ED 394 442

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

REPORT NOPUB DATECONTRACTNOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

HE 029 136

Gardiner, Lion F.Redesigning Higher Education: Producing DramaticGains in Student Learning. ASHE-ERIC Higher EducationReport No. 7.Association for the Study of Higher Education.; ERICClearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington, D.C.;George Washington Univ., Washington, DC. GraduateSchool of Education and Human Development.; NewJersey Inst. for Collegiate Teaching and Learning,South Orange.Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.ISBN-1-878380-63-X; ISSN-0884-004094ED-RR-93-002008233p.; For a digest of this report, see HE 029135.

ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, One DupontCircle, N.W., Suite 630, Washington, DC 20036-1183($18 plus $3.75 postage).Information Analyses ERIC Clearinghouse Products(071)

MF01/PC10 Plus Postage.*Academic Advising; Achievement Gains; *CollegeCurriculum; *College Instruction; College OutcomesAssessment; Competency Based Education; *EducationalEnvironment; *Educational Quality; EvaluationMethods; Grading; Higher Education; *InstructionalEffectiveness; Knowledge Level; Minimum Competencies;Organizational Climan; Outcomes of Education;Student Development; Student Evaluation

This monograph reviews empirical studies on variousaspects of higher education relating to the effectiveness ofinstruction in regard to four areas: curriculum, instruction, campuspsychological climate, and academic advising. After an introduction,the first section describes the development of critical skills, howthese skills develop, and the conditions beli2ved necessary toproduce them. The following four sections examine the four core areascentral to student development and the contribution research suggeststhey now make to the development: (1) curriculuk (methods, theintellectual climate of the classroom, students' involvement, effectsof the curriculum); (2) instruction (classroom tP.'s and grades); (3)

the campus climate (integration into the campus community, commuterand part-time students, students involvement with faculty, andminority group members); and (4) academic advising (developmentaladvising, the necessity for training in advising, and evaluation,recognition, and reward of advising) . The next three sectionsdescribe opportunities for dramatic gains in students' learning,examining evidence about the relative capacity of students to learnat a very high level; describing seven specific changes which canimprove students' learning, and addressing issues of leadership,management, and professional development. The final section presentsa vision and a challenge to develop a new kind of community on

campus. (Contains approximately 650 references.) (DB)

1994 Report SevenASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports

Redesigning Higher EducationProducing Dramatic Gains in Student Learning

Lion F. Gardiner

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

Oi/CENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organi7ationoriginating it

0 Minor changes have been made toImprove reproduction quality

-Points of view or opinions slated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy

2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Redesigning Higher Education:Producing Dramatic Gains in Student Learning

by Lion E Gardiner

ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 1, 1994

Zr

Pt"

31.4

New Jersey Institute

for Collegiate

Teaching and Learning

This report is a special cooperative projectbetween the New Jersey Institute for Collegiate Teaching

and Learning and the ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education

Prepared by

ERICIn cooperation with

ASI-1*

PublIshed by

The\9etorgenington

niversityWASNINGI ON DC

Clearinghouse on Higher EducationThe George Washington University

Association for the Studyqf Higher Education

Graduate School of Education andHuman Development

The George Washington University

Jonathan D. FifeCeries Editor

3

,ATIL`Tr

Cite asGardiner, Lion E Redesigning Higher Education: ProducingMamatic Gains in Student Learning Report No. 7. Wash-ington, D.C.: Graduate School of Education and HumanDevelopment, The George Washington University, 1994.

Lilvary of Congress Catalog Card Number 96-75971ISSN 0884-0040ISBN 1-878380-63-X

Managing Editor: Lynne j ScottManuscript Editor: Barbara j Fishel/EditechCover design by Michael David Brown, Rockville, Maryland

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education invites indivklu-als to submit proposals for writing monographs for the ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report series. Proposals must include1. A detailed manuscript proposal of not more than five pages2. A chapter-by-chapter outline.3. A 75-word summary to be used by several review com-

mittees for the initial screening and rating of each proposal4. A vita and a writing sample.

'ERIC! Clearinghouse on Higher EducationGraduate School of Education and Human DevelopmentThe George Washington UniversityOne Dupont Circle, Suite 630Washington, DC 20036-1183

This publication was prepared partially with funding from theOffice of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S.Department of Education, under contract no. ED RR-93-002008.The opinions e-pressed in this report do not necessarily reflectthe positions or policies of OERI or the Department.

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Since the late 1960s and early 1970s, American colleges anduniversities have been profoundly changed by the hugeinflux of "nontraditional" students who have increasinglycharacterized our campuseswomen, people of color, andpart-time and older students. These "new" students are farmore representative of Americans as a whole than weretheir predecessors. They are often less well prepared forcollege than their relatively more privileged peers, and thegoals to wnich they aspire, their styles of learning, andtheir educational needs often differ from those of more tra-ditional students. Projections suggest our students will con-tinue to increase in diversity far into the future.

A series of critical reports by authorities on higher educa-tion, political leaders, and businesspeople, published sincethe mid-1980b, have claimed that we in higher educationhave not responded effectively to the needs of our studentsof the last 25 years and that many of our graduates' knowl-edge and skills do not meet society's requirements for well-educated citizens.

How valid are these claims? How effectively are we edu-cating our students? Because relatively few colleges or uni-versities broadly assess what their graduates know and areable to do, we have limited evidence with which to answerthese now-urgent questions, and no comprehensive state-wide or national assessment exists that might provide thisevidence. The research literature of higher education, how-ever, now contains many valuable findings, albeit widelyscattered, that can help us answer these questions and pro-vide essential guidance to significantly improve our stu-dents' learning. Th,lesigning Higher Education gathers thefindings of many at these studies to make them readilyaccessible.

What Are the Critical Competencies andHow Do They Develop?Scholars and leaders in business and government most fre-quently identify the skills and dispositions essential to soci-ety's economic and democratic success to include thecapacities for critical thinking and complex problem solv-ing, respect for people different from oneself, principledethical behavior, lifelong learning, and effective interper-sonal interaction and teamwork. These cnicial skills anddispositions presuppose cognitive abilities studies have

Redesigning Higher Educa Iii

shown are poorly developed in many college and univer-sity students. These underpinnings of advanced intellectualperformance, as well as effective interpersonal interactionand teamwork, require for their development continuousactive involvement in learning and with other students andfaculty, together with regular assessment and timely feed-back on performance.

What Are the Effects of Our Curricula?The limited research on curriculum is increasingly useful.Although our 3,600 colleges and universities differ in manyother ways, over 90 percent use distribution systems of cur-riculum, in which students select courses from lists, oftenwith considerable diversity of choice. Research reveals thatmen and women take significantly different courses, thatgroups of courses are correlated with gains, or declines, inspecific competencies for groups of high- and low-abilitystudents, a.-id that student outcomes are not necessarilyrelated to required courses. Thus, research has questionedthe developmental value of distributional curricula; curric-ula need to be adapted to the specific needs of different;ttiducits. Types and breadth of courses available, specificcourses in the curriculum, and degree of choice may makerelatively little difference in educational outcomes, althougha true-core curriculum, found in a few institutions, can bepositively associated with many valued outcomes. I-low aninstitution provides its curricula can be more importantthan its curricular structure and content.

Studies ,-Iggest, overall, that undergraduate liberal artscurricula tend to lack coherence and have limited breadthand depth. A liberal arts emphasis, however, as comparedwith more vocationally oriented curricula, can increasewomen's choice of gender atypical careers and African-American males' choice of higher prestige, typically malor-ity careers, reduce authoritarianism, and increase capacityfor principled ethical reasoning.

How Effectively Do Our Courses DevelopStudents' Intellectual Abilities?Faculty aspire to develop students thinking skills, but re-search consistently shows that in practice we tend to aim atfacts and concepts in the disciplines, at the lowest cognitive

It,

6

levels, lather than development of intellect or values Nu-merous studies of college classrooms reveal that, Latherthan actively involving our students in learning, we lec-ture, even though lectures are not nearly as effective asother means for developing cognitive skills. In addition,students may be attending to lectures only about one-halfof their time in class, and retention of information fromlectures is low.

Studies suggest our methods often fail to dislodge stu-dents' misconceptions and ensure learning of complex,abstract concepts. Capacity for problem solving is limitedby our use of inappropriately simple practice exercises.

How Hard Do Students Work?Although quality of effort is key to accomplishment, studiesconsistently show that students generally swdy far less thannecessary to learn effectively, although in many cases theyhave considerable di: 7etionary time. The limited evidenceavailable on college outcomes reveals disappointing levelsof knowledge and skills among students, consistent withthe less than optimal methods we often use and the mod-est efforts of most students.

What Do Tests and Grades Tell Us?Classroom tests often set the standard for students learn-ing. As with instruction, however, we tend to emphasizerecall of memorized factual information rather than intellec-tual challenge. Taken together with our preference for lec-tures, our tests may be reinforcing our students' commonlyfact-oriented memory learning, of limited value to eitherthem or society.

Virtually all American colleges and universities employgrades as indicators of students'and the institution'saccomplishment. Student retention, aCvancement, honors.and graduation, and therefore key public policy decisions,depend on these important symbols. Yet grades are oftenbased on tests of uncertain technical quality and other,unknown components; they individually carry little infor-mation and, combined into averages, correlate poorly withsuccess after graduation. Grades further provide for manystudents a strong antidevelopmental inducement to the per-vasive cheating on campus studies consistently find.

Reties Oling Higher Education

How Does the Campus Climate AffectOur Students' Development?The climate of a campus can welcome new students intowhat is for many an unfamiliar and threatening culture;provide the social interaction, emotional support, and per-sonal integration and validation needed for learning andretention on campus; and inspire each person to higheffort. In many cases, however, research reveals littleinvolvement between students and the faculty, staff, orother students, a climate of limited intellectual stimulation,and a climate that tolerates widespread cheating and alco-hol abuse. Studies frequently reveal campus environmentswhere women and minoriry-group members are regularlydevalued and overtly discriminated against. Together, thisarray of environmental conditions can powerfully militateagainst students' success.

How Well Do We Guide Our Students' Development?Authorities widely agree that academic advising is a power-ful tool for improving students success, providing influen-tial opportunities for out-of-class contact between studentsand faculty and personalized guidance fo- negotiating anew and complex culture, achieving self-Lnderstanding,and planning one's own development. Today, high-qualityadvising focuses on each student's specific developmentalneeds. High-quality advising is correlated with increases instudents' self-esteem, satisfaction with college, and persis-tence in school. Yet national surveys reveal that on mostcampuses academic advising, when it occurs at all, tends tobe primarily clerical in character rather than developmental,focusing as it does on registration.

Can Today's Students Learn?Given our students' diverse backgrounds, frequent under-preparation, and limited academic success, with about halfwithdrawing before graduation, some faculty believe manylack the ability to learn. But striking success with elemen-tary and high school students of modest acKlemic originsand high-quality methods of instruction in college bothdemonstrate students' potential for high achievement, pro-vided we adapt to their needs rather than demand theyadapt to our traditions. The higher the quality of instruction,

vi

the lower the correlation between students' assessed abilityand the quality of their learning.

How Can We Improve the Quality ofThe Student Outcomes We Produce?Research now available on the student experience in col-leges and universities shows we must make substantialchanges if we are to serve society's needs for highly edu-cated employees, citizens, and leaders. Significant steps wecan take are to develop clear missions, carefully define ourintended outcomes, hold high expectations for our studentsand ourselves, comprehensively assess both students andinstitutions, use research on student learning and organiza-tions, integrate our curricula, systematically design instruc-tion that will involve students actively at every point, teachstudents how to learn, develop a campus climate that chal-lenges and supports each person, and ensure each studenthas high-quality developmental academic advising.

Our widespread problems in enabling all our students tosucceed require vigorous, systemic responses. Research onstudent development, coupled with modern educationalmethods and quality improvement principles, can enable usfor the first time in human histoty to educate all of the peo-ple to a high level. We will, however, have to use, ratherthan ignore, research. Informed, committed, and sustainedleadership at all levels will be required, and institutions willhave to invest in significant leadership training. Graduateschools will have to provide thorough, demanding profes-sional training as educators for the future faculty, and thecurrent professoriat will require significant assistance indeveloping the diverse professional knowledge and skillsnow required to educate our students. Professionally pre-pared and accountable leadership and faculty can developa more positive and supportive culture on campus, buildcommunity and improve faculty and staff morale, and pro-duce the high-quality results society now urgently needsand is asking us to provide.

Redesigning Higher Education all

9

CONTENTS

Foreword xiAcknowledgments xiiiIntroduction 1

Educating All the PeoplePurpose and Scope of This Report 3

What Is Student Development andHow Does It Happen? 7

What Are the Critical Competencies? 7

flow Do the Critical Competencies Develop? 9The Role of Students' Active Involvement 21

Conditions for Educational Quality: A Summary 2!

The Curriculum: Framework for Development 25Design of the Curriculum: Focusing on Students'

Development 26Effects of the Curriculum's Courses 30Overall Effects of the Curriculum 32Conclusions 34

Instruction: Teaching, Testing, and CommunicatingOutcomes 37

What Do We Teach and What Do They Learn? 37What Do Classroom Tests Measure? 60What Do Grades Tell Us? Do Grades Affect Outcomes? 66

The Campus Climate: Context for Development 73Climate and Student Development 73Integration into the Community and Involvement 74Commuter and Part-time Students 76Students' Involvement with Faculty 76The Climate for Women and Members of

Minority Groups 77Conclusions 85

Academic Advising: Guiding Development 87Developmental Advising: Keystone of Educational

Quality 88How Good Is Our Advi g? 90The Necessity for Training 91Evaluation, Recognition, and Reward 92Conclusions 92

Can Today's Students Learn? Achieving SuccessWith High Standards for All 95

Solving the Two-Sigma Problem 96Success in Mathematics for Minority Students 98

Redesigning Higher Education

1 0

ix

z

Graduate Professional Schools: Admission andGraduation for Minority Students 100

Educational Effectiveness and Efficiency 100Conclusions 103

Improving Quality: The Need for a Sea Change 1051. Clear Missions and Goals: Setting High Expectations,

Focusing Effort, Reducing Waste 1072. Knowledge of Results: Using Systematic Assessment

To Create a Culture of Evidence 109

3. Coherent Curricula: Integrating Development 1104. Research-Based Methods of Instruction: Doing

What Works 1135. Campus Climate: Beginning in the Classroom 1186. Learning to Learn: Strategies that Work 1187. Developmental Academic Advising: Building

Supportive Relationships 120Conclusions 121

Producing Results: Leadership for Quality 123Managing for Quality 123

Using Research to Improve Quality 124

Adequate Resources: The Cost of Waste 127Our Standards: Setting High Expectations

For Ourselves 129Being Clear about Purpose: What Business Are We In? 131

Who Owns These Problems? Management's Role ofLeadership 132

Professional Development: Prerequisite of Quality 134

Management Development: Enhancing Leadership 135Faculty Development: Foundation for Student

Dev elopment 139

Conclusions 143

A Call to Action: A New Kind of Community 145

References 151Index 195ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports 211Advisory Board 213

Consulting Editors 215Review Panel 217Recent Titles 221Order Form

FOREWORD

It was fully a generation ago that sociologist Martin Trowfirst alerted us to the imminent transition of American highereducation from an elite system organized to educate but afraction of the populace to one guided by the democraticideals of universal access, the gateway to a learning society.And that transition in access would, Trow predicted, bringwith it radical shifts in the social purposes of a college edu-cation (lifelong learning), academic standards (greater het-erogeneity), curriculum and instruction (flex time andplace), faculty and administrative roles, and the politiciza-tion of the campusor, more accurately, the dissolution ofthe boundaries between the campus and the polity.

We have been living, and continue to live, that transition.With one hand, American higher education clings to thefaculty- and discipline-centered model of academic work(Jencks's and Reisman's academic revolution) that tookshape after World War II and crystallized in the 1960s andF170s; with the other, it gropes toward a more learner-centered model of collegiate education that can provide thebroad human resource platform needed to support theinformation society we are becoming. flow this dilemmaresolves itself, and what role each of us can play in thatresolution, is in the largest sense the question of the hourfor American higher education. I low will the transition bemanaged and how will each of usas faculty members oradministratorscontribute to managing it?

What resources do we have at our individual and collec-tive disposal to address such pressing professional, andultimately social and political, questions? We have searchingand scathing (usually more of the latter than the former)critiques of the faculty-centered model, including ProAamand Impostors in the Thmple on the one hand and somevisions of desirable learner-centered models on the other,among the most balanced of which is the work of the 198,4NIE Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence inAmerican I ligher Education.

l?edesigning Higher Llucati(m is distinctive in that itfocuses neither on critique nor on prescription alone, buton the theoretically grounded links between the two.Within the context of contemporary theory on studentdevelopment, Lion Gardiner, associate professor of zoologyat Rutgers University, examines the growing body ofknowledge about student learning, college outcomes, and

Redesigning Higher 1.:dliciinnn

12xi

the effectiveness of various options for instruction andassessment as the basis for identifying an empiricallygrounded set of practices that we know lead to betterlearning for students. The challenge in moving to a morestudent-centered model is first clarifying what the basicelements of that model would be. And here ProfessorGardiner scours the readily available and the more arcanesources, the widely published and the more and less scat-tered literatures, and melds them into a coherent and con-sistent portrait of how we might conduct our instructionalmission.

But faculty roles and instructional strategies are, as Pro-fessor Gardiner recognizes, embedded in our organizationalarrangements and cultures. And it is to the iwtter of effect-ing the organizational changes that will support the re-design of college teaching that he devotes the latter part ofthe monograph. These changes include how we train ourcollege teachers, how we develop our faculty and aca-demic administrators, and, ultimately, how we set our insti-tutional priorities. Ile concludes with an institutional agen-da for beginning to move forward.

Professor Gardiner's work was originally developed dur-ing his tenure as a Faculty Fellow at the New jersey In-stitute for Collegiate Teaching and Learning, one of a grow-ing number of state and regional initiatives to support andintegrate the efforts of individual faculty who continue tostruggle between the norms of their socialization and theneeds of their students. This volume will, I hope, serve as aresource for that journey.

Martin J. FinkelsteinDirector, New jersey Institute forCollegiate Teaching and Learning

Seton Hall University

New Jersey Institute

for Collegjate

Teaching and Learning

Mailing address seton I.Il t niversay, Or.inge. In1"9F m.iiI finkelmadlanmail shu edu

xii

13

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people have contributed to the development of thismonograph. Martin J. Finkelstein of the New Jersey Institutefor Collegiate Teaching and Learning suggested I writeabout student development in college, and he has providedideas and encouragement, various information and materi-als, and support for some release time to assist the process.He also read various drafts of the manuscript and providedmany helpful suggestions.

Other colleagues have provided stimulating and informa-tive discussions that have influenced my thinking, and sev-eral of them contributed materials that have further aidedmy work: Howard B. Altman, Ralph Blair, Madan Capoor,Robert A. Cornesky, Robert M. Diamond, Mary Diez, RobertG. Fuller, Joanne Gainen, Thomas J. Grites, Wesley R. I lab-ley, Rachel Hadas, Gary R. Hanson, Mark J. Huisman, Kath-leen M. Kies, Steven P. McNeel, Theodore J. Marchese,Robert J. Menges, Barbara J. Millis, William S. Moore, Doug-las W. Morrison, Alan Oppenheim, Rosa Oppenheim, Alton0. Roberts, Frederick R. Schram, Myrna Smith, andVincent Tinto.

Barbara Bretcko, Daniel Burke, Linda Dye, EamonnKelly, Mary Mowry-Raddock, John Pesda, and Myrna J.Smith read and commented helpfully on various earlydrafts. Frances Bartkowski, Douglas W. Morrison, NancyOmaha Boy, and Raymond T. Smith read parts of the man-uscript, and Jonathan D. Fife, Dorothy J. Harnish, Lynn A.Wild, and four anonymous reviewers read the entire manu-script. Each person offered many detailed and helpful sug-gestions, which have substantially improved the final result.

The participants during three semesters in the RutgersUniversityCampus at Newark Teaching Excellence CenterFaculty Seminar on Students, Learning, and Teaching con-tributed various data, as did hundreds of Rutgers studentsin my classes.

The following people provided specific information ordata and helpful materials from their own research andwritings: Clifford Adelman, Nancy V. Chism, James A.Eison, Peter A. Facione, Donald R. Gallagher, Patricia A.Hutchings, Glenn R. Johnson, Christine A. Karatka, ArchieLapointe, Sherry Levy-Reiner, Karron G. Lewis, GeorgineLoacker, Ann F. Lucas, Donald L. McCabe, JacquelineMcCaffrey, Marcia rvi. Mentkowski, Michael Moffatt, Patricia

Redesigning Higher Education Xiii

14

Murrell, Leonard Ramist, James L. Rate liff, Bernice R.Sandler, and Michael R. Winters.

Jeanne R. Baptiste, Carolyn Foote, and Wanda J. Gawien-owski secured innumerable materials from various librariesboth within and beyond the Rutgers University library sys-tem. Michael T. Bowman loaned me useful materials fromhis personal library.

I am grateful to each of these people. Without their con-cern for students and higher education and support for theproject, my work would have been very difficult indeed.I especially thank those many dedicated and tireless re-searchers without whose work on students, teachers, andcolleges there would be little new to say and far fewer use-ful insights to share. Their work permits us to develop anew vision of human development and of the higher edu-cation enterprise.

