Tuning processes worldwide, had its origins in Europe (1999) in a project called Tuning Educational Structures in Europe 1,1A 3

4 Europes Goals for Reform 4 Common Definition of a Degree Europe's Tripartite Structure European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) Quality Assurance Systems

5 Elements of European Tuning Process Tuning Europe – designed and implemented by and for universities – developed in phases - moved form an operational methodology for the design of degree programmes in specific thematic areas – It became known as the universities response to the Bologna Challenges put to them by their Governments. 2 – focused on qualifications (degrees) and their elements 5

6 Elements of European Tuning Process European Tuning Degree components: – Profile – Learning Outcomes and Competences (generic and subject-specific) – Workload – Levels of Qualifications – Teaching/Learning and Assessment Methodologies – Program Quality These components were to become essential parts of the description called the Degree Profile Ensuring cultural diversity: The tension between the identification of the common and the richness of the diverse runs in each of the documents of the Tuning Process. 3 6

7 The Evolution of Tuning Europe I.Initial Tuning Europe Project that began in 1999: A.Defined common language and methodology for updating or creating a degree program (grass roots level). B.Developed Tuning reference points (both generic & subject- specific SLOs) through Subject Area Groups (SAGs), in concert with Thematic Network Projects (TNPs) of the Socrates Program initially defined for nine subject areas (Business, Chemistry, Earth Sciences, Education Sciences, European Studies, History, Mathematics, Nursing, and Physics). 2 7

8 Competences in Education and Recognition Project (CoRe) 8a A Tuning Guide to Formulating Degree Programme Profiles Including Programme Competences and Programme Outcomes Jenneke Lokhoff and Bas Wegewijs (Nuffic) Katja Durkin (UK NARIC) Robert Wagenaar, Julia Gonzlez, Ann Katherine Isaacs, Luigi F. Dona dalle Rose and Mary Gobbi (TUNIING) Editors Bilbao, Groningen and The Hague, 2010 8

9 The Evolution of Tuning Europe II.Necessity of frameworks emerged A.Establishes common reference points for learning outcomes and competences at the national and European levels B.Enables comparability and compatibility within and across the diverse European national educational systems to achieve an EHEA C.Developed Qualifications Frameworks 6 National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) European Qualification Framework (EQF) 6 9

10 III.The next phase in Tuning Europe began in 2008 A.Responded to the establishment of national and European qualifications frameworks B.Tuning Europe developed broad disciplinary Sectorial Qualifications Frameworks (SQF). 2 10 The Evolution of Tuning Europe

11 IV.Tuning Academy a. announced in 2008 b. launched in 2011 V. Tuning Journal in Higher Education a.creating continuing generations of new Turning individuals and dissemination the outcomes of Tuning b.meta-profile concept and its attendant process 11 The Evolution of Tuning Europe


13 The Tuning Educational Structures in Europe Project and the Lumina Foundation. 1,1a Facilitated by an increasing number of presentations by U.S. and European educators working on the Bologna Process to the annual conferences of the major international education associations in the U.S. (e.g. NAFSA, AIEA, CGS, AACRAO) since 2002. 1,1a 13 Why Tuning USA?

14 Global education is borderless and the U.S. is a global player 2,3,11 : – Tuning Latin America (2005) http://www.tuningal.org – Tuning USA (2009) http://www.tuningusa.org – Tuning Russia (2011) http://www.russia.org – Tuning Africa (2011) – Pilot in Australia (2010) – Pilot in China – (2012) Each Tuning project utilized similar processes but with different but related goals 14 Tunings Global Reach

15 The Lumina Foundation Set its Big Goal of increasing the percentage of Americans with high quality two or four-year college degrees and credentials from 39% of the population to 60% by 2025 Identified Tuning as a means to ensure quality of those degrees Established and funded the first U.S. Tuning. 1a,12,13 Pilot project: TUNING USA, co-funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. 14 15 Why Tuning USA?

