1. Student Interpretation of Learning Outcomes
What was learned “testing” the DQP at Saint Mary’s College

2. Lumina Foundation DQP

3. What is the DQP?
“A learning-centered framework for what college graduates should know and be able to do to earn the associate, bachelor’s or master’s degree.”
… “proposes specific learning outcomes that benchmark the associate, bachelor’s and master’s degree levels…regardless of a student’s field of specialization.”
Inclusive of co-curricular learning

4. DQP Five Learning Categories
Specialized knowledge
Broad and integrative knowledge
Intellectual skills
analytical inquiry
use of information resources
engagement with diverse perspectives
ethical reasoning
qualitative fluency
communicative fluency
Applied and collaborative learning
Civic and global learning
Institution specific**

5. How Did the DQP Projects Arise?

6. Who Developed the DQP? Lumina Foundation Funded Written by:
Cliff Adelman – Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP)
Peter Ewell – VP for the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS)
Paul Gaston – Trustees’ Professor at Kent State University and author of The Challenge of Bologna
Carol Geary Schneider – President of Association of American Colleges and University (AAC&U)

7. Who is Working on this Nationally?
Lumina Foundation Funded Projects
Higher Learning Commission (HLC)
Test the usefulness of framework for focusing student learning outcomes at degree level
Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)
Redesign accreditation process for member schools with DQP as central reference
Council of Independent College (CIC)
Explore applicability and usefulness for independent colleges
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U)
Test the usefulness of the DQP to facilitate transfer between institutions
Since 2011, projects from more than 400 colleges and universities, 4 of the 7 regional accrediting associations, CIC, AASCU, and AAC&U.

8. Accreditation: Pathways
HLC
New Accreditation Process
Improvement Process
Testing the Lumina DQP
Assurance Process
New Assurance System

9. Project Goals
Provide feedback to the Lumina Foundation and DQP authors
Contribute to the national conversation around a degree qualifications framework
Reflect on the institution’s own general education program using a national framework for comparison

10. DQP Testing Projects Departmental College Wide
Student Survey
Departmental Gap Analysis with Specialized Knowledge Outcomes
College Wide
College-Wide Gap Analysis with DQP
Responding to Gap Analysis Results
Consider Potential Tools and Benchmarks for Sophia Program

11. Specialized Knowledge Student Survey

12. Specialized Knowledge Student Survey
Specialized Knowledge: “…across all fields that we call “majors” lie common learning outcomes involving terminology, theory, methods, tools, literature, complex problems or applications, and cognizance of the limits of the field.”
Junior and senior level major students were surveyed from four college departments
Nursing
Biology
Modern Languages
Psychology

13. Specialized Knowledge Student Survey
Asked
to explain in their own words (in their disciplinary context) the DQP learning outcomes
to assess if their major focused on these outcomes, and the extent they believe they achieved them

14. Qualitative Results: Outcome Example 1
“Defining and properly using the principal specialized terms used in your field, both historical and contemporaneous.”
“Principal specialized terms” was often mentioned by students as unclear
Questioned how one could identify or agree upon the “principal specialized terms”

15. Qualitative Results: Outcome Example 2
“Defining and explaining the boundaries and major sub-fields, styles, and/or practices in your field.”
“Boundaries” was interpreted in a variety of ways based on the student’s academic discipline.
Nursing majors referenced professional boundaries in care provided
Some Modern Languages majors interpreted the term “boundaries” to relate to global boundaries sometimes brought on by divides in language.

16. Qualitative Results: Outcome Example 3
“Demonstrating fluency in the use of tools, technologies, and methods common to your field.”
This outcome was understood similarly by Biology, Nursing, and Psychology majors.
Modern Languages majors varied in their understanding of the phrase “tools, technologies and methods common to your field” as it relates to their major.
“Fluency” was unclear for Modern Languages students who noted the term has a particular meaning in their field.

17. Findings: Interpretation of Outcomes
Able to identify similar general understanding & intention of the outcome
Interpretation of some outcomes lack meaningful specificity
Outcomes interpreted in the context of the major which sometimes lead to dissimilar understanding
Specific words and phrases interpreted in disciplinary context alter outcome meanings

18. Implications and Follow-up Questions
Should we expect students to be able to form a common understanding of student learning outcomes?
If not, what does that mean for assessment? And how do students understand our own outcomes?
Does disciplinary background impact the interpretation of other outcomes?
What happens if students achieve higher level outcomes?

19. Reaction to DQP Based on Project Findings

20. Reaction to DQP Based on Findings
In theory, it makes sense to have different outcomes for degree levels and the DQP uses a developmental model
The DQP relegates mission outcomes to the Institution Specific category. This minimizes the importance of integration of mission across the curriculum.
The DQP outcomes can be overly prescriptive or overly broad. (addressed in 2.0 revision)
Interpretation of outcomes can be impacted by disciplinary background, leading to lack of common understanding. (Tuning)

21. Reaction to DQP Based on Findings
Overly focused on and too prescriptive about the ideas of problem-solving, the use of multiple media and the use of a non-English language (addressed in 2.0 revision)
Unclear about it’s usefulness with students because of lack of clarity in the DQP language
Contains implied curriculum requirements that institutions may not currently have (addressed in 2.0 revision)

22. DQP 2.0

23. DQP Revision
Increased clarity to the document
Greater specificity of purpose and specify of assumptions
Notes lack of intent toward perscriptiveness
Institution-specific outcomes

24. Replication of this study
Further Research
Replication of this study
Research
Institutional benefit
Faculty interpretation of learning outcomes
Implications for assessment
Tuning projects
Advising as teaching model

25. Relevant for AICUP Institutions
Broad reach
Expansion – framework for certificates and doctoral degrees
Relationship to mission
Student interpretation of outcomes
Expansion – Carnegie Classifications

26. Jessica Ickes – Director of Institutional Research ickes@lvc.edu
Questions?
Jessica Ickes – Director of Institutional Research