And, finally, thanks are due Rutgers University, withoutwhose support I could not have undertaken t1.- endeavor.

15

INTRODUCTION

The worid is far smaller today than it was at the end ofWorld War II. Transponation and communication link usfirmly with other nations. Trade and finance are global. Thelast decade witnessed an extraordinary movement towarddemocracy, and many other nations now seek, througheducation and technology, benefits for their people wehave long enjoyed. Some of these nations now press useconomically and even threaten to outpace us. Leaders inbusiness and government have warned for some time thatwe may have become complacent.

Technology is changing society. The U.S. Department ofLabor projects a 22 percent increase between 1988 and2000 in jobs requiring education beyond high school("Demand" 1990). By 2000, a majority of all new jobs inthe United States will require education beyond highschool (National Task Force 1990). We in higher educationhave been asked to respond vigorously to prepare our stu-dents for this technological environment, an environmentvery different from the one many of us faced at graduation.

White males, the historic mainstays of technological pro-fessions, today account for an increasingly smaller part ofthe workforce. From 1985 through 2000, they will numbera mere 15 percent of new workers (Pool 1990). Women,members of racial and ethnic minority groups, and foreignerswill have to make up the difference. Many more mathe-matics and science teachersteachers in those disciplinesthat will 13- essential to our technological advancecouldbe needed over the decade ahead (Darling-Hammond andHudson 1990).

Educating All the PeopleDuring the three decades following World War II, U.S. col-lege and university populations expanded far more than atany previous time. Between 1947 arid 1963, enrollmentsincreased more than twofold, by 1977 an additional fivefold(Pew 1990). The wave of servicepeople returning from thewar was later followed by anothertheir children, the babyboomers of the 1960s.

The late 1960s and 1970s brought with them anotherdevelopment that profoundly affected institutions of highereducation. Efforts to increase social equity, particularly bystate governments, led to large numbers of so-called "new"students, who began to appear on campuses across the

Redesignin,g Higher Education

16

country (Cross 1971). Women, people of color, and part-time and older students all made their presence felt in insti-tutions long overwhelmingly the preserve of white, male,"academically adept adolescents" (Pew 1990, p. 1). By1984, 19.7 percent of college students were nonwhite; b}1985, 42 percent were older than 25, 52 percent werewomen, and 42 percent attended part time (Smith 1989).Today, these new students have swollen student popula-tions until, together, they number over 14 million people(National Center 1993). Moreover, whereas previous gener-ations of students overwhelmingly lived on campus, today80 percent of undergraduates in this country commute tocollege (Jacoby 1989).

The new students, far more representative of Americansas a whole than their predecessors, were also less welleducated and thus less well prepared for college than tilt-1rrelatively more privileged peers. Therefore, they broughtwith them to college challenges quite different from thosetheir institutions had previously confronted. In many cases,these students came from families less economically welloff. The goals to which they aspired, their styles of learn-ing. and their needs were all significantly different fromthose of more traditional students.

These changes in our students have continued apace.Traditional, first-time, full-time, undergraduate students whoenroll in college directly from high school will soon be out-numbered by a new "emerging majority": students who arepart time, 25 years of age or older, and who have notcome to college directly from high school or who havestopped out of college for longer than a year (Pew 1990).In 1960, students of Caucasian ancestry made up 90 per-cent of undergraduates at the University of CaliforniaBerkeley; in 1980, they accounted for 66 percent and, morerecentl)/, about 45 percent (Duster 1991). In 1991, enteringfirst-year students at Berkeley were for the first time pri-marily people of color. Asian-Americans alone constituted35 percent of the class, whites a mere 30 percent. Thistrend will continue. In 1988, 20 percent of children underage 17 were members of racial minorities; by 2000, theywill make up one-third (Commission on Minority 1988).

Today, we are being asked to educate all of the peopleto a very high level. Society depends on us to developpeople who can, as employees, meet the needs of business

'I 7

for the international competition of the 21st century. Inaddition, our graduates will be central to solving everymajor social problem that faces usineffective schools,unstable families, drug abuse, crime, international conflict,environmental degradation. We are witnessing a prolifera-tion of partisan strife worldwide and an explosion of intol-erant ideological division at home. Society depends on usto produce graduates who have a sophisticated understand-ing of themselves and others who differ from them, whohave the values and intellectual, professional, and socialskills required as teachers, social workers, criminologists,ecologists, businesspeople, and citizens to lead our democ-racy into the new century and to create a peaceable andeconomically productive national and world community.

Many observers believe higher education has entered aperiod of change as great as any it has ever experienced.Although our system of higher education may be the bestto have been developed by any nation, many questionwhether we continue to meet society's needs. They believewe will have to alter fundamentally many of the ways weconduct our affairs if we are to produce the quality ofgraduates society now requires. Although students of thelast quarter century have in many ways been very differentfrom their predecessors and although society has muchhigher expectations for their educators than rer before,many of our constituents believe we in higher educationhave not responded well to our students' needs and havefallen far short of society's expectations. In 1983, A Nationat Risk: The Imperative of Educational Reform (NationalCommission 1983) called attention to widespread educa-tional problems in this country. Since then, a series ofhighly critical reports have focused specifically on qualityin higher education, expressing a growing sense of urgencyabout perceived inadequacies and necessary changes(Bennett 1984; Boyer 1987; Cheney 1990; Commission forEducational 1994; Project on Redefining 1985; Study Group1984; Wingspread Group 1993; Working Party 1986).

Purpose and Scope of This ReportHow valid are these public perceptions? How effective arewe at educating our students? Unfortunately, because fewcolleges or universities assess in detail what their studentsknow and are able to do, either when they arrive on carn-

Manyobserversbelievehighereducationhas entered aperiod ofchange asgreat as anyit has everexperienced.

Redesigning Higher Education 3

1 S

pus or when they graduate, they have limited informationon which to base answers to these questions. Further, nocomprehensive state or national assessment provides thisevidence. The professional research literature on highereducation, however, now contains much valuable informa-tion, albeit widely scattered, that can I. 2lp us answer thesequestions and provide essential guidance to learn howeffective we are and to improve the quality of our stu-dents' learning.

This monograph brings together in one place the findingsof hundreds of studies on various aspects of higher educa-tion and attempts to make them readily available. Its pur-poses are to help readers better understand their institu-tions by providing a basis for continuously improving thequality of their students' learning and to stimulate informeddiscussion about students and learning everywhere. Theprimary focus is the status of four core areas central to thequality of student development (used throughout thismonograph to refer broadly to any desirable and naturalchange in students' cognitive, affective, or motor capacities)in higher education: curriculum, instruction, campus psy-chological climate, and academic advising. It reviews em-pirical research that illuminates the impact of each corearea on students' learning and accomplishment of missionsand that can (1) guide readers' thinking as they reflect onthe current quality of their own courses, programs, institu-tions, and systems; (2) help them discover fresh insightsand new ways of viewing their work and organizations;and (3) enable them to identify areas where they can im-prove quality on campus. The report also provides numer-ous specific suggestions on how to improve the contribu-tion of each core area to students' development and sug-gestions concerning issues of leadership and management.

The report is addressed to the following audiences:

Faculty members who, although well trained in thecontent of their disciplines, may be less familiar withthe professional literature on student development oreducational processes and wish to enhance their ownprofessional knowledge and skills, thereby helpingtheir students learn more effectively;Trustees and academic administratorspresidents,provosts, deans, department chairsresponsible for

19

accomplishment of missions, who might gai deeperinsight into what does, does not, and should go oninsideand outsidethe classroom and into methodsof leadership that can more effectively meet the educa-tional needs of all their constituents;People responsible for faculty, instructional, and lead-ership development, who might identify specific areason which to focus their efforts and key issues to raise,and find empirical support for various practices and arich collection of written resources to help in solvingproblems;Student affairs professionals, who can gain insight intotheir students experiences, particularly in their aca-demic activities, thereby more effectively helping themto integrate their education (see Bloland, Starnatakos,and Rogers 1994 for a critique of student developmentefforts in student affairs);Government leaderselected officials, members oftheir staffs, and members of higher education coordi-nating agenciescharged with guiding public highereducation, ensuring taxpayers a high return on theirinvestment, and overseeing an enterprise central to thefuture well-being and economic success of the statesand the nation;Journalists who interpret higher education to their com-munities, who can find up-to-date information onimportant research, issues, and social concerns affectingcolleges and universities and can discover ideas and awide array of resources to aid them in their work; andConcernec' 2itizensbusiness leaders, taxpayers, par-ents, and studentswho are our customers and pay ourway, who can gain insight into human development andan overview of the higher education enterprise, whichwill have an increasingly powerful impact on society.

In every case, readers can use the report as a resource toinform decision making and action.

The section following this introduction reviews the mostimportant abilities society requires of students today, theresults of research describing how certain of these crucialabilities develop, and the conditions that are now believednecessary to produce them. The following four sectionsexamine the four core areas central to student development

Redess;gning Higher Mut:alio?, 5

20

and the contribution research suggests they now make tothis development: curriculum; instruction (methods, theintellectual climate of the classroom, students' involvement,classroom tests, and grades); the campus climate; and aca-demic advising.

The final four sections lay out the challenge to highereducation and describe rich opportunities for producingdramatic gains in students' learning, examining evidenceabout the relative capacity of students to learn at a veryhigh level; describing seven specific changes we can make,each one of which can improve students' learning andtogether can lead to significant gains in an institution'soverall capacity to produce learning; and addressing over-arching issues of leadership, management, and professionaldevelopment necessary to foster the essential changes andlink everything together in a systemic whole. The final sec-tion pres,2nts a vision and a challenge to develop a newkind of community on campus.

WHAT IS STUDENT DEVELOPMENT ANDHOW DOES IT HAPPEN?

What Are the Critical Competencies?Leaders in business, industry, and government have identi-fied certain knowledge, skills, and dispositions as especiallyimportant for personal, business, and national economicand democratic success in the years ahead:

Conscientiousness, personal responsibility, anddependabilityThe ability to act in a principled, ethical fashionSkill in oral and written communicationInterpersonal and team skillsSkill in critical thinking and in solving complexproblemsRespect for people different from oneselfThe ability to adapt to change andThe ability and desire for life-long learning (Candyand Crebert 1991; Carnevale, Gainer, and Meltzer1990; "Challenge" 1995; Marshall 1989; Van Horn 1995;Wingspread Group 1993).

The amount of information being created today is enor-mous compared to any time in our history. Over a decadeago, an estimated 6,000 to 7,000 papers in science alonewere being written daily, and information in science andtechnology was doubling every 5.5 years, a rate of increasethat was projected to "jump to perhaps 40 percent peryear" (Naisbitt 1982, p. 24) because of computer manipula-tion. As a result of this high rate of discovery, knowledgetoday becomes relatively quickly obsolete, and -in this eraof the knowledge explosion, what students know whenthey leave college will not be nearly as important as whatthey are capable of learning" (Cross 1986, p. 10). Learningmust continue throughout life.

How closely do the outcomes we in the academy desirefor our students compare with the abilities required today inthe world of work? Faculty agree almost universally that thedevelopment of students' higher-order intellectual or cogni-tive abilities is the most important educational task of col-leges and universities. These abilities underpin our students'perceptions of the world :Ind the consequent decisions theymake Specifically, critical thinkingthe capacity to evaluateskillfully and fairly the quality of evidence and detect error,hypocrisy, manipulation, dissembling, and biasis central to

Redeugning 1104ber Muctakm 7

22

hoth personal success and national needs. A 1972 study of40,000 faculty members by the American Council on Edu-cation found that 97 percent of the respondents indicatedthe most important goal of undergraduate education is tofoster students' ability to tnink critically (Milton 1982). Wealso value highly creative problem solving and invention. Ina 1989 survey of 5,450 faculty members from all types ofinstitutions by the Car-negie Foundation for the Advance-ment of Teaching, 70 percent of the respondents statedthat enhancing creative thinking in undergraduate educa-tion is very important (Boyer 1989). Bowen's Catalog ofGoals, based on his review of 1,500 goal statements hefound in the literature of higher education, includes suchwidely accepted cognitive outcomes as skill in written andoral communication, quantitative skills involving (amongothers) elementary mathematics and statistical reasoning,and rationalitylogical, obiective thinking, a "disposition toweigh evidence, evaluate facts and ideas critically, and . . .

think independently," and a developed "ability to analyzeand synthesize" (Bowen 1977, p. 55). Also important are thetolerance of or openness to novel ideas, a "willingness toquestion orthodoxy," the capacity "to deal with complexityand ambiguity," and "appreciation of intellectual and cu-ltural diversity" (p. 55).

College and university faculty by no means limit the out-comes they value to the cognitive domain. Primarily affec-tive outcomes include an appreciation of esthetic expres-sion in literature, an, and nature; intellectual integrity; anda desire for lifelong learning (Bowen 1977). Explicitly emo-tional and moral concerns include sensitivity to feelings andemotions, emotional stability, assertiveness, self-confidence,acceptance of self and others, the capacity for empathy(putting oneself in the place of another), respect and toler-ance for and cooperation with diverse people, a demo-cratic, nonauthoritarian point of view, the belief in inter-nalized and nordogmatic moral principles, and a sense ofsocial responsibility (Bowen 1977).

Faculty also usually desire their graduates to have sub-stantive knowledge about both western and nonwesternhaditions, philosophy, natural and social science, and litera-ture and art, as well as knowledge, skills, and valuesappropriate to some area of concentration. "Education ofthe whole person" is a goal many of us hold dear.

8

23

-

Clearly, the faculties of U.S. colleges and universitiesand leaders in various sectors of society agree substantiallyon the desired outcomes of student development. Acquir-ing the kinds of knowledge, skills, and values we our-selves respect should well equip our graduates for therealities they will face as citizens and workers, and formeeting the nation's increasingly urgent need for a highlyeducated citizenry.

How Do the Critical Competendes Develop?Research conducted during the last three decades has illu-minated key dimensions of our students' development cen-tral to producing these important abilities, enriching ourunderstanding of what schools and colleges can do fortheir students. For example, many laypeople conceive ofintelligence, the ability to learn and engage in cognitivelycomplex behavior and abstract problem solving, as beingprimarily determined by unchangeable genetic characteris-tics. Although it is influenced by heredity, however, manycognitive psychologists understand intelligence more flexi-bly in terms of dynamic intellectual processes that can bedeveloped and significantly improved (Baron 1985; Binet1909, cited in Covington 1985; Ceci 1990; Cronbach 1984;Gardner 1985; Linn 1989; Plomin 1990; Schaie and Parr1981; Sternberg 1985, 1986). "Intelligence is achievementthe result of past learning as well as a predictor of futurelearning" (McKeachie et al. 1990, p. 5). "Intelligence is edu-cation's most important product, as well as its most impor-tant raw material" (Snow 1980, p. 185).

This new knowledge about student development hasbecome essential if colleges are to understand their diversestudent clients and design educational experiences that canmeet their needs (Chick%.ring and Associates 1981; Del-worth, Hanson, and Associates 1989; Fried 1981; Hood andArceneaux 1990; Knefelkamp, Widick, and Parker 1978;Parker 1978; Pascarella and Terenzini 1991; Rodgers 1989;Uperaft, Gardner, and Associates 1989). To develop anessential conceptual foundation for discussion throughoutthis report, this subsection briefly reviews four key aspectsof student development: the capacity for abstract reasoning,epistemology, the capacity for principled ethical reasoning,and the ability to work cooperatively in groups. Togetherwith other dimensions of development, these four aspects

Redesigning Higher Education

24

9

make key contributions to that educational outcome with-out pricewisdom (Sternberg 1990).

Capacity for abstract reasoning: A foundationof higher-order abilitiesAll types of complex, higher-order reasoning, such as criti-cal thinking, the creative solution of problems, and princi-pled ethical reasoning, require as their prerequisite thecapacity to manipulate abstractionsvalue, change, goodand bad, purpose, trust, responsibility, democracynot tomention myriad technical concepts like balance of pay-ments, organic evolution, social class, and force, constructsthat permit us to comprehend the world, contribute to itswell-being, and enjoy it fully. In other words, we must beable to think with abstract symbols that stand for complexmeanings and be able to manipulate these symbols, singlyand with others, to construct new meaning for ourselves.Every discipline and professional field represented in thLcurricula of colleges and universities presupposes students'capacity to manipulate its abstractions.

Piaget discovered that not until about age 11 are childrenfirst able to reason with abstractions, a process known as"formal reasoning" (Inhelder and Piaget 1958; Piaget 1972).The reasoning or cognitive operations of younger childrenare thought to be limited to a concrete world of real ob-jects, people, and situations. Later studies of college stu-dents, however, have repeatedly demonstrated in variousfields that, despite their age and regardless of our own per-ceptions of their reasoning ability, a majority of our stu-dents are still concrete operational or transitional thinkers,somewhere between concrete and formal in their reasoningabilities (Dunlop and Fazio 1976; liardy-Brown 1981;Kolodiy 1975; Kuhn et al. 1977; McKinnon and Renner1971; Robbins 1981; Tomlinson-Keasey 1978). For example,a study of first-year physical science students at RutgersUniversity and Essex County College, all but a few ofwhom stated an interest in science-related majors, foundthat at least two-thirds of the students had not yet becomeformal thinkers (Griffiths 1973). Among 53 Rutgers students,of whom 3.8 percent were members of minority groups,only 34 percent were fully -formal operational thinkers; 66percent were not yet formal. Of 59 Essex students, whoincluded among them 57.9 percent minority group mem-

10

25

bers, 27 percent were categorized formal operational and73 percent were nonformal. Studies further suggest that,without specific assistance from teachers, students mayremain thus cognitively limited throughout their lives.

The study also discovered that rr ny of the nonformal stu-dents, 55 percent at the university and 23 percent at the com-munity college, depended (many of them presumably suc-cessfully) on the memory and recitation of technical jargon,such as mass, force, and momentum. These nonformal opera-tional students did not understand the concepts representedby the terms they used. The rest of the nonforrnal students,11 percent and 50 percent at the two institutions, respec-tively, lacked even technical terms to use and were helpless(see also "The problem of misconceptions" on p. 47 and "De-velopment of higher-order cognitive abilities" on p. 50).

Concrete operational students "will consistently be unableto follow many lines of argument" in lectures; students intransition to formal operational reasoning "will frequentlyencounter difficulties" (Robbins 1981, p. 209). Only fullyformal students "will in general have no difficulty followingthe abstract reasoning found in the average . . . lecture" (p.209). Nonformal thinkers will have difficulty imagining pos-sibili ...s that could exist now, in the past, or in the future;engaging in propositional, probabilistic, and correlationalreasoning; considering relevant variables separate fromeach other; and conducting mental operations, such as inmental experiments. Such students may be unable to en-gage in metacognitionthe critical examination of theirown thinking for inconsistencies and for appropriateness ofexplanationand the ability to compare and contrast differ-ent approaches to solving problems (Karp lus et al. 1977).Their limits in thinking hypothetically and deductively corn-promise their understanding of many essential componentsof college-level reasoning; experiments in sciencenot tomention much that is central to mature understanding inother fieldsmay be beyond their ken.

These studies raise serious questions about what nonfor-mal students, who in many institutions constitute a major-ity, might be learning in their courses and about whatkinds of knowledge and skills tests assess. Studies showstriking correlations between students capacity for formaloperations and success in college courses (Hardy-Brown1981; I Iudak and Anderson 1990).

Redesigning INher Mucation 11

26

Research generally shows inconsistent patterns in thedevelopment of formal reasoning skills, or relatively smallincreases, over the college years (Pascarella and Terenzini1991). Specially designed insu-uction, however, such as theADAPT Program at the University of NebraskaLincoln(ADAP I' 1978) and Project SOAR at Xavier University ofLouisiana (Carmichael et al. 1978), have long been moresuccessful than conventional instruction in fostering effec-tive movement from concrete to formal reasoning. Suchprograms emphasize students' active involvement in learn-ing and cooperative work with other students and deem-phasize lectures, which consistently benefit only the mostformal of students (Kolodiy 1975).

Epistemology: Precondition for critical thinkingA second dimension of cognitive development that is ofgreat practical importance to college teachers is a student'sepistemology: the assumptions he or she makes about theorigin of knowledge and value and about the role ofauthority in learning and life.

A study of several cohorts of Harvard undergraduates(Perry 1970, 1981) identified nine distinct epistemologies or"positions" a student passes through during developmentand, therefore, different sets of beliefs he or she sequen-tially holds about content, activities, and roles central to theprocess of learning in college. Numerous other researchershave confirmed and expanded these findings (Baxter-Magolda 1990a, 1990b, 1992a, 199213; Baxter-Magolda andPorterfield 1985; Belenky et al. 1986; King and Kitchener1994; Moore 1989, 1991a). These nine positions are summa-rized here as four different, sequential levels.

A student currently at the first level, Dualism, under-stands the world in dualities: black-white, right-wrong,good-bad, "my group and its beliefs are good, othergroups and their beliefs are bad." All questions, issues, orproblems have one right answer or solution; all alterna-tives are wrong. One learns what is correct and what isthe right thing to do from Authorities, because AuthoritiesKnow. he Dualist thus depends on authorities and tendsto be docile, accepting, and therefore manipulable; "criticalthinking" is an inscrutability. Self-critical metacognition, thecapacity to examine and critique one's own thoughts,beliefs, and values, is impossible. Dualism constitutes a

12

27

potential wellspring of ethnocentrism, fanaticism, andself-centered, intolerant ideology of every stripe. Submis-siveness to established authorities and self-righteous feel-ings of superiority over people and groups dissentingfrom one's own viewpoints characterize dualistic authori-tarianism, which can pose great danger to society (Alte-meyer 1988).