16 Tuning USAs Potential Contribution to US Higher Education 14 1.Facilitating student success and retention, especially among students from underserved groups, by creating clear expectations for, and pathways to, degree completion; 2.Simplifying the process for students transferring credits between institutions; 3.Emphasizing lifelong learning and important but often undervalued transferable skills; 16

17 Tuning USAs Potential Contribution to US Higher Education 14 4.Aligning the roles of higher education institutions; 5.Increasing higher educations responsiveness to changes in knowledge and its application; 6.Ensuring that the knowledge and applied skills associated with coursework align with civic, societal, and workforce needs. 17

18 Tuning USAs Principal Advisors 14 Dr. Tim Birtwistle, a Bologna expert and emeritus professor at Leeds, Metropolitan University in the United Kingdom Dr. Clifford Adleman, senior associate, Institute for Higher Education Policy Dr. Robert Wagenaar, a professor at the University of Groningen in The Netherlands, and co-coordinator of the projects Tuning Educational Structures in Europe, Tuning South-East and Eastern Europe, Tuning Latin America, Tuning Russia, and Tuning Georgia. 18

19 Tuning USAs Operational Partner: the Institute for Evidence-Based Change (IEBC). 1a,14 Primary consulting group for states and associations that undertake a Tuning USA initiative; Provides expert staff resource, guide, problem- solver, and advisor through the multi-stage Tuning process, from concept paper to implementation; Serves as a collaborator with the IHE-appointed Faculty Tuning Working groups, the state higher education governing boards, and other stakeholders to continually improve the Tuning USA process; 19

20 Tuning USAs Operational Partner: the Institute for Evidence-Based Change (IEBC). 1a,14 Is charged by Lumina and the Tuning USA Advisory Board to expand the initiative nationally; Works with U.S. faculty consultant experts on the Tuning European Structures and Bologna Process and their differences from Tuning USA; and Performs analyses and evaluative instruments to assess the success of Tuning USA Projects in achieving the project goals. 20



23 23 Define Discipline Core Map Career Pathways Consult Stakeholders Hone Discipline Core Implement Locally Draft general degree profile Identify core concepts Draft competency statements Draft measurable student learning outcomes Research student career destinations Develop career pathways map Identify stakeholders Draft survey instruments or focus group protocols Gather stakeholder input Review stakeholder feedback Review discipline core in light of feedback Identify departmental assets/priorities/missions Emphasize departmental distinctiveness Write degree specifications for each degree level Pieces of a Tuning Initiative


25 The European Degree Profile Title Field: Full name of the degree in original language (and English translation) – Full name of the programme offered by the institution – Type of degree (cycle) and length; name of awarding institution(s); accreditation organization(s) Purpose: General statement about the degree program (2 sentences) Characteristics: Main subject areas/disciplines of the degree programme; orientation (research, practical, professional, applied, etc.); distinctive features (that distinguish it from other similar degree programmes) Components of the Degree Profile in Europe 8a 25

26 The European Degree Profile Employability and Further Education: Employment opportunities (3 sentences); further studies (opportunities for access to further studies (e.g. Master programmes) Education Style: Main teaching and learning strategies and methods Programme Competences: List of generic and specific programme competences Complete List of Programme Learning Outcomes: All learning outcomes up to total of 20. Components of the Degree Profile in Europe 8a 26

27 27 Institution Name & Department Degree Name Purpose This field can be used to provide a succinct statement of a departments philosophy as it relates to the specific degree level. The field might begin with a more general statement about the nature and purpose of the degree. Characteristics This field can highlight the distinctive features of the degree track, including disciplines and featured subject areas, general and specific focuses, etc. Career Pathways This field identifies possible destinations of the degree programs graduates. Education Style This field identifies the departments particular learning/ teaching approaches, such as lectures, small seminars, and labs, and describe the assessment methods used by the department, such as discursive tests, analytical papers, culminating research projects, and comprehensive exams. Degree Specification Template From Tuning USA 14 Program Competencies & Outcomes This field lists the program-level learning outcomes, organized by competency area, that were developed by the Tuning work group. It should also include additional competencies and their relevant learning outcomes in addition to those developed by the Tuning work group.