The second epistemological level is Mithiplicity. TheMultiplist has come to understand that there can be morethan one legitimate way to look at a situation, that compe-tent authorities can disagree. But the Multiplist is trapped insubjectivity; in the absence of an agreed-upon Truth, oneopinion is as good as another. To have an opinion makesthe opinion right: "You have your opinion and I have mine,and that's cool." This shallow "tolerance" of dissent, how-ever, is quite distinct from the thought-through and resrect-ful acceptance of diversity we desire for our students andthat society urgently needs. The Multiplist's key cognitivedeficiency is not to comprehend the complex, contextualinterrelationship of factors and the need to identify thesefactors carefully and evaluate critically the relative qualityof evidence available in support of alternative opinions,ideas, or hypotheses.

Under appropriate conditions, Multiplists can move grad-ually into the third epistemological level, Relativism. whosemeaning here is quite different from the common lay useof the term, which is more akin to the subjectivity found inMultiplicity. A Relativist understands the complex, contex-tual, interrelated nature of the world, and his or her gradu-ally developing critical capacity is deliberately applied toevaluating the quality of evidence adduced in support ofclaims. Complex relativistic procedures underpin the think-ing of all well-educated men and women and experts inevery field, presupposing the developed capacity for for-mal, abstract reasoning. Metacognitive ability and empathywith others first appear at this time.

Finally, having entered the fourth level, Commitnzent,understood today as part of klentity formation rather thanepistemology per se, a student comes to realize that, despiteliving in a complex, contingent world, he or she mustnevertheless construct personal values and principles forliving and make personal commitments to people, causes,and career.

Dualismconstitutes apotentialwellspring ofethnocentrism,fanaticism,and selfcentere4intolerantideology ofevery stripe.

RedesiOing Higher Llucation 13

2S

Clearly, a student's current epistemological level is a keyfactor affecting his or her response to efforts to inducelearning. Dualists may eagerly take notes in traditional lec-tures but reject appeals for the critical thinking crucial totheir development. They may resist cooperative group workwith other students, whom they view as lacking credibilityas authorities in the field. Both Dualists and Multiplists maybe unable to understand the point of carefully collectingand evaluating evidence or of experimental thinking, thebasis of much that we teach. Relativists may not yet see apersonal need for the commitments that provide a founda-tion for adult behavior.

Studies consistently show that most of our undergradu-ates hold Dualistic and Multiplistic epistemologies at thelower end of the scheme. Most first-year students of tradi-tional age are authoritarians (Sanford 1962); Relativists arcrare. Sixty-eight percent of 101 Miami University (Ohio)tirst-year students in one study were Dualists (Baxter-Magolda 1992a). Although many or most students increasein epistemological complexity during college, the move-ment is slow and uneven. In studies of mostly collegeundergraduates in diverse institutions, the percentage ofstudents moving one-third or more "Perry Position" (part ofa "level" as used here) during one semester ranged from 27to 56 (W. Moore 1991a). Another study showed an oveiallchange from first year to graduation of less than one-haltPerry Position (Mentkowski and Strait 1983). In fact, studiessuggest most undergraduate students never reach Relativi,mThe percentages of undergraduate students testing asRelativists (Perry Position 5) in two samples were only 0 04(N = 2,757) and 0.26 (N = 391) (calculated from data ofWilliam S. Moore, cited in MacGregor 1987). Relativistsmade up 2 percent of the Miami (Ohio) senior-year sam-ples (N = 80); in the year following graduation, this num-ber had increased to 12 percent (N = 70) (Baxter-Magolda1992a). A sample of 264 Rutgers University students foundno Relativists.*

The implications of these studies are important for theway we attempt to educate students and assess outcome,(King 1978; Knefelkamp and Slepitza 1978). For example.

(..tntaLt the author tor turtlwr inlortnatton about the study at Rutgers

11

29

why is students' epistemological development in college soslow? If most students do not understand the need for criti-cal evaluation of evidence, how much do they understand(or what are they being asked to do) in their natural andsocial science courses, for example, and why are most ofthem not failing their tests in these courses? (See "What DoClassroom Tests Measure?" on p. 60.) If most graduate notyet_Relativists, how well prepared are they to understandand deal skillfully with the competing points of view theywill confront on important issues in all areas of their livesand professions? How many of our graduates can we claimare critical thinkers?

The percentage of incoming Canadian students whoscored "at least 'slightly authoritarian'" increased markedlyfrom 1973 to 1987, from 54 percent to 80 percent (Alte-meyer 1988, p. 327), including the upper three of six cate-gories. Mtemeyer's work also, however, demonstrates apositive effect of college attendance on reducing authoritar-ianism. In a society and world increasingly racked by vio-lent division among people based on differences of race,nationality, and religion, developing our students' episte-mologiestheir understanding of complexity and interre-latedness and their careful use of evidenceis surely oneof our most important responsibilities and challenges.

Capacity for principled ethical reasoning:The basis for moral behaviorHigher education in this country has been involved indeveloping character and values since its inception in 1636with the founding of Harvard College. Leaders in govern-ment, business, religion, and higher education, however,hae for some time been urging us to redouble our effortsto ensure graduates have developed the capacity for ethicalbehavior. Many share this concern for moral education; 85percent of respondents to the 1989 Carnegie faculty surveybelieved it was "very important" (41 percent) or "fairlyuriportant" (44 percent) to "shape student values in under-graduate education" (Boyer 1989). Many colleges and uni-versities, although by no means all, have their students'moral development as a stated educational outcome. Inone study, 31.6 percent of all 19 New Jersey communitycolleges had as a general education goal for their studentsto 'demonstrate the ability to make informed judgments

RecleiNning 111,411er Eilucalion 15

30

concerning ethical issues" (College Outcomes EvaluationProgram 1990a, p. 47). On the other hand, only one in 12,or 8.3 percent, of public four-year institutions in NewJersey reported having such an intended outcome.

Moral development can be partitioned into foitr separatebut related components: (1) moral or ethical sensitivityrecognizing a situation contains moral issues; (2) moraljudgmentdetermining right action; (3) moral motivationcaring to do the moral thing; and (4) moral characterbehaving in a moral way (Rest 1984, 1986, 1994a). The tourcomponents are by no means equal in their level of devel-opment in any person, but inadequate development in anyone of the components can result in moral failure. Thecomponents can be assessed separately from each other,and they require different experiences for their develop-ment (Bebeau 1994).

Complexity of moral judgment is linked to moral behav-ior (Bredemeier and Shields 1994; Duckett and Ryden 1994;Ponemon and Gabhart 1994; Rest 1994b; Thoma 1994), andresearch reveals common patterns in our reasoning aboutissues with moral content (Colby and Kohlberg 1987; Gil-ligan 1977, 1981, 1982; Kohlberg 1981; Kohlberg, Boyd, andLevine 1990; Kohlberg, Levine, and Hewer 1983; Nucci andPascarella 1987; Rest 1979, 1986; Rest and NarvAez 1994:Rich and DeVitis 1985). Knowledge of these patterns isessential for those who attempt to foster students' moraldevelopment. One's current reasoning about moral issues,situations, or problems depends upon the distance he orshe has progressed through a series of discrete, sequenti;Ildevelopmental stages, each representing a distinct moralphilosophy. 7esearchers have investigated moral judgmentin many diverse populations, among them urban and ruralAmericans, members of upper and lower social classes,adherents to various religions (Rest 1986, 1994a), and peo-ple of many different cultures (Snarey 1985). To the extentto which this conceptual framework remains consistent forsuch disparate populations, it could represent a truly objec-tive, universal pattern of moral decision making. Knowingour own students' developmental levels provides a mearsof understanding them and their reasoning about issueswith moral content, and it can enable us to develop educa-tional methods effective for helping them continue theirdevelopment.

16

3 1

At Stage 1 moral judgment, one's orientation is to punish-ment and obedience. What is right action is behavior thatwill avoid punishment and trouble from powers superior toone's own. Stage 2 moral judgment views right action asserving one's own desires and needs, and sometimes oth-ers'. A person adapts to his or her perceptions of what oth-ers want: "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."Mutual advantage of this sort defines reciprocity, not prin-ciples of justice, loyalty, gratitude, or responsibility.

Stage 3 reasoning is sometimes referred to as a "goodboynice girl" orientation. What is right is what will gainone favor or approval in the eyes of important others.Students at Stage 3 often support stereotypes of majorityor "natural" behavior.

Stage 4 judgment supports a law-and-order perspective. Arelatively rigid respect for authority and duty, abiding byfixed rules, and maintaining the social order are primaryconcerns for Stage 4 students. At Stage 5, however, studentsunderstand the relativity of values in the epistemologicalsense described earlier. As in Stage 4, the law is important,but morality is here understood more flexibly as based onsocial consensus; laws are capable of change in responseto social need. The official moral phlosophy of the UnitedStates as expressed in its Constitution resides at Stage 5.

The "autonomous" morality of Stage 6 is based on jniver-sal ethical principles. People reasoning at this stage considerwhat is right a matter of individual conscience as defined byself-chosen, abstract, and universal ethical principles or val-ues, as distinct from rigid, concrete, Stage 4 lawstheGolden Rule rather than the Ten Commandments. Theseprinciples articulate justice, reciprocity, equality, and respon-sibility among people. Respect for all persons as humanbeings, regardless of race, ethnic groul., or creed, is impor-tant to students at this stage. Stage 6 requires the hypotheti-cal reasoning characteristic of abstract, formal operationsand a Level 3 relativistic epistemology. Gilligan suggests thatwomen tend to emphasize quality of interpersonal relation-ships and care-giving responsibilities in considering moralissues (Gilligan 1977, 1982), although most studies do notshow gender differences (Thoma 1994). Stages 1 and 2 arePreconventional, Stages 3 and 4 (the modal stages of moralreasoning of most people) Conventional, and Stages 5 and 6Postconventional.

Redesigning Higher Education 17

32

As one moves through the stages toward more complex,abstract postconventional or principled moral reasoning,thinking is increasingly less selfishly oriented and moreable to recognize the rights and needs of others. Mostundergraduate college students reason primarily at conven-tional Stages 3 and 4. Thus, they often learn principledsolutions to ethical problems -largely by rote," "have trou-ble extending principles beyond the cases specificallytaught," "are baffled when ideals conflict," and "oversim-plify life situations" (Rest 1994b, p. 214). Thinking aboutmoral issues generally increases in complexity and percent-age of postconventional principled reasoning through th,_;college years, albeit often relatively slowly (Mentkowskiand Strait 1983; Pascarella and Terenzini 1991). Specificeducational interventions in college can increase the moialstage of moral reasoning (I3ebeau 1994; Duckett and Ryden1)94; Mc Neel 1994; Rest 1986, 19941); Self, Olivarez, andBaldwin 1994; Sprinthall 1994; Whiteley 1982; Whiteley kindYokota 1988). Ensuring all our students have ample oppor-tunity to consider relevant moral dilemmas in many differ-ent courses, and thus develop their capacity for reasoningabout the worth and ethical treatment of others, is crucialto fitting them for effective citizenship and leadership inthe state, nation, and world.

Implications for students' developmentThe ability of our students to increase in these three typesof cognitive and ethical development during their collegeyears holds great significance for our diverse, multicultuialsociety. The increased cognitive complexity that attends thisdevelopment, and thus the capacity for self-knowledge andself-control, brings with it the potential for significant im-provement in mutual understanding and respect among dis-parate groups and the creative solution of our pressingsocial problems, not to mention superior technological,economic, and artistic productivity. Planned and systematicdevelopment of these complex abilities is now essential ifour society is to continue to flourish.

How are these abstract cognitive and ethical capacitiesdeveloped? The cognitive complexity necessary for ad-vanced formal operations or problem-solving ability "is de-veloped . . . through hard, disciplined work in self-criticalpursuit of high standards" (Lerner 1989, p 174). The several

18

33

major cognitive reorganizations that underpin mature, rela-tivistic epistemology and the capacity to engage in prind-pled ethical reasoning are difficult transformations to make.Authorities agree movement through these interconnecteddevelopmental sequences entails the gradual and repeatedreconstruction of the way a student views the world.

The development of cognitive complexity happens slowly,involves potential emotional obstructions, and is thought torequire extensive practice in reasoning, together with regu-lar assessment, prompt feedback, and reflection. For exam-ple, students who use primarily Stage 3 conventional moralreasoning cannot underst.-.nd and therefore respond to orprofit from illustrations, examples, or problems that requirepostconventional, principled ethical reasoning. If these stu-dents are to benefit from our instruction, research suggeststhey must be approached only slightly above their currentle,.el. Further, scant evidence exists that this increase incognitive complexity can be developed passively throughlecwres, automatically through the steady acquisition offacts and concepts, or through learning "steps" in "how tothink." "There is little doubt that higher levels of cognitiveand moral reasoning cannot be directly taught" (Johnsonand Johnson 1989, p. 49).

The evidence that people cannot understand epistemolo-gies or moral reasoning more than one level or stagebeyond their ownthe concept of "plus one"suggestsour instruction needs to be carefully designed so that,wherever he or she is developmentally situated, a studentcan engage in personally meaningful activities in a broaddiversity of disciplinary, moral, emotional, and social con-texts that can ease movement toward the next higher levelof complexity. We need to know at what point students arein their development if we are to :chieve the educationaleffects we want. We also need the essential body of profes-sional knowledge and array of skills that can enable us toaccomplish this difficult developmental task, the centralcore of the teaching profession.

Ability for cooperative work: The basis for communityDeveloped interpersonal skills and the ability to workeffectively in teams with others have become high prioritiesfor employers. What does research tell us about the valueof cooperation7 To what extent should we emphasize coop-

Redesigning 1hgher Education

3,1

19

eration as compared to primarily individual work or com-petition? (Kohn 1992; Rich and DeVitis 1992). A meta-analysisof 521 studies comparing the relative effects of cooperative.competitive, and individualistic behavior on many differentoutcomes, 40 percent of which were conducted in collegeand university settings, found individual efforts consistentlyoutperformed competitive efforts where the two approach-es were compared (Johnson and Johnson 1989).Cooperation, however, was generally more effective thaneither competition or individual work in producing desiredoutcomes. Fifty percent of the studies produced statisticallysignificant effects in favor of cooperation; only 10 percentfavored competition or individual effort.

The meta-analysis showed that cooperative learning, ascompared to competitive or individual learning, led tohigher-level reasoning ability and greater retention of learn-ing for students at all levels of schooling. Students showedboth movement among Piagetian stages of cognitive devel-opment and an increase in their level of moral reasoning.These effects are induced, not by discussion among stu-dents per se, but by intellectual conflict between alternativeexplanationsarguinent and counterargument. Learningthat occurs in groups can transfer to individual studentswhen they are tested later by themselves. The difference inimpact between cooperative and individual learning is par-ticularly notable for the higher-level thinking skills of analy-sis, synthesis, and evaluation as compared with low-levelrecall, comprehension, and plug-and-play formula applica-tion (see "Understanding cognitive outcomes" on p. 41).

Cooperative activities overwhelmingly more often had apositive effect on self-esteem than did competitive or indi-vidual activities. A number of studies in the meta-analysisexamined the personality characteristic of competitivenessversus the degree of success achieved in many diverseendeavors. In every case, for every group of people, a neg-ative correlation existed between competitiveness andaccomplishment. Studies showed that competition lowersartistic performance and undergraduates' ability to solveproblems. Moreover, competition breeds a number of unto-ward emotional symptoms. Competition is usually adverseto community: For one to win, others must lose.

A cooperative effort among students can also provide anopportunity to develop not only skill in critical, evaluative

20

35

thinking, but also skill at what has been called "connectedknowing" (Belenky et al. 1986; Clinchy 1989). Rather thanfocusing on judgment and evaluation, skills of critical think-ing, the focus of connected knowing is on understandinganother person and his or her perspective. Connectedknowing or learning requires the key skills of placing one-self in another's stead, of listening carefully, of hearingaccurately how another person is reasoning, understandingthe world, and feeling. These skills are essential today, notonly for academic, intellectual effectiveness, but also forcomprehending and having an impact on an increasinglydiverse, fractious, and violent world. They are essential forbuilding community.

The Role of Students' Active InvolvementConsiderable research over the last three decades hasexplored the relationship between students' active involve-ment in collegewith academic work, intellectual issues,the faculty, and other studentsand the development ofvarious outcomes (Astin 1977, 1984, 1993; Feldman andNewcomb 1969; Pace 1984, 1990; Pascarella 1985; Pasca-rella and Terenzini 1991). Based on a review Df 2,600 em-pirical studies of college's effects on students, "One of themost inescapable and unequivocal conclusions . . . is thatthe impact of college is largely deterniined by the individ-ual's quality of effort and level involvement in both aca-demic and nonacademic activities" (Pascarella and Teren-zini 1991, p. 610).

Involvement with people is one of the most importantways of inducing student development in college. Informal,out-of-class contact between students and faculty is corre-lated with many important outcomes, such as intellectuallevel, interpersonal skills, educational aspirations, autonomyand independence, and attainment and interest in scholarlycareers (Pascarella and Terenzini 1991). "The most influen-tial interactions appear to be those that focus on ideas orintellectual r.atters, thereby extending and reinforcing theintellectual goals of the academic program" (p. 620).

A study involving 24,847 students. 146 input variables,192 college environment (process) variables, and 82 studentoutcomes (having statistically removed the effects of theinput and environmental factors) concludes:

Redesigning Ilkgber Educatum

36

21

Student-faculty interaction has significant positive corre-lations with every academic attainment outcome . . .

every self-reported area of intellectual and personalgrowth, as well as with a variety of personality and attitu-dinal outcomes . . . and . . . all self-rated abilities exceptphysical health (Astin 1993, p. 383, emphasis in theoriginal).

Thus, "frequent interaction between faculty and students" isdesirable .p. 384).

Interacton between and among students shows a similareffect on development. "Once again, . . . a pervasive pat-tern of pwitive benefits [is] associated with frequent student-student interaction" (Astin 1993, p. 385). "The student'speer group is the single most potent source of influence ongrowth and development during the undergraduate years"(p. 398), and efforts "to find ways to engage students inextracurricular activi ies" (p. 386) are valuable.

The concepts of students' involvement (Astin 1984) andtheir quality of effort (Pace 1984) are similar to integrationin campus life (Pascarella and Terenzini 1991), an impoltant means for retaining students on campus until gradua-tion (Tinto 1987, 1993). Put anotUer way, in addition to aspotent direct developmental effects, the involvement of ,,a1-dents can serve to retain them on campus, an obvious pie-condition of development. "Involvement indices make upone of the most important and perhaps accurate ways ofassessing quality" on campus (Kuh 1981, p. 2).

On the basis of these lines of research (and others), stu-dents of human development today generally view theprocess of cognitive development as a gradual one inwhich students construct an increasingly complex, finelytextured, and abstract personal reality. This construction ofknowledge can be envisioned as occurring through anactive, dialectical process whereby a student continuallyinteracts with his or her environment. The interaction caninvolve the interposition of concepts within a student's ownmind or external phenomena, including other people(another student or a teacher). In college, as in life moregenerally, the process of construction often involves two ormore people working together to understand and solveproblemsto make meaning.

22

37

Conditions for Educational Quality: A SummaryA number of specific conditions, generally agreed upon byresearchers (see Astin 1993; Chickering and Gamson 1987,1991; Pascarella and Terenzini 1991; Study Group 1984),are thought to foster the development of these key college-and university-level competencies.

1. Challenge. Students need to be provided with activitiesaimed just above their current levels of cognitivedevelopment so they can both understand and bechallenged by them (Sanford 1966). These activitiescan set up important tensions or conflictscognitivedissonanceswith students' current understandingsof the wc..d and thus have developmental value bystimulating them to take one step beyond their pres-ent level.

2. A supponive environment. Both intellectual assistancein comprehending and emotional support when re-flecting are required from teachers and peers alike(Sanford 1966). The cognitive changes students experi-ence during development can lead to considerableinner turmoil as one view of the workl is challengedand gradually replaced by another. The risks of dam-aging self-esteem, stalling development, or provokingoutright retreat from painful confrontations with theworld are always present (Perry 1970, 1981).

3 Sustained, diverse, and appropriate active involvementin learning. Students should be kept busy reading,writing, solving, designing, and interacting coopera-tively with peers and professors, both in class andoutside of class, and reflecting on these experiences.They should be kept constantly thinking and feeling.Two fundamental principles underlie the conditions ofeducational excellence (Study Group 1984). First, "theamount of student learning and personal developmentassociated with any educational program is directlyproportional to the quality and quantity of [students')involvement in that program," and, second, "the effec-tiveness of any educational policy or practice is di-rectly related to the capacity of that policy or practiceto increase [students') involvement in learning" (p. 19).Students learn what they study.

"Theeffectivenessof anyeducationalpolicy orpractice isdirectlyrelated to thecapacity qfthat policy orpractice toincrease[students?involvement inlearning."

Redesigning Higher Education 23

3 S

4. High expectations. Expectations for quality of educa-tional outcomes should be high. Considerable researchhas demonstrated that hard, challenging goals can sub-stantially increase one's productivity, while no goals oreasy goals may actually set low ceilings for perfor-mance and thus actually retard quality of effort (Lockeand Latham 1984, 1990).

5. Clearly defined outcomes, frequent assessment, andprompt feedback. Knowing clearly what desired out-comes should be and having specific and timelyknowledge of actual results achieved contribute pow-erfully to improving performance (Locke and Latham1984, 1990). Students need to know what they shouldknow and be able to do and, on a regular basis, howwell they have succeeded in their efforts.

To what extent do our current practices in colleges anduniversities capitalize on this valuable knowledge about ourstudents? To what degree do we now use methods that areknown empirically to work? Do our educational processesconform to what experts today regard as high-quality, ac-cepted professional practice? What is the quality of the out-comes we produce? Can we improve the quality of oureducational processes by applying this research moreactively and thus significantly improve the quality ofour results?

The next four sections examine research exploring fourcore components of students' experiences on campus thatare central to their development and therefore critical tomaintaining and improving an institution's quality: curricu-lum, instruction, psychologicJ climate of the campus, andacademic advising.

TIDE CURRICULUM: Framework for Development

Based on an institution's own values and philosophy, the cur-riculum determines the pattern of courses a student takesand should thereby ensure, for each person, the intellectualrigor, depth, and balance among the types of learning neededfor his or her effective personal and professional develop-ment. Students need to learn concepts and principles, todevelop cognitive and motor skills, and to develop attitudesand values that will be important to them and to society.Central to their success is the selection of particular coursesthat will provide specific, developmentally appropriate expe-riences. The curriculum should be more than a sum of con-stituent parts. In both general education and a student'smajor field of concentration, it should serve as a map tointegrate its parts and help construct a coherent, thought-outview of self and the world.

To what extent do students now engage in such experi-ences in a planned and systematic fashion? To what degreedoes the curriculum foster the kinds of learning most im-portant for each person? Providing definitive answers tothese questions has been difficult. Research on the structureand effects of curricula is limited (Stark and Lowther 1986).Relatively little research exists on patterns of courses takenand the specific outcomes these courses produce. "Theprevalent way to view the college curriculum refers to itsintentions, not (cf. p. 8) . . . its results" (Ratcliff andAssociates 1990, p. 7). Although without research we can-not be sure our in-tended outcomes become our actualoutcomes, it is generally perceived that U.S. college anddepartment curricula generally are much less effective andefficient than they might be.

Difficulty in understanding the effectiveness of curriculais more basic than a lack of social science research, how-ever. Few institutions specify in clear detail their intendededucational results or outcomeswhat their graduatesshould know and be able to do. Moreover, because mostdo not systematically assess how much their students havelearned through their curricula, few colleges and universi-ties have an accurate idea of their actual educational out-comes or results, much less which curricular processeshave produced them. Assessment, of both outcomes andeducational processes, can demonstrate tha the curriculumis having its intended effects. The following discussionreviews findings of some of the limited studies available

Redesignin,q Higher Education 25

4 0

_

that suggest answers to several key questions about collegeand university curricula.

Design of the Curriculum: Focusing onStudents' DevelopmentDo distributional curricula serve students'aevelopmental needs?The "distribution" system of general education curricula, inwhich students fulfill requirements for graduation by choos-ing from menus of courses, is used by over 90 percent(Astin 1993) to 97 percent (flutchings, Marchese, andWright 1991) of U.S. colleges and universities. A majority ofthese curricula are similar to each other. In a study of 303institutions with distributional curricula, over half (53 per-cent) of the curricula could not be "distinguished by anyunique features" (Hurtado, Astin, and Dey 1991, P. 145).

Distributional curricula ordinarily provide students withconsiderable latitude when choosing their courses. High-quality, development-oriented academic advising is there-fore essential to enable our diverse, often seriously under-prepared and naive, students to choose wisely amongpotentially confusing curricular options so they can meettheir own developmental needs.

A comprehensive national study of thousands of studentsfound, for curricula that allowed students to choose amongvarious distributional general education courses, that thecpecific curricular structure in an institution made little dif-ference for most of the 22 general education outcomesstudied (Astin 1993). The types and breadth of coursesavailable to students, the specific courses included in a cur-riculum, and the relative freedom of choice had no "sub-stantial effect on how students develop" (p. 425). Astinfound, however, that a "true-core" interdisciplinary curricu-lum, characteristic of fewer than 2 percent of the hundredsof institutions in his sample, where all students take thesame, identical general education courses, did have a posi-tive effect on many developmental outcomes, as well as Onseveral aspects of students' satisfaction with college. "Mostof these effects appear to be uniquely attributable to havinga true-core curriculum" (p. 332). Astin suggests that, consis-tent with his overall finding of a powerful influence on astudent by his or her peers, "the beneficial effects of a true-core curriculum may be mediated by the peer group . . .

41

(by providing] a common experience that can stimulate stu-dent discussion outside class and facilitate formation ofstrong bonds among student peers" (p. 425). In otherwords, "how the students approach general education (andhow the faculty actually deliverthe curriculum) is far moreimportant than the formal curriculum content and structure"(p. 425, emphasis in the original).

This true core may lead to learning that is superior tothat produced by distributional curricula through adaptingmore effectively to students' diverse needs by providing themore frequent student-student contact and peer-basedlearning that may come through this widely shared, com-mon educational experience. Such experiences thereforemay not only lead to the development of a higher level ofcognitive skill but also foster a stronger sense of commu-nity on campus, which may in turn produce the positiveassociation Astin found between a true-core curriculum andstudents' satisfaction with and staying in college.

A study of the gains made in specific competencies at"Western University," a private research university, by grad-uating seniors who had scored relatively high or relativelylow on their SATs found that various groups of courseswere correlated with gains, or declines, in specific compe-tencies for high- and low-ability groups of students (Jonesand Ratcliff 1990). The researchers suggest their results areconsistent with and support the development of differentcurricular patterns for various types of students, dependingon the specific competencies to he developed. This re-search does not support the developmental value of distri-butional curricula, but it does emphasize the importance ofadapting curricula to the individual needs of different kindsof students.

MI does not support the current use of a wide range ofoptions in a distributional general education require-ment. Instead. it suggests that discrete arrays of course-work be identified lama are more appropriate and pro-ductive for different ability levels of students. . . . In themajority of cases, Western University courseuvrk chosenby high-ability students led to gains in learned abilities, asmeasured by the GRE. The converse was true for the low-ability students; here the majority of courseu,ork chosen(lid not lead to gains in general learning Nevertheless,

Redesigning Higher Mucation

4 2

27

discrete sets of coursework were identified that were bene-ficial to these students. These results suggest the need forgreater academic advising in the undergraduate courseselection or greater prescription in the curriculum (Jonesand Ratcliff 1990, p. 37, emphasis in the original).

Unfortunately, academic advising at most institutionslacks a developmental focus (see 'Academic Advising:Guiding Development" beginning on p. 87). Students oftenpick courses without the essential developmental contextskilled guidance could provide. Lack of careful advising,coupled with ill-defined outcomes for both curricula andcourses, may have serious educational results.

Student transcripts often reflect a sense of educationalwandering, if not drif t. By graduation most have come toundeistand that their degrees have more to do with thesiiccessfid accumulation of credits than with the puipose-ful putsuit of knowledge. At most selective institutions,attrition rates remain stubbornly high, with most of theloss occurring in the first year of instruction ("LearningSlope" 1991, p. 3A).

"At tar too many institutions, the distribution requirementsof general education are unfocused. They encourage ran-domness, not coherence . . ." (Boyer 1990a, p. 14). "We'rekind of like a McUniversity, smorgasbord of fast food,"one student told Carnegie researchers.

Are liberal arts programs practical?A few studies compare outcomes for students in liberal artscurricula with those in narrower, vocationally oriented pro-grams. In one study, an emphasis on liberal arts signifi-cantly increased African-American male students' choiceof higher prestige, more demanding, and typically whitecareers, and attending a liberal arts college increasedwomen's selection of gender-atypical careers (Pascarellaand Terenzini 1991). In another study, students enrolled inliberal arts Lurricula showed over twice the reduction inauthoritarianism of other students. Although, as first-yearstudents, they started with lower scores on authoritarianismthan nursing and business majors, the decrease in thescores of liberal arts majors over four years of university

28

4 3

coursework was "particularly dramatic . . . and significantlygreater than the others" (Altemeyer 1988, p. 92).

Liberal arts students also show greater gains in moraljudgment (Mc Neel 1994). In fa^t, some vocationally orientedmajor programs may actually produce a decrement in moraldevelopment. "Business and education majors were muchmore likely to show significant decreases in principled rea-soning" (Mc Neel 1994, p. 34). Accounting major generallyhave lower scores on moral judgment than other, nonbusi-ness majors in several studies (Ponemon and Gabhart1994)with even lower scores found among senior ac-countants and partners in CPA firms. In other studies,veterinary medical education appears to inhibit the in-crease in moral reasoning . . ." (Self, Olivarez, and Bald-win 1994, p. 166), and medical students tended not toincrease in the quality of their moral reasoning (Self andBaldwin 1994, p. 160). What may be the impact on society,especially on its school children, if vocational curriculapreparing teachers and other professionals retard theirmoral development? The potential for moral developmentin college is suggested by average effect sizes revealed tobe among the largest college impacts examined (Mc Neel1994). What would be the effects on society if we agreedto define moral development as a formal outcome goal andresolutely set about to produce it across the curriculum?

While careful design of the curriculum can lead studentsthrough a rational and relevant sequence of experiencesthat can lay out for them a clear and appropriate develop-mental map, the results of a detailed study by the Associa-tion of American Colleges of curricular focus, breadth, anddepth based on the transcripts of all 19,086 1987 graduatesfrom 30 diverse colleges and universities suggest that "theundergraduate curriculum in the liberal arts lack(s1 . . . suf-ficient breadth of study, particularly in the natural sciencesand mathematics, and . . . substantial depth . . ." (Zemsky1989, p. 36). "In common sense terms, there is a notableabsence of stnicture and coherence in college and univer-sity curricula" (p. 7).

Do students share a common educational experience?Are certain outcomes of such personal and social impor-tance that all students should have achieved them? Are cer-tain formative experiences for students so central to their

Redes1,1,111Pig Higher /Witco/um

4,1

29

development that everyone should share them? If cor-..nonlearning is important, is the curriculum now providing it?And do other curricula provide for students the importantshared experiences of peer groups suggested for true-corecurricula?

Students at the previously mentioned "Western Univer-sity" shared very little of their formal learning with eachother (Jones and Ratcliff 1990). Only 15 to 20 percent of astudent's courses were taken in common with at least fiveother students in the same high- or low-ability sample ofstudents. Thus, although diverse curricular options can hean institutional strength, it can also be a weakness. Thecentral concern is the extent to which diversity in the cur-riculum enhances or dilutes the quality of student out-comes. The good effects of a "true-core" curriculum rela!iveto distributed curricula stand out prominently here.

Une striking discontinuity in students' educational experi-ence emerges from an analysis of transcripts including-185.000 courses taken by 12,600 American undergraduates(Adelman 1990). Men and women students take very differ-ent sets of courses: "From high school through graduateschool there is a men's curriculum and a women's curricu-lum" (p. 2,42). And nearly two-thirds of the 82 college out-comes in one study reflected "significant gender effects"(Astin 1993). What might he the implications for students'and society's development of such a striking disjunction inthe college experience?

Effects of the Curriculum's CoursesShould "general education" be confinedto the first two years?Some four-year institutions encourage students to finishtheir required general education courses during their firsttwo years. Often students regard most of the curriculumnot related to their major as a necessary evil. as somethingthey must sit through to get a college degree (Moffatt 1989,p. 282). In a survey of llarvard seniors w ho expressed dis-appointment with their courses, however, almost every one"chose classes in [the{ freshman year 'to get the require-ments out of the way ((.ight 1992. p. 53). Many studentsdo not understand the importance of the general educatumcurriculum, possibly because of poorly defined outcomesand lack of developmental ac,Rlemic ad% ising.

4 5

Beyond the unfortunate implication of the personal irrele-vance of general education compared to the more narrow,specialized, and professionally oriented learning associatedwith a major, if our focus is on students' developmentrather than the mere fulfillment of requirements, such apolicy could be counterproductive. While certain importantcompetencies are developed in lower-division courses,upper-division courses "[contribute] strongly to the develop-ment of specific learned abilities, particularly analytic rea-soning" (Jones and Ratcliff 1990, p. 38). Quantitative abili-ties, for example, are developed not only by lower-divisionmathematics courses, but also in certain applied courses inbusiness and in the natural and social sciences, suggestingthat general education "should . . . extend vertically, fromthe freshman to the senior years" (Boyer 1987, p. 101). Theslow development of higher-order cognitive skills and otherimportant, slow-to-develop skills should be fostered delib-eratelyin general education courses and in the major aswell, and not only during the first and second years, butthroughout the college experience.

What is the role of introductory courses?Introductory courses underpin a student's understanding ofthe various disciplines and professional fields, and manystudents never take later, advanced courses in fields outsidetheir majors. Yet most faculty in a national study said mate-rial that would familiarize students with the modes of in-quiry characteristic of their fields shoukl be left for advancedcourses (Stark et al. 1988). If faculty practice what theybelieve, how can the undergraduate general education cur-riculum enable students to understand and use effectivelythe diverse epistemologies of these fields? In most cases,are these ways of reasoning not precisely the most impor-tant contributions to the curriculum expected of theseintroductory courses?

Do required courses have their intended effects?Although the actual assessed achievement of outcomes forstudents in one study at four diverse institutions was notnecessarily related to the courses required by the institu-tion, it was related to Other patterns of courses (Ratcliff andAssociates 1990) And our general failure to specify clearlythe outcomes or results we expect from either curricula or

11Igher 1:duigrtimi 31

courses could be significant here: Planning, implementa-tion, and assessment become difficult wit'iout clear direc-tion. (See also "Instruction: Teaching, Testing, andCommunicating Outcomes" beginning on p. 37 for otherpossible reasons for this disjunction between curricularrequirements and results.)

Overall Effects of the CurriculumHow much is learned through the curriculum?A study of the transcripts of 73 graduating universityseniors, some of whom had high scores on their SATs andsome of whom had low scores, that involved over 4,000courses examined students' "general learned abilities" upongraduation (Jones and Ratcliff 1990). Students' abilities wereassessed by GRE general test res +Its after the effects of pre-college learning, as assessed by the SAT, were statisticallyremoved. The study revealed that, once students' precol-lege learning had been removed, neither students in thehigh-score group nor the low-score group showed strongpositive gains from their college experiences. In bothgroups, some students had gained in general learned abil-ity, while others had actually declined in ability. The resultsof the study led the investigators to conclude that the aver-age student at that university did not select courseworkassociated "with gains in general learned abilities" (p. 20).They further concluded that different curricular patternscould contribute to general learned abilities in differentways and that courses at different levels throughout thecurriculum are correlated with gains in students' abilities.Similarly, some groups of courses were associated withdeclines in specific abilities, such as analytic reasoning.Further research would be required to explain why certaincourses are associated with gains or declines in particularcompetencies.

What does a transcript of courses signify?The research reviewed here calls into serious question thewidespread practice of mechanically certifying students forgraduation on the basis of the number of credits they haeaccumulated. Tlw effects of individual courses on differentstudents can he quite diverse. For example, students ate atvery different stages with respect to a number of dimen-sit nis of their development and thus their capacity to

32

4 7

understand and profit from specific courses. "Exposure" tothese activities is not enough. "Simple counts of the num-ber of credits or courses a student has taken in a particularsubject may not be a reliaHe proxy of general learning inthe attendant subject area" (Ratcliff and Associates 1990, p.43). More effective would be the use of high-quality devel-opmental advising coupled with defining clearly the specificcompetencies to be developedstudent outcomes ratherthan educational processesand then assessing achieve-ment of the actual outcomes. Here the emphasis is placedsquarely on results of both students and institutions ratherthan on the time spent in courses.

How well do our curricula serve society's needs?America's college curricula undeniably play a key role inensuring society's well-being. Much evidence now suggests,however, that they are not contributing what they are capa-ble of and what is needed.

Much about postsecondwy learning is inappropriate foradult learners . . . , [including) insufficient individualiza-tion, needless repetition, and inadequate recognition ofprior learning. . . . Higher education institutions them-selves remain a major impediment to addressing thenation's needs for resources for adult learning, . . . Thereis significant resistance in many four-year colleges anduniversities to making the accommodation necesswy(Commission on Higher 1984, p. 7).

Further, a consortium of top-level leaders in Americanhigher education notes that although "there has beengreat interest in curriculum revitalization, the sense lingersthat results have been disappointing. Core issues have toooften been avoided. Hodgepodge courses and experienceshave passed for undergraduate education" (Irvine Group1990, p. 2).

Over the past decade, uiulergraduale renewal has reliedon curricular patterns that have not worked well. Out-moded distribution requirements. fbr example, where stu-dents select courses from broad academic fields, usuallyhave failed to accompltSh what is intended. These coursesanwunt to electives, not general education. . . . Merelyreconfiguring the undergraduate curriculum, dropping

Once students'precollegelearning hadbeen remove4neitherstudents inthe high-scoregroup nor thelow-scoregroup showedstrongpositive gainsfrom theircollegeexperiences.

Redesignim Ihkber Education 33

4S

or adding elements without addressing fundamental op-ics, achieves little (p. 2).

To express its percei.'ed incoherent, hodgepodge character,this distribution syem has been variously and irreverentlydubbed a supermarket, cafeteria, grab bag, or green-stampendeavor (accumulate credits, paste 'em in, and redeem'em for a diploma).

Although prominent critiques of college curricula are per-haps most widely known (e.g., Project on Redefining 1985),concern about curricular quality is not limited to generaleducation, the liberal arts, or the undergraduate level. Manyspecialized undergraduate and graduate curricula, fromaccounting to veterinary medicine, have been criticized aswell (see, e.g., Evangelauf 1989 and Wyer 1993 [account-ing]; American Institute 1990 and Committee on Education1984 through 1990 [biology]; Field 1995 [dentistry]; AmericanEconomics 1990 [economics]; Blum 1992, Johnston, Sha-man, and Zemsky 1987, and "Universities Need" 1995 [engi-neering]; Commission on Admission 1990 [graduate man-agement]; "Better History" 1992 [history]; Project on theFuture 1984 !journalism]; Burrows 1990 and Panel 1984[medicine]; Project on Liberal Education 1990 [natural sci-ence]; Altman 1989 lpremedicine]; Holmes Group 1995,Lively 1993, Olson 1986, and Winkler 1985 [teacher educa-tion]; Aerospace Education Foundation 1989 [technology!:and Monaghan 1988 !veterinary medicine!).

ConclusionsAlthough much more research is needed to help us under-stand the effects of curricula, the results reviewed here areboth instructive and consistent. This research suggests thatcollege and university curricula, as they now function, inmany cases do not produce the results we intend and that"the curriculum is no longer achieving its intended pur-pose" (Fife 1991, p. xiii). In most cases, curricula unfocusedby clear statements of intended outcomes that permit naivestudents broad choices among courses result in markedlydifferent outcomes from those imagined.

We should pay much more attention to the way the cur-riculum is presented and how students interact with it

(Astin 1993). Institutions need far better information abouttheir students' developmental needs as they enter the insti-

.34

4a

tution and their achievement as they move through theircurricula. Essential are a clear definition of intended out-comes, knowledge of how each course or curricular com-ponent interacts with students' developmental levels, learn-ing styles, developed competencies upon entrance, andother important variables, and specific information on howthese components contribute to each outcome produced.Do some courses contribute especially to the developmentof important ourcn-nes? Do some contribute little? Do cer-tain groups of courses, when taken in sequence, havepredictable, significant effects on students' developmentgreater than the sum of their individual contributions?Regular assessment is essential to students' development. Inaddition, advising must be far more sophisticated to orientand guide our widely diverse students as they constructcurricular paths most appropriate to their individualdevelopment.

Redesigni Higher Education 35

INSTRUCTION: Teaching, Testhig,and Communicating Outcomes

'What Do We Teach and What Do They Learn?A college's courses are the flesh on its curricular frame, andcurricula produce their developmental effects through thecourses they comprise. A larger and more specific body ofresearch exists on instruction than on curricula. This sectionreviews studies related to several key aspects of instruction,each of which has important effects on our capacity to pro-duce learning: instructional methods and the intellectual cli-mate and degree of active involvement students experi-ence; the quality of assessment of learning outcomes; andfaculty grading practices.

What professors and students do in the classroomCourses are a college's primary means for helping studentsto develop. Many instructional methods are available today,and the efficacy of a number of them for enhancing stu-dents' development is well documented. To what extent dothe courses we teach employ established principles of qual-ity instructionprinciples of professional practice acceptedby experts? In other words, to what degree are the courseswe teach characterized by clearly defined outcomes, effec-tive means of assessing results, and timely feedback for stu-dents on their progress; high expectations; a challengingenvironment for the development of higher-order skills;and a sustained high level of diverse and active involve-ment in learning for students?