29 Key Differences Tuning Europe Tuning Europe is associated with the Bologna Process Endorsed and supported bythe Ministers of Higher Education in the 49 nations that are Bologna signatories 5, and the stakeholders in The Lisbon Agenda (enhancement of economic and workforce goals). Tuning USA The U.S. has no Ministry of Higher Education and Tuning USA was launched and funded by non- governmental foundations, Lumina and Hewlett. Major challenges for the U.S. Tuning initiative, which is accomplished institution by institution, state by state, or association by association, are institutional and financial sustainability once the Tuning Process is finished. 29

30 Key Differences Tuning Europe A key component of the European Tuning process is integrating workload as the dimension of time required by the student to achieve learning outcomes specified in the degree profile and tied to the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS). Tuning USA This component does not exist in the Tuning USA process. – Relies on the increasingly criticized Carnegie Credit Hour System. Research continues in this area. 12 30

31 Key Differences Tuning Europe European Tuning process has become specialized with respect to those involved in each of its stages and implementation. There are faculty that create the degree profiles (profile designers) and others that implement them into the programs. Yet another group may oversee and advise students on individualized learning paths. Tuning USA Currently, the responsibility for implementation of Tuning USAs discipline core and degree specification lies disproportionally on administratively-appointed faculty in the Tuning work groups. This makes implementation a much greater challenge than in the European model. 2,3 31

32 Key Differences Tuning Europe Tuning Projects and Processes in Europe and other parts of the world start at the bachelors level. Tuning USA Tuning USA also must incorporate the associate's degree level. The U.S. community college system- and the number of community college students transferring to four-year colleges- are large enough so that any inclusion of progressive learning outcomes in a discipline that does not include both levels is incomplete. 14 32

33 The Community Colleges associate degree is a major pathway to the job market or transfer to a four-year institution. Tuning in the U.S. system has been focused on majors. Tuning USA also necessitates the integration of the typical liberal education (General Education) component of the U.S. bachelors degree into the discipline core and degree specification. The European higher education systems are generally more focused on the majors without the need to address an equivalent of the U.S. general education component. 33

34 Key Differences Tuning Europe Tuning Europe is involved in the Organization for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD) - led AHELO (Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes) project. Tuning USA Tuning USA has not linked learning outcomes and to a particular form of assessment. Tuning USA has not yet, nor necessarily should, become associated with one form of assessment. The highly decentralized U.S. higher education system is more amenable to a variety of assessments or assignments as currently tracked by the non- profit National Institute of Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) which monitors the use of the various forms of assignments used by U.S. IHEs. 34

35 Key Differences Tuning Europe The European Qualifications Frameworks provide an overarching set of reference points for scaling expectations within degree-level learning. Tuning USA Disciplinary outcomes are not currently linked to a Framework of broad learning outcomes and competences to facilitate inter- state comparability (except as noted). The potential for linking to Luminas Degree Qualification Framework (DQP) is currently under study. 15 Tuning USA continues to define itself as a function of the input and contributions of the disciplinary faculty Tuning Work Groups but it must continue to adapt to the characteristics of the U.S. higher education, which is, in many ways, an evolving target. 35


37 Tuning in the US Biology Physics Chemistry Mathematics Civil Engineering Electrical Engineering Industrial Engineering Mechanical Engineering Chemical Engineering Biomedical Engineering Elementary Education Physics Education History Education Marketing Nursing Social Work Psychology Business Graphic Design History Communication Studies

38 Tuning in the US States – Indiana (pilot) – Minnesota (pilot) – Utah (pilot & ongoing) – Texas – Kentucky – Montana Regions – Midwest Higher Education Compact National Associations – American Historical Association – National Communications Association

39 Lingering Questions 1.Extent to which collaboratively developed discipline core documents have been implemented locally 2.Extent to which discipline core documents are revised or tailored to fit specific local contexts 3.In state- or regionally-based projects, extent to which institutions might adopt a discipline core to which it did not contribute


41 THANK YOU For specific questions about this webinar, contact: John Yopp David Marshall For general questions about Tuning USA, contact: Brad Phillips President/CEO IEBC

Download ppt "Tuning USA: Meeting the Challenges of US Higher Education John H. Yopp, PhD Strategic Partnerships, Tuning USA David W. Marshall, PhD Associate Director,"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google