Instructional design. High-quality instructional design ischaracterized by, among other features, clearly stated out-come goals and objectives that describe the specific curric-ular outcomes a course attempts to produce; it is also char-acterized by the educational activities capable of develop-ing them. A national study of faculty teaching introductorycourses reveals that effective thinking Nevas the "overwhelm-ing choice" of educational purpose stated by respondents(Stark et al. 1990). When asked open-ended questionsabout goals for their courses, however, of 4,000 goals pro-vided lw these same faculty, the most frequently mentionedwas "teaching the concepts of the field"; relatively fewgoals mentioned intellectual development. In addition,"very few faculty members contributed goals focused onvalue development or 'learning the great ideas of human-ity p. 115). Detailed interviews with 89 faculty members

Redesigning Higher Education

5 1

37

al)out the processes they use to plan courses found only 35percent strongly emphasized their program's or the col-lege's curricular goals, only 12 percent used feedback fromprevious students, and 8 percent emphasized the views ofexperts in instruction (Stark et al. 1988). Further, "theyrarely mentioned making choices among alternative instruc-tional strategies" (p. 227). Thus, "the faculty interviewedseemed to tea;:h as they had been taught and to haveacquired course-planning skills on the job" (p. 227).

The Lecture System. A study of nearly 1,800 faculty mem-bers at five different types of institutions found that, regard-less of institutional type (large or small, public or indepen-dent, community college or research university), an averageof 73 to 83 percent of respondents chose the lecture astheir principal instructional method over discussion, recita-tion, lab/shop, applied instruction (in music), and individu-alized instruction (Blackburn et al. 1980). "Give . . . facultyalmost any kind of class in any subject, large or small,upper or lower division, and they will lecture" (p. 41).Other studies have repeatedly confirmed the pervasivenessof the lecture. Recent research by Thielens found the lec-ture method was the modal instructional method used by"89 percent of the physical scientists and mathematicians.81 percent of the social scientists, and 61 percent of thehumanities faculty (although 81 percent of the art historiansand 90 percent of the philosophers lectured)" (Bonwell andFison 1991, p. 3). A report by the Association of AmericanMedical Colleges points out that 37 percent of NorthAmerican medical schools scheduled over 1,000 hours oflectures for the first two-year, preclinical medicine curricu-lum, and another 42 percent scheduled between 800 and1,000 hours (Panel 1984). With "abundant evidence lindLat-ingl that the educaronal yield from lectures is generallylow" (p. 12). the report recommends reducing scheduledlectures by one-third to one-half and allowing studentsunscheduled time for more productive learning activities.

Since the medieval universities of Paris and Bologna(I laskins 1957), the lecture has shown remarkable durabil-ity in the face of technological advances and the oftensharp attacks of its critics, themselves dating back almost asfar (McLeish (968). But how effective are lectures in fost.!r-ing imponant outcomes for students? A review of five dif-

38

ferent studies concludes that students learn more fromreading complex material than they do from listening tolectures about it (Davis and Alexander 1977a). Further, twoof the studies reviewed conclude that the process of tryingto take notes from a lecture, although useful for aidingrecall later on and in raising test scores, can interfere withimmediate retention of information communicated in a lec-

ture (Davis and Alexander 1977a).A review of 17 studies comparing lectures to discussions

concludes that lectures are as effective as discussions forlearning low-level factual material (McKeachie 1986), butresearch clearly favors discussion over the lecture as aninstructional method when the variables studied are reten-tion of information after a course is over, transfer of knowl-edge to novel situations, development of skill in thinkingor problem solving, or achievement of affective outcomes,such as motivation for additional learning or change in atti-tudesin other words, the kinds of learning we most careabout. A review of seven additional studies (Davis andAlexander 1977a) supports this finding.

Other studies suggest further limitations of lectures asmeans of student development. A review of four studies(Davis and Alexander 1977a) reveals that students whobenefit most from lectures are those who are "brighter,-better educated, and from families of higher socioeconomicstatus, in other words, presumably those students with rela-

ely highly developed abstract reasoning skills. (The stud-ies on which these statements are based were all com-pleted when students were better prepared for college thanthey often now are, long before the opening in the 1960sand 1970s of colleges and universities to all citizens, andthe appearance on campuses of large numbers of studentsfrom disadvantaged backgrounds.) But two other studiescited by Davis, Fry, and Alexander (1977) suggest that evenmore able students gain more from discussions than fwmmore directive methods, such as lectures.

Initially (Ivry model for teaching thinking and jOsteringintellectual development adivcates extensilv student-leek her and student-student discussion. But engaging stu-dents in classro(on dialogue is not always easy. Dialoguein college classrooms is scarce: teachers' questions aredominated bv requests ibrjactual injOrmation Class

Redesi.olirtm Higher hhaatuai 39

53

discussions often stay at the level of "quiz shows," "ram-bling bull" sessions, or "wrangling bull" sessioils (Kurfiss1988, p. 66).

In a "quiz show," teachers merely ask students for informa-tion and, by doing so, may reinforce a concrete, fact-oriented, dualistic epistemology. "Rambling bull sessions"consist of students multiplistically sharing unchallengedopinions, "wrangling bull sessions" of students dogmaticallyarguing their opinions on a controversial topic. Both typesof bull sessions may reinforce rather than challenge cogni-tively simplistic dualist or multiplistic epistemologies by fail-ing to demand carefully reasoned contextual evaluation ofevidence.

Samuel Johnson long ago produced his own straightfor-ward critique of lectures:

People have now adays . . got a strange opinion thateve?), thing should be tai,ght by lectures. Now, Icanno!see that lectures can do so much good as reading thebooks from which the lectures are taken. . . . Lectureswere once usefid; but now, when all can read, and hooksare so numerous, lectures are unnecessary (Boswell'', ifeof Samuel Johnson, LL.D., pp. 144, 471).*

The intellectual climate of the college classroomAmong the outcomes most widely desired by faculry, andof highest value to both students and society, are the higher-order cognitive skills and dispositions of critical thinking,complex problem solving, and principled ethical reasoning.These abilities and orientations depend on high levels olabstraction and are characterized by their use of analysis,synthesis, and evaluation. These skills require for theirdevelopment the explicit teaching of specific ways of think-ing (heuristics), copious practice (students' active involve-ment), frequent assessment of progress, and timely correc-tive fxdback (McKeachie et al. 1990; Woods 1987). Whaidoes research tell us about the effectiveness of collegecourses in fostering intellectual development? Are some dis-ciplines more productive than others? Do the intellectual

'lames lk hfi, of Samuel ( thrivoi I I I) ((ltv. 3w) Encydupt:th.i19i2

4(1

5 4

challenges we give our students increase as the semesterprogresses? Are the cognitive demands more rigorous inadvanced than in lower-level courses? Does class level orinstitutional size or type make a difference for students'intellectual experience?

Understanding cognitive outcomes. In an attempt toclarify thinking and communication, many have tried toclassify the specific competencies we seek to develop instudents (Lenning 1977). The model of cognitive behaviorthat has received the widest use in educational planningand practiceand that has over the last four decadesbecome for many educators one of their most highly val-ued professional toolsis the Taxonomy of EducationalObjectives or "Bloom Taxonomy" (Bloom 1956). Thismodel is commonly used in the research discussed in thefollowing paragraphs and thus is briefly described here.Teachers can also easily use to good effect the techniquesfound in these studies when defining their intended out-comes as learning objectives and wl.en assessing the actualoutcomes their courses produce.

The taxonomy organizes cognitive behavior into six levels:

1. Knowledge, here referred to as Recall (Paul 1995,chap. 10), requiring memory alone;

2. Comprehension, which includes acquisition of conceptsand principles;

3. Application, in which concepts and principles are usedin new, albeit straightforward situations;

4. Analysis, which involves the disassemhly of wholes toidentify their constituent parts, themes, or organizingprinciples;

5. Synthesis, in which novel wholes are assembled frompans; and

6. Evaluation, which involves judgment of relative valueor quality.

The last three levels are all involved in critical thinking andcomplex problem solving, including principled ethical rea-soning. They are thought of as constituting higher-orderintellectual processesthe skills we value most.

The taxonomy is valuable for our work as teachers. Withits use, any question asked cf or by a student, or any prob-

Redecigrung /lig Iler Niue(' Ivor 41

55

lem, activity, or assignment, can be rated as to its probablecognitive requirements for a successful answer or solutionor its completion. The taxonomy has long been used tocontrol the cognitive level of eadi item in assessments ofstudents' learning. Collectively, a test's overall cognitivedemands can be determined directly and easily.

Students' active involvement with thinking. When stu-dents are in class, how much of the time are they ctivelyinvolved in thinking? Is the time they spend in class corre-lated with the development of their cognitive skills? Aseries of studies of the verbal and intellectual dynamics ,nvarious undergraduate and graduate learning situations pro-vides insight into the cognitive character of our instructiontEllner and Barnes 1983).

An analysis of authotapes ot 155 class sessions in 40undergraduate courses at two private and two public insti-tutions used a modified version of the Taxonomy of Edu-cational Objectives to examine the intellectual climate andthe quality of questioning in the classes (Fischer andGrant 1983). Talk in the classroom primarily involved thetransmission of facts; recall-level discussion was almosttwice as common as discussion rated at all five other cog-nitive levels together. This result held tnie regardless ofdiscipline, time in the semester, or institutional size.

Although professors in classes of all sizes mostly em-ployed recall-level discourse, class size significantlyaffected the cognitive skills used by students. Students iiismall classes (15 students or fewer) used an averagemedian thinking level of analysis, those in medium-sizeclasses (16 to 45 students) used comprehension, andthose in large classes (46 to 300 students) used recall.Thus, the thinking level expressed orally by students insmall and medium-sized classes was higher than that oftheir professors. As professors became more direct intheir teaching style, giving students less choice on how torespond, students' level of thinking decreased; as profes-,,ors became more indirect, students' cognitive level rose.-Despite a ratio of .17 lstudentsl to 1 lprofessorl, profes-sors talked four times more frequently than students"(Fischer and Grant 1983, p. 56). Further, "as professorstalked more, students reduced their use of cognitivekilk (p. 56f.

q2

56, I

From antiquity, questions have been one of a teacher'schoicest professional tools. An analysis of professors ques-tioning behavior, based on the same audiotapes describedearlier, concludes that the professors teaching those 155classes spent little time questioning students (Barnes 1983).The percentage of class time devoted to questioning rangedfrom 0.2 percent to 9.2 percent (if the single lowest andsingle highest percentages, 0.03 and 20.8, respectively,were dropped). No significant difference occurred regard-less of institutional type or size, level of course (beginningor advanced), or discipline.

Questions asked in class were analyzed for the levelof thinking skill required for students to answer them.Memory-level (recall) questions accounted for 89 3 percentof all questions asked. Results did not differ between pub-lic and private institutions or between large and small insti-tutions. Evaluation-level thinking, the highest level in theTaxonomy of Educational Objectives, occurred only 0.3percent to 2.5 percent of the time.

As the cognitive level of instructors' questions rose, thelevel of students' responses also rose. As professors askedmore recall-level questions, students' cognitive level de-creased. Almost a third (31.9 percent) of all questionsasked by faculty resulted in no participation by students."Not only were many of the classes void of intellectualinterchange between professor and students. but they alsolacked excitement and vigor" (Barnes 1983, p. 79). Otherstudies support this finding. A study of 19 University ofTexasAustin faculty members fou..,.1 their most commonquestions had to do with mechanical issues, such , timeor handouts, or were rhetorical, where students' responseswere unnecessary (Lewis 1984). Most content-re' ited ques-tions involved recall and comprehension.

A study of audiotapes and 138 student crestionnairesfrom the classes of 12 professors evenly divided among thehumanities and natural and social sciences at a small liberalarts college noted for its use of diverse teaching stylesfound significant changes in students' critical thinking abil-ity (Smith 1983). Based on scores achieved on critical-thinking tests during the semester, chang .s in students'ability were significantly and r, ly correlated with lev-els of praise from faculty, inte,.,ction among students, andhigh-level cognitive responses In lin students in class. As

Small classesused anaveragemedianthinking levelof analysis,medium-sizeclasses usedcomprehensimand largeclasses usedrecalL

Redeskimin,q /PRINT EduLtIftr,11 43

these latter processes rose, behaviors involved with memo-rizing decreased. "We can see that the amount of timespent listening is negatively related to change in criticalthinking and positively related to memorizing" (p. 100).Students' active participation constituted only 14.2 percentof the time in these classes, however. Questioning (2.6 per-cent) and encouragement by the professor (3.7 percent)took up 6.3 percent of the time. Of time spent on ques-tions asked of students (2.6 percent), 49 percent involvedmemory alone (recall); 4 percent of the questioning timtinvolved questions requiring evaluation. "The differences incritical-thinking scores and in critical-thinking behaviorsbetween classes with low- and high-level participants weredramatic. . . (p. 111). Although other estimates of stu-dents' involvement in high school classes are far higher,"the active intellectual interchange, which one often imag-ines when envisioning a college classroom, does not takeplace on the average" (p. 110).

A different study, of audiotapes of 19 classes from theliberal arts, natural science, engineering, and business col-leges at the University of TexasAustin, using the Cognitiveinteraction Analysis System (Johnson 1986, 1987a; Lewis1986; Lewis and Johnson 1986), found that teacher talkmade up 88.5 percent of class time, student talk 5 percent,and silence, owing to pauses in what the instruoor said orto quizzes, 6.4 percent (Lewis 1984). Overall, the facultylectured 80 to 90 percent of the time. This pattern differedlittle among the four colleges.

Are graduate courses different? To what extent is the in-tellectual climate in graduate professional courses differentfrom the one experienced in many undergraduate courses?Studies are few, but research in U.S. medical schoolsreveals a similar pattern of students' minimal involvemenrand an emphasis on memorizing facts (Foster 1983). In astudy of the instruction of 380 faculty members at sevenmedical schools, one-third of the faculty used no "thought-provoking" questions. Many of the professors who usedsuch questions "did so in a formalized or mechanical man-nerproducing boredom, irritation, land) anxiety ratherthan interest and stimulation" (p. 121). Four other studies-found a paucity of student participation in classes and anemphasis by the faculty on factual information rather than

44

S

higher-order thinking. Students were not challenged to pur-sue inquiry in depth or to approach clinical problems withintellectual curiosity" (p. 121).

Overall, medical training consists of "a multitude of dis-jointed facts . . . Ithat could] exceed what students canlearn in a four-year period" (Burrows 1990, p. 131), andtests tend to focus on facts as well. A calculation at onestate veterinary medical school showed students wererequired to learn 216,000 facts, or 200 facts each day, sevendays a week (Monaghan 1988).

In summary, the research on college classes is consistent:Faculty can strongly influence the amount of studems' activeinvolvement and the cognitive level of the classroom. Never-theless, faculty overwhelmingly lecture, primarily transmit-ting facts requiring low cognitive levels to students whofunction as passive listeners. Our primary lock in trademight, after all, be -inert ideas'that is to say, ideas thatare merely received into the mind without being utilized.or tested, or thrown into fresh combinations" (Whitehead1929, p 1).

The impact of our methodsHow effectively do our current methods keep studentsfocused on their tasks? To what extent do students benefitfrom our efforts?

How much do students hear in our lectures? If the con-clusions of the research reviewed above are valid, our stu-dents spend most of their time in class learning facts. Howclosely do they pay attention to what we are saying? Howmuch of what we say do they actually hear, and how muchof this k)w-level material do students retain for use at sometime after the class, or course, is over?

After only 15 to 20 minutes in a lecture, students' mindsbegin to wander, and retention of information begins to falloff (Davis and Alexander 1977a). More recent studies con-firm that attention drops off after 10 to 20 minutes (Bon-well and Iiison 1991). A study of both observed and self-reported on-target classroom (lecture) behavior foundgreat imilarity in observed behaN ior among both learning-oriented and grade-oriented students (Milton, Pollio, andEison 1986). Average observed on-target behaviorforexample, attending to the lecturer, taking notes, or asking

RedesiAning Llucahum

59

or answering questionswas only 49 percent. About halfthe time in lectures was spent thinking about people, titre,body, and mood; up to 15 percent of the time in classinvolved fantasy.

How much do they remember? Studies of the retentionof course material (Gustav 1969; McLeish 1968) at all leelsof schooling generally show rare high values of as much as50 percent retained, but results frequently drop below 20percent (Brethower 1977). The published values for re-membering are probably overestimates, as the student It'soften forgotten some information by the time the initialmeasurements are taken and presumably continue todo so after the final post-test (Brethower 1977).

One carefully designed study at Norwich (England)University tested students almost immediately following a

specially designed lecture kMaeish 1968). Students weretested on their recall of facts, theory, and application ofcontent they had just heard, and they were allowed maxi-mum use of the lecture notes they had just taken, knowingthey would be tested, and a printed summary of the lccture. The average for students' recall of this informationwas only 42 percent. One week later, a subgroup of thesestudents was retested with the same test they had alreadytaken, presumably making them beneficiaries of test prac-tice effects. Although recall among the students varied(with some remembering three times as much as others).they remembered an average of only 20 percent of the lec-ture content, having forgotten in one week an additional 50percent of what they had remembered earlier from the kc-lure. A second study, of Northern Polytechnic Universityarchitecture students, also found that students recalled only,12 percent of a lecture's content when tested almost imme-diately after the lecture (Mcl.eish 1968).

-In general, very little of a lecture can be recalled exceptin the case of listeners with above-average education andintelligence" (Verner and Dickinson, cited in Bonwell andEison 1991, p. 9). "Given the placement scores of manyfreshmen, this statement should give pause to most instruc-tors in higher education" (p. 9). One can only imagine theeffect on current students of what has become the LectweSystcm. If higher-order thinking skills "are retained andused kmg after the individual has forgotten the detailed

.16

6 0

specifics of the subject matter taught in schools" (Bloom1984, p. 14) and if, as the old adage suggests, education iswhat remains after the facts are forgotten, what does theaccumulated research reviewed here imply for the qualityof our graduates? Would it not be wiser to focus less onfacts and more on developing these higher-order skills?

llow much of their coursework do students retain andhow much of it can they use after graduation, the outcomethat is, after all, the major purpose of the college experi-ence? In a study of how much students retained of theirtwo-semester introductory economics course compared toother students who had never taken the course (Saunders1980), 1,220 sophomores were given a test to determinetheir ability to comprehend and use economics in realisticsituations. As sophomores, those who took the introductoryeconomics course scored 18.7 percent higher than thosewho did not, immediately after having completed thecourse, 14.4 percent higher two years later as seniors, andonly 9.8 percent higher as alumni, seven years after havingtaken the course. A 10 percent long-term gain in abilityafter taking a year-long course seems slight, given the time.effort, and financial investment made.

Studies regularly reported in the media suggest studentslack basic factual knowledge most educated people believethey should have. A national Gallup survey of 696 collegeseniors, for example, revealed 42 percent of respondentswere unaware the Koran is the sacred scripture of Islam, 42percent could not locate the Civil War between 1850 and1900, and 31 percent placed Reconstruction after WOrld WarII. Only two of five items from the test for U.S. citizenshipwere correctl,, answered by "a high percentage" of students(1Ieller 1989). The "most comprehensive survey of IvyLeague students ever conducted" reveals that 50 percent of3,119 students at eight elite, highly selective institutionswere unable to name their own two U.S. senators, 23 per-cent did not know the number of members on the U.S.Supreme Court, and 59 percent could not name four jus-tices on the Court ("Big Gaps" 1993: "New Poll" 1993).

The problem of misconceptions. The difficulty in edueating our students runs deeper than the common factualknowledge they should learn. Students entering a courseoften understand the phenomena they study quite differ-

11( rle,igriirig I !sqber. film tith,Pi

6 1

ently from the frequently more complex and abstract waysin which faculty experts conceive them (Gardner 1991;Helm and Novak 1983; Pfundt and Duit 1991). These mis-conceptions are thought to stem from students' earlyattempts to understand a very complex world. The naive(or layperson's) hypotheses they form, however, can oftenbecome significant obstacles to accurate understanding ofthe disciplines and effective living. Unfortunately, thesemisconceptions, often unknown to teachers, are highlyresistant to change, especially by abstract verbal explana-tions in lectures, although those students who have devel-oped abstract reasoning skills have fewer misconceptionsthan their peers without such skills (Lawson 1988).Identifying misconceptions and correcting them throughstudents active exploration of phenomena with peers aretherefore essential aspects of effective instruction. Studentscan better confront and falsify their theories by activeinvolvement than by "teachers' simply making lecture-stlepresentations of correct information" (Mestre 1987, p. 5)

Taken together, the studies reviewed so far suggest manyof our passive students' misconceptionstheir erroneousideas about the worldcan slip through our educationalnet. For example, beliefs in the paranormalastrology as apredictor of personality. Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster,ancient astronauts, the Bermuda triangle, ghosts, communi-cation with the dead, UFOs as spacecraftoften go undis-turbed, suggesting the ineffectiveness of our current meth-ods of instruction (Bainbridge 1978; Eve and Ilarrold 1986;Feder 1986, 1987; Gray 1984, 1987; Harrold and Eve 1986.1987; I 1-dson 1987). In one comparison of the beliefs ol979 college students in three different regions (Connecticut,California, and Texas), for example, at least one-third of therespondents believed in the paranormal claim for abouthalf the questions (I ludson 1987, p. 59).

In comparison, the theory of organic evolution, a highlycomplex, abstract, and counterintuitive concept, is the intel-lectual foundation for modern life science, with innumer-able implications for understanding the natural world andhuman behavior and with many practical applications inmedicine (disease), agriculture (breeding, pest control), andsocial relations (race). Today, organic evolution is one ofthe best supported and most irmly established theories inthe history of science.

48

6`)

Flow effective, then, are our current methods in correct-ing students misconceptions about this important theory? Asurvey of students at Ohio State University explored theirattitudes toward and knowledge of evolution (Fuerst 1984).Of 735 undergraduates in physical anthropology and biol-ogy courses for majors in these fields, 75.1 percent "be-lieved in" the theory of evolution, but of these under-graduate students, only 41.9 percent both agreed that evo-lution was scientifically valid and understood the basis ofthis validity. Of 90 students in graduate genetics courses,only 55 percent responded similarly, although 84 percent"believed in" evolution. Another item in the survey probedcomprehension of a keybut elementaryaspect of thetheory, differential production of offspring. Only 7.5 per-cent of the undergraduate students and 21 percent of theadvanced, graduate students responded correctly. It wouldappear that "current mass biological education is not %crysuccessful in conveying the scientific basis of evolutionarybiology" (Fuerst 1984, p. 218). If these results in any wayrepresent learning in science courses, the implications forteachers' effectiveness could be devastating.

Oberlin College, a small, private liberal arts institution, ismuch more highly selective of its entering students thanOhio State, and its students are therefore on average betterprepared than and thus significantly different in a numberof ways from students at Ohio State. A parallel study atOberlin reveals that, of 102 advanced biology majors, only61.2 percent understood the scientific basis for the validityof evolution, and a mere 16.4 percent understood the evo-lutionary role of differential production of offspring (Zim-merman 1986).

The practical implication of such nlisconstruction of sci-ence is suggested by the further discovery that fully 17.4percent of the Ohio State life science undergraduates and11 percent of the life science graduate students agreed thatteaching concepts relying on a naturalistic explanation ofthe world, such as the modern theory of evolution, wouldlead to society's "decay"; 8.8 percent of Oberlin students inthe study agreed with this proposition.

The results of the study at Ohio State "lead us to wonderabout the level of understanding of evolutionary biology. . .

among high school teachers of biollogy" (Fuerst 1984, p.227), who are, of course, all educated in colleges and uni-

Redesigning Higher Education

6349

..

versities. A survey of 404 teachers of biology in Ohio highschools using some of the items from the pwvious twostudies found a little over half (54 percent) of the biologyteachers understood the basis for the validity of evolution;a mere 11.6 percent of respondents understood the role ofdifferential reproduction (Zimmerman 1987). For the highschool biology teachers in the sample, "Science as process,as a method of better understanding the world, is not ade-quately appreciated. Instead, science is viewed as a compi-lation of 'facts- (p. 123). In yet another study, fewer than 2percent of 336 Ohio school board presidents understoodthe scientific basis for evolution, a matter with seriousimplications for effective learning of biology in the schools,given recent pressure to give equal time to "creation sci-ence" in science classes (Zimmerman 1988). Surely unclari-fied misconceptions and faulty understanding of concept.,in college courses are not limited to evolution or biology.Current teaching methods in higher education could havewidely ranging. untoward social impacts.

Development of higher-order cognitive abilities. Stu-dents develop their capacity for abstract thinking, episte-mology, and competence in moral judgment during the col-lege years (Pascarella and Terenzini 1991). Studies consis-

tly show, however, that growth is slow and limited. Ourall-too-common focus on specialized facts dispensed in lec-tures undoubtedly retards what might otherwise be morerapid and extensive development of these key cognitiveabilities. Indeed, we might actually reinforce simple, inflexi-ble, concrete modes of thinking, a Dualistic world view,and Conventional moral reasoning patterns. In addition,students' consistent lack of vigorous intellectual interactionwith other students or faculty could significantly limitdevelopment of their social, interpersonal competence.

In life generally, as in most disciplines and professionalfields, problem solvingthe ability to solve complex, highlyabstract, and ill-defined, ill-structured, or "messy" real-worldproblemsis essential to success. If our instructional meth-ods are often unable to help students grasp abstract con-ceNs like organic evolution, located on only the second(Comprehension) level of the Taxonomy of EducationalObjectives, what are the effects of our efforts to teach co:n-plex problem solving? Some disciplines, notably the physi-

50

6 .4

cal sciences, mathematics, and technology, are often char-acterized by students solving many problems. flow ef-fective is this common practice in developing these cru-cial skills?

Although a majority of engineering students in one studycould use memorized formulas correctly to solve physics"problems," when asked for "coherent verbal descriptions"of the abstract concepts involved, "widespread misconcep-tions" suddenly appeared (Clement 1981, p. 161). A studyof engineering undergraduates at McMaster University re-ports that, over four years, the students watched the facultysolve more than 1,000 problems and they themsekessolved another 3,000 problems as homework (Woods1987), "yet despite all this activity, they showed negligibleimprovement in problem-solving skills. . . (p. 59). Sw-dent.; were "excellent at recalling memorized proceduresfor solving one type of problem" (p. 58), but of the .3,000problems solved by students, only 20.6 percent required fortheir solution the higher-order processes of Analysis andSynthesis. NVoods terms them "problems" rather than lower-level "exercises," adding "both faculty and students rarelydistinguish between these two processes." The "problems"professors gave their students were, for the most part. onlyat the Application level of cognitive complexity. one stepbeyond Comprehension. Students were therefore incapableof developing true problem-solving skills. Fortunately, stun-ningly better results are possible using methods consistentwith research on students' learning (Van I leuvelen 1991a,1991b).

How much work do students do? Serious learningrequires students' sustained efi'm outside the classroom.Most of what effective students learn they generally learnoutside of class meetings through reading, working onproblems, reviewing, and other activities. An informal sur-vey of 20 faculty members from diverse disciplines atRutgers University and Essex County College indicates theyexpect their students to study an average of 2.1 hours forevery hour they spend in class. It appears. however, thatstudents spend far less time studying than is necessary forthem to learn.

Among undergraduates living both on and off campus atthe University of Rhode Island. students studied about one

Redesigning Higher Education 51

65

hour for each houi of class time; socializing was a majoruse of students discretionary time (Brittingham 1988).Fewer than a quarter (23 percent) of student respondentsto another survey claimed to devote 16 or more hours perweek to studying; employment and social activities, notintellectual, academically relevant activities, dominated sw-dents' out-of-class time (Boyer 1990a). In a Massachusettsstudy, full-time students claimed to study an average of sixhours per week (Hutchings, Marchese, and Wright 1991).The 1986 American Council on EducationUCLA CIRP studyof a national sample of 204,000 first-year students reveal-.that 50.5 percent of respondents claimed to spend five orfewer hours per week on "study or homework"; only 3.2percent spent 20 or more hours ("Ifours" 1987). Only 33 7percent of 1993 CIRP respondents spent six or more hoursstudying, continuing a four-year decline (Cage 1994). Ofhundreds of Rutgers University undergraduate students inresidence halls who completed 24-hour, mostly midsemes-ter, weekday time reports, 60 to 70 percent reported study-ing only two hours a day (Moffatt 1989). "About a quarter

. . hardly studied at all on a day-to-day basis but relied onfrenetic cramming before exams" (p. 32). These studyhabits in college seem to be continuing a pattern estab-lished earlier. High school students spent a "mere four orfive hours per week" on homework (Walberg 1984, p. 22),as contrasted, for example, with 28 hours on television.

A Carnegie study reveals that over a quarter of under-graduate students ordinarily spent no time weekly in thelibrary, and most undergraduates considered the librarymerely a quiet place in which to study (Boyer 1987) morethan half did not use the library to look at specialized bibli-ographies or follow up on works cited by writers; 40 per-cent did not search for additional references. In anothernational study, only 10.1 percent of first-year studentrespondents claimed to have studied in the library in thelast year (Dodge 1991). It follows that one reason for moststudents' low level of use of the library could be their gen-erally low investment of time in studying.

With the small amount of time most undergraduates seemto dcv()R.' to intellectual work, what do they do with theiroften considerable discretionary time? One-quarter of resi-dential undergraduates at Rutgers University devoted on, or

52

6 6

two hours daily to "organized extracurricular activities,mostly to fraternities or sororities, less often to other stu-dent groups" (Moffatt 1989, p. 35). One-tenth were in-volved in various athletic activities, personal or intramural.Most of the remainder of students' discretionary time wasdev)ted to "friendly fun with peers"hanging out, gossip-ing, fooling around, snacking with friends, visiting bars,flirting, engaging in sexual activityand "students managedto find an impressive amount of time for such diversions"(p. 33). In fact, students spent an average of over fourhours daily on friendly fun during midsemester weekdays.A sample of 28 students attended an average of 2.5 partiesfor the previous week, for an average of 11.5 hours in-vested in parties. "Class is the tediousness that the studentbody goes through between weekends" (p. 32). Fully 37.6percent of the 1986 ACEUCLA CIRP respondents spent six

or more hours weekly partying, 81.6 percent spent thesame amount of time socializing with friends (37.3 percentspent 16 or more hours), and 39.1 percent spent six ormore hours watching television ("liours" 1987).

This low level of intellectual effort by students is verydiscouraging to faculty members (Brittingham 1988). Butthe apparent ease with which students are able to passthrough American colleges and universities surely reflectsthe lectures they attend requiring only modest intellectualeffort in class and out. A moderate level of attention andskill in taking notes in class and effort to review beforememory tests seems to ensure graduation for most. Theinfluential report of the NIE Study Group refers to students'time as "one of our most precious educational resources"(Study Group 1981, p. 18), but given the findings reviewedhere, one would he hard pressed to argue that our fact-dominated courses or, for that matter, our cocurncularactivities make the best use of this time. Increasing stu-dents effort would significantly improve both students' andthe institution's productivity. It is up to us to develop apsychological climate that produces students' responsibilityfor high-quality effort (Davis and Murrell 1993). Two cen-turies ago, Adam Smith noted that "when the masters . . .

really perform their duty, there are no exarnpk,s, I believe,that the greater part of the students ever neglect tlwirs"(19-76, p. 287).

Only 33.7percent of1993 C1RPrespondentsspent six ormore hours[per week]studying,continuing afour-yeardecline.

Redeq,cturtg. Llutaltrai

C"

53

The bottom line: How much value do we create?Our students' demonstrated lack of adequate opportunity topractice important college-level thinking skills in theircourses is consistent with, and might in large part explain,results of the New Jersey Test of General Intellectual Skills(GIS), an essay-format assessment of college-level, higher-order thinking skills, available as the ETS Tasks in CriticalThinking. The GIS indicated that, among New Jersey publiccollege and university students at the end of their sopho-more year, only 58 percent demonstrated proficiency ingathering informatkm, 4,4 percent in analyzing information,33 percent in quantitative analysis, and 51 percent in pre-senting information (College Outcomes Evaluation Program1990b). Complicating interpretation of these data, howeer,is uncertainty about the degree to which higher educationwas responsible for these outcomes and to what extent qu-dents characteristics upon entry to college or other lifeexperiences during college contributed positively to thesestudents' unimpressive levels of assessed thinking ability

No comprehensive national data on college outcomes areavailable. We have no national means of assessing andevaluating what students know and can do when theygraduate from college, or how effective their institutionshave been in educating themnor do most institutionsknow. Results from the first comprehensive National AdultLiteracy Survey, however, provide a useful, if limited, snap-shot of college outcomes nationwide (Barton and Lapointe1995). Based on a 1992 sample of over 26,000 native-bornAmericans aged lo years or older, this study reveals thatcollege graduates are, not surprisingly, more literate thanpeople who have dropped out of college or have not at-tended at all. "Their levels of literatenessf, however.] rangefrom a lot less than impressive to mediocre to near alarm-ing, depending on who is making the judgment" (p. 2,emphasis in the original).

The survey included three scalesprose, document, andquantitative literacywith each scale having five levels ofcompetence, level 5 being highest. For prose literacy, al.outhalf (17 percent) of four-year college graduates and 62 per-cent of two-year graduates could not, for example, state .margument presented in a newspaper article or contrast th,.points of view in two editorials I Ic%c I 1); only 11 percentand 2 percent. respectively. could, for example. summarize

5,1

s s

two ways prospective jurors can be challenged by lawyersor compare two approaches described in an article ongrowing up (Level 5).

For document literacy, 53 percent of four-year graduatesand 70 percent of two-year graduates, given certain condi-tions, were unable, for example, to use a bus schedule toidentify the best bus to take, determine from a table a mul-tiyear pattern of oil exports (both level 4), or write a para-graph summariz,ng a table containing parents' and teachers'agreement and disagreement on an issue (level 5). Forquantitative literacy. 47 percent of four-year college gradu-ates and 65 percent of two-year graduates could not, forexample, calculate the cost per ounce of peanut butterfrom information on a supermarket shelf label (level 4) orexplain how to compute total interest charges on a loanfrom a newspaper advertisement (level 5).

Again, we cannot tell how much of these modestassessed abilities were developed by the students' collegesand how much they brought with them to college or de-veloped off campus. Certainly the skills assessed by theNational Adult Literacy Survey and even more so the GISare essential for all college graduatesand it still is somedistance beyond to wisdom. We often claim far more forour institutions than the data support. and society requiresfar more.

A precondition for improving quality in the schoolsThe quality of our teaching reaches fai beyond its directeffects on our own students. An ethnographk study ofexperienced, well-educated high school science teachersreveals that dies.: professionals modeled their own teachingbehavior on their university science professors and whatthey saw them do as teaLhers (Gallagher 1)-0); they teachas they were taught. These teachers did not stress logicalorganization ol content or higher-order cognitive skills asimportant components of teaching. They believed theirresponsibility was "to present information to students andthat it is the students' job to learn it" (p. 49). They did notrecognize motivation as an important part of their role.

.. ic lcdl students as 'predestined' p. 19). rela-tA ely lew can suLceed. Nearly all of the teachers lackedboth writepts and .abulary for deep discussion aboutstudents learning and about teadung. All teachers studied

Redeuipm Ihyber 1:dm. tall ill

6955

TABLE 1

NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS

By the year 2000:

Goal I. All children in Amerca will start scnool ready to learn

Goal 2 The high school graduation rate will increase to at least90 percent

Goalj. All students will leave grades 8, and 12 having demon-strated competency over challenging suhiect matter, includingEnglish. mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and gov-ernment. economics, arts, history, and geography, and everyschool in America w ill ensure that ail studen. 1 to use theirminds well, so they may he prepared for respoi ;c citizenship.further learning, and productive employment in our Nation's m )(t-em economy.

Goa/ The Nation's leaching force will hake .Kcess to programsfor the continued improvement of their professional skills and theopportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to instructand prepare all American students for the next century.ONective. The number of teachers with a substantive backgrouildin mathematics and science, including the inetric system of mea-surement, will increase by 50 percent.Olyective. The number of Ilnited States undergrautiate and graduatestuderms, especially women and minorities, who complete degreesin mathematics, science, and engineering will increase significantly .

believed they were performing well; few could identifyways to improve their performance (see also Stark et al.1988, 1990).

Today, schools and colleges in this country are increas-ingly being thought of as "all one system," K-1() (AMIEEducation Trust 1994; Commission for Educational 1994;I lodgkinson 1985; Plater 1995). Each part depends on theothers, and all must function well together if the nation'sneeds are to be met. We in higher education are beingurged to show far more interest in the schools than wehave in the past and to play an active, indeed crucial, rolein the urgent process of school reform, improved quality.and the achievement of our eight national goals for educa-tion (see table 1) ("Alliance for Learning" 1994). "The per-ception persists that higher education is 'sitting on thesidelines' in the current school reform effort," however

70

Goal 5 United States students will he first in the world in mathe-matics and science achievement.

Guy! 6. Every adult American will be literate and will possess theknowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economyand exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.Ohlecth'e. The proportion of the qualified students. especiallyminorities, who enter college, who complete at least rwo years,and who complete their degree programs will increase sub-stantially.Objecave. The proportion of college graduates who demonstratean advanced ability to think critically, communicate effectively,and solve problems will increase substantially.

Goa! 7 Every school in the United States will be free of drugs.violence, and the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcoholand will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning.

GoalS Every school will promote partnerships that will increaseparental involvement and participation in promoting the smial.emotional, and academic growth of children.

Note The objectives listed %Nith these puts relate to higher edukation. thegoals 11:fle other ohiectn c sn niludeil hereSourie National Education 1991

("AAIIE's New Agenda" 1993, p. 10). Beyond any specificefforts on our part to help the schools, the results of thestudies reviewed in this monograph suggest that transfor-mation of elementary and secondary schools will dependon our first significantly improving the quality of our ownwork as educators.

Teachers' perceptions of the quality of their teachingProfessors rate very highly the quality of their own teach-ing. Nearly 90 percent of almost 1,800 faculty members atfive types of institutions rated themselves "above average"or "superior" (Blackburn et al. 1980). In two other studiescited, 99 percent of faculty rated their teaching ability"above average."

What type of feedback do we receive on our professionalwork as educators? Given our often-noted isolation from

Redestgrang Ihgher Mutation

7 1.

57

eac h other as colleagues and what is on many campusesand in many departments a nearly total lack of reflectiveconversation about students and learning, desired out-comes, and actual results, students evaluations of coursescan be a primaryso netimes the onlysource of feedbackto us on the quality of our work. In contrast to some aca-demic folklme, however, students' evaluations of teachingtend to be relatively mild and complimentary. In one studyat the University of Michigan, for example, students evalu-ated 90 percent of the faculty as being in the upper twocategories on the questionnaire (Blackburn et al. 1980).Feedback of this type can reinforce our self-perception ofrelatively uniform high professional quality; "faculty don'tbelieve they have any problem with their teaching" (p. 35).

Faculty respondents in this study, however, were less con-fident about the teaching abilities of their departmental col-leagues, rating them as hwer by 10 percent (selective liberalarts colleges) to over 30 percent (research universities) thanthey rated themselves. (That only 31.9 percent of respon-dents in a 1989 UCLA survey of 35,478 faculty members at392 colleges and universities believed faculty respect eachother on their campuses could provide additional evidene!of lack of communication among colleagues as well as anegative psychological climate unconducive to fosteringcommunity for staff and students alike [Chronicle 19941.)

llow do we arrive at our judgments of our abilities?

In the main Ilacultyl Ince their sell:ratings on self-assecsmentand the performance cof their students. Informed studentopinion is taken into consideration, but they value Icol-leaguesi feedback much less so and administanive re-sponse the least of all. In fact, research unitmity facultyessentially find it valueless.

In short, faculty apparently have a highly internal setof criteria fbr judging their classroom performance, one(that/ is supported by their perconal experience with stu-dents but is relatively free from colleagiws' and supen't-sois' opinions (Blackburn et al. 1980, p. 35).

The results of classroom tests, one of the few means ofobtaining feedback on teachers' work, may, with their ten-dency to focus on facts and their common problems ofvalidity and reliability (see "What Do Classroom Tests

58

7

Measure?" on p. 60), seriously mislead us, and others,about the quality of our own and our institutions' educa-tional performance.

ConclusionsOn the basis of these studies, what can he said about theexperiences of our students in their college courses? Towhat extent do our educational processesthe activities wechoose for studentsenhance their development in direc-tions we value?

Across studies, at least about 50 percent of first-year stu-dents' to seniors' gains in abstract reasoning, critical think-ing, and conceptual complexity are made during a student'sfirst year (Pascarella and Terenzini 1991. p. 155). Could thisresult be because of the greater intellectual rigor of collegegenerally than high school, the benefit of which differenceis reaped early but soon levels off to become a low ceilingretarding further significant development?

Instead of providing students with a consistent diet ofchallenging, intellectually complex situations that will helpthem develop higher-level cognitive skills and learn howour disciplines comprehend or construct the world, weinstead too often give them what Joseph Schwab is said tohave called a "rhetoric of conclusions." V'e assume studentsnaturally develop certain complex, higher-order thinkingskills by memf:irizing facts about a discipline and thensomehow spontaneously learn to apply these newly devel-oped cognitive skills (Fischer and Grant 1983). Instead, ouracademic practices may actually retard students' acquisitionof facility for abstract thinking and their movement out ofDualism and Multiplicity into Relativism. Our methods mayalso limit their opportunity to confront and struggle person-ally with complex moral dilemmas and to develop valuableinterpersonal and team skills.

If key misconceptions about the world pass through ourcourses undisturbed, if even the low-level factual contentof our courses is relatively soon forgotten (as studies indi-cate most often happens), to what extent does our primaryeducational method, lecture-dominated courses, createvalue for our students? Without regular assessment of cur-ricular outcomes, do we know? "It is nice to have facultyenthusiastic about updating their lecture notes and keepingabreast of their field, but there is not much evidence that

Redesigning Iligber Edlicalion

7359

lecturing is related in important ways to [students] learn-ing" (Cross 1976, p. x).

What Do Classroom Tests Measure?The goals and objectives for courses provide essential guid-ance when we design activities in our courses and assess-ments to measure their resultsthe objectives our studentsactually achieve. These statements of intended outcomesalso guide our students as they learn. It is important to s(qexplicit goals that describe in specific detail the results weintend, to use these goals actively, and to develop goalsthat are challenging rather than easy to achieve (Locke andLatham 1984, 1990). It is also important to have specificand timely knowledge of the actual outcomes achieved.Actual results can be compared to intentions, and thus bothstudents' and teachers performance can be adjusted toimprove the quality of results. Flaying studied, studentsneed to know soon how effectively they have learned.

Assessing students' intellectual skillsBecause most colleges do not systematically assess theoutcomes their curricula produce, our perceptions of stu-dents'and instir.iions'accomplishments ordinarilydepend on gradL.s: the cumulative results of classroomassessment. Therefore, classroom tests become importantfor all users of grades: teachers, students, the institution asa whole, and higher-level policy makers. What classroommethods do we use to assess students' learning? Do ourassessments reflect high expectations? To what extent arethese assessments technically sound, and do they producetrustworthy, useful results? Do they themselves foster devel-opment of high-level reasoning skills and other importantoutcomes?

Test item types and cognitive levels. Milton (1982) sur-veyed the literature on classroom assessment of studentoutcomes; representative of the research he reviewed was astudy of the types of pencil-and-paper test items emplmedby 1,700 University of Illinois faculty members. Types ofrecognition items used included multiple choice (14 per-cent), true-false (9 percent), and matching (7 percent).Production items requiring short written answers includedshort-answer essay (24 percent) and fill in the blank (12

60

74

percent). Only 17 percent of respondents used essay testsin their courses. In contrast, well-written multiple choiceand essay items are best suited of these formats to assessall six levels of thinking skill in the Taxonomy of Educa-tional Objectives (although most faculty members writemultiple-choice questions requiring primarily cognitivelevels 1 and 2, recall and comprehension). Other types ofquestions assess primarily recall. Overall, therefore, the re-sults of this part of the study support the widely held per-ception that most tests college students encounter ask themonly for factual recognition or recall and comprehension-level understanding.

Faculty respondents said they asked only 13 percent of"problem-solving" items. Of the 3,500 students queried inthe study (from all classes, including juniors and seniors),82 percent agreed that, "despite instructors' insistence thatthey do not teach facts, most grades are based on tests[that] are primarily factual in content" (p. 45). At the Uni-versity of Tennessee, 87 percent of about 400 graduatingseniors also agreed with this statement (Milton 1982). Testswritten by 19 University of TexasAustin faculty showedrelatively few questions requiring analysis, synthesis, orevaluation (Lewis 1984).

Milton cites a study of 500 University of Illinois students,almost 90 percent of whom agreed with the statement, "Mostobjective examinations call for factual information" (Milton1982), yet another, similar study, of "two highly regardedvery small . . . liberal arts colleges" in the Midwest (p..46),yielded percentages of test item types similar to those at theUniversity of Illinois. These results suggest institutional sizemay not be a distinguishing variable when judging the qual-ity of classroom assessment. Studies of 150 University ofTennessee faculty teaching introductory courses and of med-ical school faculty produced similar resultsthat most col-lege and university classroom assessments ask studentsmerely to "recall isolated facts or bits of information" (p. 49).

Essay examinations provide faculty with opportunities tohave students exercise not only their higher cognitive abili-ties but also their skill in written communication. What canhe said about the quality of essay tests? Of 4,500 students atrive Nebraska institutions of various types, including the stateresearch university, almost half of the students (47 percent)claimed never or only rarely ever to have had to write an

Most testscollegestudentsencounter askthem only forfactualrecognition orrecall andcomprehension-levelunderstanding.

1?edestg1ting 110ther Education 61

essay examination (Milton 1982). At the University of Illinois,17 percent of faculty respondents claimed to use essay tests,but of four factors professors used to evaluate the quality ofessaysorganization, style, knowledge of facts, and origina-lityfaculty front most departments considered knowledgeof facts the most significant indicant of quality in student:,'essay responses. The inference is that most of the essayquestions written by these faculty members probably re-quested isolated facts.

Students tend to prefer multiple-choice tests to essaytests, which might be because essay tests are rare, even insmall colleges (Milton, Pollio, and Eison 1986, p. 167). This"preference reflects a common belief that Imultiple-choiceltests are easier to take and to get good grades on" (p. 172),a belief consistent with the apparently low level of cogni-tive skill demanded for most multiple-choice items used bymost professors.

Publishers' test-item banks. A further contributor to the lowcognitive level required by many classroom tests may he thetest-item banks in book or computer disk format textbookpublishers supply free to professors. These gifts are induce-ments to professors to require their students to purchase thepublishers' books. Using the items in these collections individ-ually or having them automatically compiled into a test directlyfrom the disk can save teachers considerable time. A rating Ofthe quality. on several dimensions, of six randomly selectedpsychokgy textlxtok test-iteni banks, however, found commondefects in design of the items (Evans, Dodson, and Bailey1981). In addition, a rating of 276 items by two independentraters using the Taxonomy of Eclucaticmal Objectives (with theraters in agreement 98 percent of the time) revealed that 83.3percent of the items in one bank required recall only, in threebanks the range was from 94.1 to 96.4 percent recall, and twobanks required memory for 100 percent of their items. Only 10items, or 2.8 percent of the total sample, were even at level 2,

mnprehension. And rm/y one (4- the 276 items studied askedfor any higher-order thinking, analysis. Concluding his exten-sive it:view of research on classmom tests, Milton (1982) notes.-Most test questions for undergraduates and for some ad-vanced students require a grasp of factual information and littleinure. There is almost no emphasis Ithroughl test questions :ntthe higher-order mental processes" (p. 49).

7 6

Tbe technical qualities of classroom testsAmong the characteristics used to judge the quality ofassessment methods are their capacity to produce validinferences when interpreted and their reliability. For exam-ple, a pencil-and-paper test that assesses what it is said toassess, and not something else, is able to produce evidencethat can form the basis for valid interpretation. A test thatassesses something other than what it is thought to assessproduces results useless fm decision making. Reliability isan assessment's stability or consistency of performanceover time. For example. a test administered to differentgroups of people at different times, if reliable, tends to per-form similarly during each administration. Because reliabil-ity of the instrument is a prerequisite for validity, a test thatis unreliable also produces untrustworthy results.

Validity of classroom tests. At the University of Kansas,17 faculty members in art and science disciplines indicatedthat 31 percent of their test items assessed "complex cogni-tive skills (such as problem solving) in their students"(Milton, Pollio, and Eison 1986. p. 21). Independent judges,however, found only 8.5 percent of the items were of thissort; 91 percent of the items asked for recall or recognition.In other words the valklity of triy inferences the teachersmay have made about their students' complex cognitiveskills based on these tests was compromised by the assess-ments' inability to measure the behaviors claimed.

Reliability of classroom tests. A 1954 study of 1,000 fac-ulty members in 28 colleges and universities concluded thatlittle evidence existed of the teachers' deliberate efforts todesign reliable tests (Milton 1982). Another study, of almost200 classroom tests from diverse disciplines at PennsylvaniaState University. found that after statistical analysis, "the relia-bilities were found, on the average, to be very low" (p. 26).

Experience in colleges and universities and the manypublished studies consistently suggest that faculty in thiscountry care deeply about their students' developing higher-order cognitive skills. It is equally clear from the studiesreviev.ed here that our tests do not generally assess sudiskills. Our tests are thus in all too many cases unable toproduce evidence relevant to our students' reasoning. Ap-parently, many of the professors in the studies described

Redesigning Higher Education 63

7

here were unaware of the technical properties of theirassessments, which is not surprising, given that few of ushave had the benefit of formal training for our work asteachers. For example, most faculty members in collegesand universities today are still unaware of the Taxonomy ofEducational Objectives, for four decades the standard forcontrolling the cognitive demands of assessments. "Goodteaching also means careful evaluation of the student. Andyet it is for this important task most teachers are not wellprepared" (Boyer 1987, p. 154).

Laying a firm foundation. The basis for planning effectiveassessments in courses is a set of explicit, written objectivesthat state the course's intended outcomes for its students'development in specific and behavioral language (Gardiner1989). Each objective determines, among other things, thecognitive level at which students should be able to perform.But most college and university faculty- members still do notdevelop formal instructional objectives for their courses.Consequently, their assessments frequently lack the solidfoundation of clearly stated outcomes required for effectivedesign. "If the teacher's thinking is not too clear about aims,there is no way that test questions can be prepared [that]will measure them" (Milton 1982, p. 25).

A comparison with commercial tests. With the remark-able increase of interest in assessment of all types in highereducation over the last decade, certain widely used corimercial tests have come under intense criticism. Concernshave been voiced about the capacity of these instrumentsto measure the complex kinds of learning in which our stu-dents engage and their alleged potential for producingbiased results -Alen taken by members of ethnic and cul-tural minority gioups. Such instruments, however, are usu-ally constructed with the greatest of care by some of thenation's most highly trained experts in assessment (Milton1982). Each item is laboriously pilot tested, subjected to rig-orous criticism, and revised, often several times, before use.These same concerns about commercial instruments havenot generally been raised about college classroom tests,however, which are, through grades, usually the main formof evidence of both students' development and institutions'performance. American students take a vastly greater num-

64

s

ber of these faculty-designed tests each year than they everdo of commercial tests. "Classroom tests continue to reignsupreme; it is as though they are error free" (Milton 1982,p. 4). Perhaps it is these tests that "shoukl be the primarytargets of criticism" (p.

ConclusionsVery few of us have had formal training for the complextask of designing and interpreting assessments of students'work. Instead, our training in graduate school has generallybeen almost exclusively as researchers, as discoverers ofknowledge in some relatively narrow, specialized area of adiscipline. A study of graduate teaching assistants at theUniversity of TennesseeKnoxville, replicated at other insti-tutions, showed that 91 percent of these students prepared,and 99 percent evaluated, tests and that 91 percent as-signed final grades (Milton, Pollio, and Eison 1986). Thetraining and guidance these student-teachers received forthis complex, technically demanding psychometric workwith high impact on students was "minimal or nonexistent"(p. 12). Almost three-quarters of University of Tennesseefaculty members in one study claimed to have learned howto design tests without any formal training (Milton 1982),and over a quarter of the respondents claimed that intuitionwas responsible for any skill they had in developing tests.In another study, 82 percent of professors cited trial anderror as their method of learning test design (Milton 1982).

Considerable literature exists that can help teachersdesign high-quality assessments of student learning (Angeloand Cross 1993; Bloom, I lastings, and Madaus 1971; Carey1988; Cashin 1987; Clegg and Cashin 1986; Cronbach 1984;Hanna and Cashin 1987; Jacobs and Chase 1992; Mehrensand Lehmann 1984; Thorndike and Hagen 1986). But col-lege faculty members do not generally read the professionalliterature in higher education. "Around 99 percent of facultymembers do not read either the past or the current litera-ture from which these investigations have '...en drawn"(Milton 1982, p. 33). The problems of validity and reliabilitydescribed above can in large part be auributed to our lackof knowledge of how to assess our students' learning.Given such a foundation of sand as an underpinning forclassroom assessment and grading. Milton asks, "What isthe meaning of a GPA?" (p. 51).

Redesigning Higher hhicatinn

7965

To what extent do our attempts to assess actual outcomesaffect the achievement of intended outcomes? The Uncer-tainty Principle, well known in the field of physics, statesthat the process of measuring a phenomenon will itselfaffect the phenomenon (Milton 1982). The UncertaintyPrinciple thus suggests that our attempts to assess students'developmental outcomes may affect the learning processitself. Students generally study what they believe will be ontests, as their grades and futures are at stake. Emphasizingfacts on tests communicates to students that the Expert-Authority, the teacher, believes learning factual knowledg.-is what is most important. Thus, students emphasize thememorization of facts, most of which they will soon forget.and may thus be kept from using their learning experient..eto develop more sophisticated and important abstract rea-soning skills and critical or creative competencies. Studentsare likely thus to be specifically retarded in their cognitivedevelopment and retained in place where they now are.The many who are Dualists, for example, may not only nothe assisted in their needed move to Multiplicity, hut also beactively reinforced in Dualism. The specific message theymay receive in our courses is that facts are what count; getthem passively from Authorities.

Overall, the low cognitive-level content of our classroomassessments and our lack of attention to questions of valid-ity and reliability call into question the meaning of theresults generally produced by these tests, as well as themanifold uses of these results by students, teachers, instiw-Lions, and policy makers.

What Do Grades Te.11 Us? Do Grades Affect Outcomes?Grades are the chief means by which faculty in most U.S.colleges and universities signify to students and others,inside and beyond the institution, the quality of our devel-opmental outcomes. A national sample of 6,165 students.parents, business recniiters, and faculty members discov-ered that most people place considerable faith in thecapacity of grades to communicate effectively importantcharacteristics of students (Milton, Pollio, and Eison 198(1,

How well do grades communicate outcomes?Grades are related to cognitive development and academielearning (Astin 1993; Hartnett and Schroder 1987; Smith

66

so

1992), but their meaning is often unclear and their interpre-tation difficult.

Research on grades extends back to at least the earlyyears of this century (see, e.g., Starch and Elliott 1912,1913a, 1913b), and a number of their serious conceptualand statistical weaknesses as means of communication havelong been understood. More recently, grades have comeunder intense attack as being ineffectual in doing the workwe ask of them as well as for actively retarding our effortsas educators (liattershy 1973; Kirschenbaum, Simon, andNapier 1971; Kohn 1993; Marshall 1968).

First, as single letters or digits, grades can scarcely com-municate detailed, useful information about achievement ofthe diverse cognitive, affective, or motor outcomes weseek. Second. given the uncertain effectiveness as mentalmeasurements of most classroom tests, the wide mixture oftests, class participation, attendance, and other componentsof grades, and the fact that the user of a grade rarely hasany idea which of these variables went into a grade or inwhat proportion, the utility of grades as means of commu-nication is deeply compromised. A grade is "an inadequatereport of an inaccurate judgment by a biased and variablejudge of the extent to which a student has attained anundefined level of mastery of an unknown proportion ofan indefinite amount of material" (Dressell 1957, p. 6).

Third, the preeminent use of grades is not to giN e feed-back to students on their development, hut to provide abasis for those outside our institutions to sort, rank, andselect those of our graduates whom they deem fit for theirown purposes (Milton. Pollio, and Eison 1986). Employersand graduate schools rely on grades as important predictorsof future success; thus, grades form a basis for high-stakesdecisions about a student. Ironically, the predictive validityof grades is severely limited. Major reviews of 108 (Cohen1984) and 150 (Baird 1985) different studies of the relation-ship between college grades and diverse types of adultachievement revealed it to be slight. Undergraduate gradesdo predict first-year graduate or professional school grades,their strongest predictive ability, but only at a median levelof about 0.30; in fact, assuming the normal distribution ofgrades. only 60 percent of students will even have theirgraduate school grades in the same half of the distributionas their undergraduate grades (Warren 1971).

Redesigp,ing Higher kiln( ali4m 67

8 1

Rather than helping students develop, we may be gener-ating grades for a professionally questionable weeding-outfunction for someone else's convenience by means of a sta-tistically compromised methodand in so doing lahelinwmany of our students "damaged goods." A high-qualityeducational process uses assessment formatively to ensureall -products" are of high quality and communicates resultscontinuously to students in meaningful ways. The needs ofother organizations too often take precedence over oureducational responsibilities to our students.

Do grades affect moral development?Faculty are often unhappy with students' frequently single-minded focus on grades rather than their own intellectual,affective, and social development. This orientation towardgrades, presumably fostered by the high stakes associatedwith them, may have wider implications for students devel-opment than distraction from significance and effort wastedon the irrelevant. Research suggests the emphasis on pro-duction of grades may create a psychological climate thatretards rather than enhances students' moral development,a linchpin of mature human relations and prosocial behav-ior throughout life.

How much do students cheat? Fully 70 percent of facultyrespondents in one survey agreed that undergraduates"have become more grade conscious," 42 percent agreedthat undergraduate students "are more competitive," and 43percent believe students are "more willing to cheat" (Boyer1989). Grades provide for many students a rationale toengage in unethical behavior based on low-level, precon-ventional moral reasoning. When asked whether they hadever cheated to get a hetter grade, one-third of a nationalsample of 6,155 students and former students respondedaffirmatively (Milton, Pollio, and Eison 1986). Over half ofcurrent students in the sample said they had cheated. In a1964 study, one-half of the students reported they hadengaged in academic dishonesty, including over one-thirdof the respondents with A's and 134.s (Milton, Po Ilio, andEison 1986). These findings are consistent with an estimateof a 40 to nearly 90 percent rate of cheating cited by 13o! er(1990a) and considerable additional research.

68

82

Two-thirds of 117 Rutgers University students in onestudy claimed they had cheated in their courses, 95 percentof them more than once (Norman 1988). In another studyat Rutgers, the researcher classified fully 50 percent of eco-nomics majors and 42 percent of communkations, politicalscience, and psychology majors as "hard core" cheaters(Moffatt 1990). Another study of 3,630 college studentsfound that, during the previous year, 32 percent had cheatedon an examination, 61 percent had lied to their parents, 16

percent had stolen items from a store, and about a thirdwould lie to secure a job on their resume, on the applica-tion, or during an interview (Viadero 1992).

Other studies abound. Of over 6,000 students at 31 "highlyselective" colleges, two-thirds of respondents claimed tohave cheated on a test or major assignment at least onetime when in college; one-fifth (19.1 percent) were "activecheaters," cheating five or more times (McCabe 1992). Overhalf (52.4 percent) of cheaters cited pressure to get goodgrades as a significant motivation behind their dishonestbehavior.

Forty percent of 552 Concordia University studentsclaimed to have cheated "in recent months"; 60 percent ofengineering and computer science majors had cheated inthe six months before the study ("Widespread Cheating"1987, p. 47). A study of 234 first-year through senior stu-dents in introductory courses at Miami University of Ohiofound that 72.1 percent of respondents claimed to haveplagiarized class work. Based on an analysis of additionalitems in the questionnaire. other students, presumablyunconsciously because of ignorance, were likely also pla-giarizing, making a total of 91.2 percent who plagiarized("Plagiarism" 1990). In another study, over 30 percent ofthe 200,000 student respondents had plagiarized in the pre-vious iear. This behavior is consistent with research on themoral development of college students. "Perception ofsome moral issues lisl distressingly low," and "students gen-erally [show] insensitivity to the issue of promise keeping"(Mk:Neel 1994, p. 46, emphasis added). Students' reasonsfor cheating demonstrate a variety of probable lower stagesof moral judgment. We need to help students recognizeethical dilemmas and how to think effectively about them.

low effectively have we dealt with this apparent epi-demic of antisocial behavior? Too often, 1 'flu information is

Redesigning Higher hincanon

83

available to students or faculty about an institution's polkyon dishonesty, r.-sulting in confusion (Maramark and Ma line1993). Students "rarely report" others' dishonesty (p. 5), andas few as 20 percent of faculty who observed cheating com-plied with their institution's policies for handling it.

Does cheating have long-term developmental effects?A meta-analysis of 521 studies on cooperative versus com-petitive and individual behavior cites various sources indi-cating the untoward effects of grade-induced competition(Johnson and Johnson 1989). In an effort to gain admissionto medical school, students quoted in the Chicago Triburieclaimed to "try to give the wrong information to other stu-dents. We take books from the medical library and destroyparts of them. We don't share information. We sabotageothers chemistry experiments" (Johnson and Johnson 1989,p. 32). "The university at the undergraduate level soundslike a place where cheating comes almost as naturally asbreathing, where it's an academic skill almost as importantas reading, writing, and math" (Moffatt 1989, p. 1). Indeed,this valued skill has justified at least two book-length trea-tises on its methodological subtleties (Baker 1989; M.Moore 1991). What is the intellectual and ethical quality ofsuch a campus climate? And what, then, does a grade mean?

Entirely aside from the potential corrupting effects ofcheating on the validity of a student's grade point average,what may be the long-term effects of a pattern of dishon-esty consistently unchallenged in college? The president ofthe Association of American Medical Colleges stated in aspeech to the association that cheating by premed studentsis "all too common" ("Does Research" 1988). Citing theassociation's investigation of 952 cases of dishonesty overthe previous decade, he stated that dishonesty is repeatedlater in undergraduate and graduate medical trainingthrough residents' stealing supplies and possibly in researchfraud and called for medical school admission committeesto look at the "moral background" of applicants.

A state investigation discovered that, among partners inmostly New York City law firms, who are not required topay withholding tax. almost lo percent failed to file stateincome taxes for one or more of the previous three years, arate about 20 times greater than the 0.5 percent rate fortheir employees, who do have to pay withholding taxes

70

84

(Kolben 1989). Nearly 350 of these partners had failed tosubmit tax returns for three or more years, a felony forwhich conviction leads to automatic disbarment. Recall therelatively low moral judgment scores discovered amongsenior members of CPA firms (p. 29). These highly placedprofessionals are graduates of our institutions, many of theinstitutions prestigious and many of the professionals withboth undergraduate and graduate degrees. What role didwe play in their moral development? One study found thatone-third of a sample of 39 college teachers had an aver-age principled reasoning score "scarcely above that typicalof incoming freshmen" (Mc Neel 1994, p. 42).

The media regularly describe yet other species of corrup-tion among highly placed persons in business and govern-ment almost all of them graduates of our institutions. Theyalso frequently publish reports of scandals on campus asso-ciated with finances, research fraud, drugs, sexual violence,and athletics. Aside from the climate of moral laxity suchevents can engender, what will be the life-long conse-quences of the moral classroom climate we. members ofthe most highly educated sector of society, create throughour toleration of widespread dishonesty during these for-mative years?

Speaking broadly of our responsibility for students' moraldevelopment, former Harvard president Derek Bok stated,"Despite the importance of moral development to the indi-vidual student and the society, one cannot say that highereducation has demonstrated deep concern for the problem"(cited in Gold 1988). Frequently. "especially in large univer-sities, the subject is not treated as a serious responsibilityworthy of sustained discussion and determined action bythe faculty and administration." Research on campus cheat-ing seems consistent with this view.

ConclusionsConsidering the widespread prat Ike of sinnmative. 1/0,c/-detecting for-grading-only assessment, the amount of re-sources in student, faculty, and administrative staff timeand energy devoted to producing, communicating. andcunning grades is enormous. Instead of focusing on bu-reaucratic number crunching, suppose we focused insteadon personally meaningful learning aimed at specific. statedoutcomes and assessed students regularly to pn nide forma-

M'ilesigniu IhRber him. alum 7/

tive feedback on their progressdefect prevention. Shouldwe not be focusing on our students' development, includ-ing their moral development? And what would be the elkctif we taught students how to recognize, reason skillfullyabout, and avoid unethical behavior?

72

86

THE CAMPUS CLIMATE: Context for Development

The quality of the psychological climate on campus can bea crucial factor in aiding or limiting a student's develop-ment. The extent to which our now-diverse students find awelcoming, intellectually stimulating, ethically principled,and emotionally supportive and caring environment whenthey arrive on campus can significantly affect both theirdecision to remain in school and their achievement of thedesired developmental outcomes. Today, we understandbetter than ever the key roles played by social relation-ships, sense of community, and emotional support in effec-tive learning. Lack of a sense of community among stu-dents had more powerful direct effects on their satisfactionwith their college experience than many other of 192 envi-ronmental variables in Astin's major study (1993). Withcare, we can transform a potentially stressful transition to anew communitywith its strange customs, more demand-ing tasks, and personal risksinto sustained, high-qualityeffort leading to personal and professional fulfillment, andwe can do so by developing in each person an inspiringvision of his or her capacity for high-quality performanceand potential impact on society.

Climate and Student DevelopmentResearch on student outcomes demonstrates a clear associa-tion between psychological climate and students' academicperformance, intellectual and personal growth, attitudestoward their academic programs, satisfaction with college,and voluntary persistence on campus (Pascarella and Teren-zini 1991). Contact with other students and staff is key. "Itis clear that many of the most important effects of collegeoccur through students' interpersonal experiences withfaculty members and other students" (p. 644). Students'experiences in the classroom are an important factor. Theclimate in the classroom, or "psychological morale" (Wal-berg 1984), has a strong effct, not only on cognitive butalso on affective learning, increasing it by a full .60 stan-dard deviation.

A pervasive interest in the world, an excitement withideas, and an eagerness to learn can inspire new membersof a campus community to high-quality intellectual effort.Many of our campuses, however, apparently fall short ofthis ideal, with instruction and assessment in many c: most

What wouldbe the effect ifwe taughtstudents howto recognize,reasonskillfullyabout, andavoidunethicalbehavior?

Redestgmng Higher Mucation 73

8 7

0111. 'tt

I.

classrooms focusing on memorization of facts, grades domi-nating intellectual life on many campuses, and a climatethat often tolerates widespread cheating.

Further, results of several major studies indicate "alcoholabuse is a common, not marginal, activity at most colleges"(Wechsler, Deutsch, and Dowdall 1995, p. B1). Eighty per-cent of fraternity and sorority residents binge. Of 17,592students on 140 campuses in one study, representative ofali four-year institutions, 44 percent of respondents reportedhinging at least once in the previous two weeks (Shea1994). At institutions where half or more of students werebinge drinkers, more than half of first-year students saidthey had binged in their first week on campus, two-thirdsduring the first semester (Gose 1995). Legal drinking agepresents no obstacle to obtaining alcohol, and underagedrinking is pervasive.

Drunkenness commonly leads to a campus climate char-acterized by vandalism, verbal and physical violence, un-planned, unwanted, and unsafe sex, disturbance of others'studying and sleep (87 percent of nonbingers in one study[Wechsler, Deutsch, and Dowdall 19951), and relatively lowacademic achievement for bingers. Tolerance of this patternof behavior creates a campus climate antithetical to intellec-tual work, civility, community, and human development.

Some colleges now experience violence from the pres-ence of gangs, guns, and drugs on campus (Lederman1994). Fully 7.5 percent of 29,935 student respondents tnone study said they had carried guns, knives, or otherweapons in the previous 30 days (Chronicle 1995b). MITand Louisiana State now use walk-through metal detectorsto screen out guns and knives at large parties given by stu-dent groups (Chronicle 1995a, 1995c).

Integration into the Community and InvolvementAccording to Vincent Tinto, integration is "the perceptionof being a member, of belonging to an institution wherepeople value your presence" (Evangelauf 1990, p. A18)And what develops a community that integrates every per-son is a -high-quality, caring, and concerned faculty andstaff' (Tinto 1993. p. 201). Students' academic and sow;integration affects positively their persistence on campus(Bean 1980; Cabrera et al 1992: Cabrera. Nora. and Casta-ñeda 1993. Tinto 1985, 1993).

74

88

Of college and university presidents surveyed by theCarnegie Foundation (Boyer 1990a), 97 percent "stronglybelieveld] in the importance of community," and 71 percentof respondents (87 percent at research and doctoral univer-sities) rated as "very important" the need for a greater effortto build a stronger overall sense of community on theircampuses. In the 1989 Carnegie survey of faculty, 11 per-cent of respondents rated the quala-y of life at their institu-tions as "excellent," 50 percent as "fair or poor" (Boyer1989). Only 9 percent of respondents said an "excellent"sense of community could be found on their campuses; 28percent rated community as "good," 66 percent as "poor."Students feel the lack of community as well. About half ofthe students who responded to a 1984 Carnegie Foundationsurvey said they felt "like a number in a book," and about40 percent claimed not to have any professor who was"interested in their personal lives" (Boyer 1989).

Research and observation bear out this sense of alien-ation. "At present our colleges do not on the whole evertake account of their students as persons, not even the col-leges that claim to be small and personal" (Bowen 1980, p.34). The "most notable decline during the college years"has been in students' sense of psychological well-being(Astin 1993, p. 397). Might this effect be related to thedegree of support a student feels?

According to one study, a majority of 406 medical stu-dents at two different institutions claimed to have been sub-jected to physical or emotional abuse during their fouryears in medical school (Nick lin 1990). Abuse involved in-sults, rudeness, phys:cal blows, and threats of bodily harm.and, for over half the w omen at one institution, sexualadvances, in most cases from physicians and clinical staff.

The results of our neglect of students emotional andsocial needs may be profound. Of 189 undergraduates atthe University of Waterloo (Ontario), almost half claimedto have considered committing suicide during their stay atthe university, 39 percent because of stress ("Half" 1985).Finding the campus "one of the more stressed environ-ments in society," the researchers note that Canadian col-lege and university students commit suicide at a rate 50percent higher than nonstudents of the same age. Althoughthe rate of suicides among college and university studentsin the United States is lower, after accidents suicide is never-

Redesigning Higher hint wk.?,80

theless estimated to be the second cause of death for col-lege students (Shea 1995).

Commuter and Part-time StudentsConsiderable evidence demonstrates that residing on cam-pus confers on students considerable benefits compared tostudents who commute from off-campus housing (Chick-ering 1974; Fascarella and Terenzini 1991). "The most im-portant determinant of college impact is living on campus,an experience that opens students to other forces forchange" (Gamson 1991, p. 52). Yet most students live offcampus. The prominence of commuter students on campushas changed dramatically over the last 30 years, partly as aresult of the development of community colleges, virtuallyall of whose students commute. Today, about 80 percent ofU.S. undergraduates commute from housing beyond theircampus borders (Jacoby 1989; Stewart and Rue 1983). Hawresponsive are we to the special needs of this large groupof students? Sixty percent of college presidents at four-yearinstitutions who responded to one survey reported ade-quatelow-qualityservices for commuters on their cam-puses (Boyer 1990a). Seventy-six percent of presidentsstated students' lack of participation in campus events wasone of the most serious problems affecting student life.

How do we respond to the needs of the almost one-halfof our students who attend college part time? Many of themare older adults who hold full-time .)bs in addition to rais-ing families and therefore live off-campus. Despite the spe-cial needs that must be met if they are to have educationalexperiences in any way comparable to those of full-timestudents, all of us in academe know well the casual atten-tion these students often receive. "The best universitiesespecially continue to abhor part-time students, and someare almost cruel toward them" (Keller 1983, p. 14). Wemust be more careful to meet these students' needs.

Students' Involvement with FacultyLarge, impersonal lecture courses, ineffective responses tocommuters' needs, and other deficiencies in climate canconspire to reduce student'.' crucial out-of-class contactwith nther students and the faculty, widening the gulfbetween them. At Rutgers University, for example, stutleots

76

9 0

. . had no idea of most of what the professors spent theirtime doing and thinking about: research, publication,and departmental politics. . . . Student friends were sur-prised to learn that I had written a book, or even that Ihad my Ph.D. Two . . . admitted . . . that they had alwaysprivately thought that "tenure" meant a faculty memberhad been around for "ten years"(Moffatt 1989, p. 25).

"Many faculty and academic administrators distance them-selves from student life and appear to be confused abouttheir obligations in nonacademic matters" (Boyer 1987, p.5). A lack of faculty members' engagement with students ofthis magnitude mightily limits the positive developmentaleffects we can and should have.

The Climate for Women and MembersOf Minority GroupsOf special importance to us should he the campus climateperceived by women and students from minority groups.Beyond our ethical responsibility to ensure a hospitable,nurturing environment for all our students, the success ofthese two student populations is especially important in anumber of different fields crucial to the nation's future,given the urgent state and national need to graduate themin far greater numbers and in more diverse fields than wenow do. The success of women and members of minoritygroups in college has become an urgent societal priority.Together these groups make up well over 50 percent of allstudents on most campuses, and research on the campusexperiences of women and members of ethnic minoritiescan illuminate the quality of the campus climate for every-one. The capacity of the campus climate to inspire andsustain these students and to provide the essential personalvalidation they often require (Rendon 1994) can he a pow-erful tool for ensuring their retention and success in college.

Women on campusIn the decade from 1974 to 1984, the number of womenin college increased nine times faster than the number ofmen (Bernstein 1990). In 1980, women for the first timemade up fully half of all college undergraduates, finallyachieving a level of attendance equal to that of men,although this proportional increase has primarily benefited

Redesigning Higher Min whin 77

9 4

white women rather than women of color (Bernstein andCock 1994). During approximately this same period ofrapid growth, from 1960 to 1986, however, women's ccl-leges, whose historic contributions to the education ofand provision of opportunities for women are well docu-mented (Astin 1993; Pascarella and Terenzini 1991), de-creased from 233 to 90 (Bernstein 1990). Women's col-leges, as perceived by their students, tend to be morestudent-centered and civic-minded than coed institutionsand to value multiculturalism more (Smith, Wolf, and Mor-rison 1995, p. 264). They involve their students moredeeply and thus are more effective in producing severalimportant outcomes among students. In fact, after remov-ing the effects of college selectivity and individual factors."graduates of women's colleges arc strongly overrepre-sented in the high-status, male-dominated occupations ofmedicine, scientific research, and engineering" (Pascarellaand Ter-enzini 1991, p. 601).

Now that their access to higher education has improved,what is the quality of the campus experience for women?Regrettably, the ways in which women and men are treatedstill differ significantly on many campuses (Hall and Sandler1982), a continuation of a pattern established earlier, in ele-mentary and high school (Rothman 1991). Women are stillsubject to a "chilly" climate in the classroom (Hall andSandler 1982).

Studies demonstrate a consistent pattern of behavior thatmust surely significantly affect the development of ourfemale students. For example, fern.,le students are called onin class less often than males and when called on are mi.reoften than men asked low, Recall-level questions; menreceive more complex questions requiring higher-orderthinking (Sandler 1986). Women students receive lessencouragement than men; for instance, they are more ofteninterrupted during discussions and receive less eye contactthan men when a teacher asks a question (discouraging aresponse). Women's names are forgotten more often thanmen's, they are chosen less frequently as faculty assistants.and, despite the urgent need for women in the natural sci-ences and technology, their advisers sometimes openly dis-courage them from choosing traditionally "masculine"majors like mathematics, physical science, and engineering.This chilly climate extends to female graduate students,

78

9

faculty members, and administrators as well (Flam 1991; "Mich-igan State" 1995).

These subtle and in many cases unconscious behaviorson the part of students, faculty, and administrators can,with time, become fused to form for women students aconsistent, pervasive climate of devaluation, discourage-ment, and lowered expectations, in class and elsewhere oncampus (Hall and Sandler 1984). Added to apparently per-vasive, although often almost imperceptible, slights by cam-pus authorities are all-too-frequent direct assaults onwomen's self-esteem. Comments that openly disparagewomen, their efforts, and their accomplishments; overt sex-ual harassment by faculty, administrators, or peers (Dziechand Weiner 1984; Hughes and Sandler 1986, 1988); and dis-crimination against women in the choice of faculty assis-tants, awards for undergraduate and graduate students, andpromotion and tenure for faculty members have been doc-umented at too many institutions. Added to these problemsfor women is overt sexual violence in the form of date oracquaintance rape (Ilughes and Saha ler 1987) and party organg rape (Ehrhart and S...ndler 1985). both apparentlymore prevalent on campus than commonly believed. Suchactions further compromise our environment as a nurturing.developmental one, certainly for women, hut also for men.

Although the climate may vag from institution to institu-tion, the hidden or not-so-hidden message women tuooften receitv from faculty, ste and fellow students is thatthey are not on the same level as their male peers awl are"outsiders" on campus (Hall and Sandler 1984, pp. 3-4).

Sexist attitudes persist on campus (Boyer I990a). In onestudy, 40 percent of undergraduate women respondentsindicated they had been sexually harassed on campus. andat Ilarvard, 34 percent of undergraduate women reportedharassment from an institutional authority (Boyer I990a)."Most shocking are the physical assaults against women.which were reported on nearly a third of the campuses . . .

visited" (p. 34). At one university, 20 percent of the womenstudied said they had had "unwanted sexual intercourse."

Given what is often a clearly nonsupportive campus cli-mate for women, many women come to devalue and dciubttheir ow n and to reduce their expectations for their

Redriipling IhRber Educallun 79

93

77-777-77-,771:7:

careers and lives. While the most obvious result is a loss toeach student whose development is in this way retarded,there are also obvious costs to her institution, department,and future professionand thus to society. Rather thanabruptly halting an antidevelopmental process of diminbh-ment often begun much earlier at home and school, in alltoo many cases our campuses clearly reinforce this damag-ing trend.

It seems clear that colleges do not serve to reduce many ofthe stereotlpic differences between the sexes. . . . It wouldseem that these programs serve more to preserve, ratherthan to reduce, stereotypic dfferences between men anduumen in behavior, peisonality, aspirations, and achieve-ment (Astin 1977, p. 216).

Summarizing his major follow-up study 15 years later, Astin(i993) uses virtually identical words (p. 405). Reviewingresearch on the effects of student peer culture on womenstudents, Baxter-Magolda (1993) asks, "What context allowsthe peer culture to have such a devastating effect onwomen's -ievelopmem during their undergraduate years?(p. 372). And writing of women students in science, Tobias(1990) states her research suggests, at least for scientists,"the 'crisis' in science education is not yet their problem,hut rather the nation's" (p. 12). We need to see as ouroroblem the well-being, persistence, and success of eachone of our women students.

Members of racial and ethnic minoritygroups on campus"Perhaps more than any other institution in our society, itis the college that is crucially important to advancing pros-pects for black and Hispanic students" (Boyer 1987, p. 39).Yet the uncertainty, confusion, and anxiety many, if notmost, students of majority groups feel in college can besubstantially increased for students of racial and ethnicminority groups at primarily white institutions. What isthe quality of the campus climate for students from minor-ity groups?

In many cases, minority-group students bring with themto college inadequate academic preparation and poorlydeveloped study skills and habits, and they can find it dif-

80

94

ficult to comprehend the often highly abstract content oftheir courses. On primarily majority-group campuses, manystudents from minority groups are often aware of theirunconventional speech patterns and may fear saying some-thing inappropriate when speaking in class, reducing theiractive participation (Saufley, Cowan, and Blake 1983).They may be shunned by majority-group students. Theymay feel guilty for consuming a disproportionately largeshare of their family's resources. And they may fear beingthought academically inferior on campus. According to aUniversity of Chicago survey, 53 percent of white Amer-icans stated that African-Americans and members of otherminority groups are less intelligent than they; 30 percent ofAfrican-American respondents agreed with the statement(Raymond 1991). Many of our students may themselvessuffer from such a deadly misconception.

"Study after study reports the experiences of minority stu-dents from all backgrounds who encounter racism andovert or subtle forms of discrimination by other students orfaculty" (Smith 1989, p. 22). Campus Lik In Search ofCommunity expresses concern "about the racial tensions oncampus, the lack of trust, the singular lack of success manycolieges and universities have had in creating a climate inwhich minority students feel fully accepted on campus"(Boyer 1990a. p. 31). According to the report, two-thirds ofthe presidents at research and doctoral universities cited"racial tensions and hostilities" as problems on their cam-puses (Boyer 1990a). Of 3,119 students at eight Ivy Leagueinstitutions, 73 percent of all respondents and 81 percent ofAfrican-Americans perceived racism as a problem on cam-pus ("Ivy League" 1993). In the words of an African-American student at Columbia University, "Blacks . . . areadmitted to Columbia, but they do not belong" (Bernstein1990, p. 23).

Other instances are prevalent in the literature. At theUniversity of MarylandBaltimore County, for example,about one-fifth of minority-group students had suffered eth-noviolence (chiefly psychological in the form of verbalabuse) on campus many repeatedly, one-third said theirinterpersonal relations had been "seriously affected," andan "overwhelming majority perceived themselves to bepotential targets of discrimination" (Ehrlich 1988, p. IS).Jewish and Asian students had experienced similar amounts

RedesigninR Higher Educamm

9 3

81

of ethnoviolence. At St. Cloud State University, 50 percentof minority-group and international students claimed tohave heard faculty nwmbm make racist comments, and 16percent had had ethnoviolence directed toward them intheir residences on campus; 65 percent of the minority-group and international faculty had experienced disrespectfrom white students related to their race or nationality.

"The consistent theme of alienation experienced by stu-dents of nontraditional backgrounds in their campus envi-ronments is symptomatic of a deep underlying problemthat has not been adequately addressed" (Smith 1989, p.19). To what extent is it our responsibility to address thi-moral issue?

lb the degree that issues of racism, sexism, homophobic',and the general presence cyan alienating environmentalso affect petformance, then lack of petformance cannotbe focused entirely on the student. All too often tve hat.eassumed the institution's petfection and students incom-petence (Smith 1989. p. 64)

I low do gifted minority-group students fare on campus?A decade-long longitudinal study of Illinois high schoolvaledictorians and salutatorians explored in detail the ex-periences of eight African-American and Latina students(Arnold 1993). These gifted students also told of neglect.low expectations, discouragement, and demeaning beha%iorfrom faculty. As one put it, "They just go and lecture, theydon't care" (p. 270). With "the predominantly white univer-sities that the students attended (mirroring and replicatingllarger oppressive structures in society" (p. 279), how didthese students manage to succeed? "The top high schoolstudents of color make it through persistence, hard w ork.and almost unbelievable personal will" (p. 280), despitehigher education's failing "even the 'best' African-Americanand Mexican-American students" (p. 280).

The degree to which African-American students "disiden-tify" with their institutions is a better predictor of theirgrades than even the quality of their educational prepara-tion for college (Steele 1992). Seventy percent of African-American students in one study withdrew from four-yearcolleges, compared to 45 percent of whites. and African-

82

9 6

Americanand whaestudents with SATs of 1200 to 1500

were just as likely to drop out of college as those withSATs of 800 (Steele 1992). An unsupponive campus climate

is a major cause of minority-group students' withdrawalfrom college. "Evidence is growing that the poor quality ofminority students' life on campus and their sense of isola-tion, alienation, and lack of support are more serious fac-

tors in attrition" (Smith 1989, p. 22) than their relativelypoor preparation for academic work. Graduation rates ofwhite students from New Jersey state colleges, for exam-ple, are about three times greater than those of African-

American and Hispanic students, and about twice the ratesof Asians (Goldberg 1993a). Similar comparative graduation

rates for the state's community colleges are twice as greatfor whites as for Asians, four times as great for whites asfor African-Americans, and seven times as great for whites

as for Hispanics. We are far from effective in educating ourminority-group students and enabling them to persist suc-cessfully to graduation. "It is . . . clear that the academic,social, and psychological worlds inhabited by most non-white students on predominantly white campuses are sub-stantially different in almost every respect from those oftheir white peers" (Pascarella and Terenzini 1991, p. 644).

During the last decade, many institutions have estab-lished special retention programs whose avowed purpose is

to help minority-group students succeed. "The fact of thematter is that there have been few consistent successes,especially at predominantly white institutions" (Andersonn.d.). Two primary factors underpin the common failure ofcollege retention programs to have their intended effect onnonwhite students: (1) our development of such programson the basis of "Anglo-European notions about cognitivefunctioning, learning, and achievement"; and (2) the failure

of these programs "to identify the cognitive assets andlearning preferences of nonwhite students" (Anderson 1988,p 3) Rather than adapting to our students, we demandthat they adapt to us. The implications for minority stu-dents in the natural sciences and technology may illustratethe potential consequences of our inattention to these stu-dents' needs.

Given the acknowledged need for much greater repre-sentation of minority group members in scientific and tech-nological professions, the campus climate has direct and

[Haffl ofminority-group andinternationalstudentsclaimed tohave beardfacultymembersmake racistcomments,and 46percent hadhadethnoviolencedirectedtoward them,.

Redesigning Higher Muccinon 83

9"

specific effects for society we can no longer ignore. Manyof these professions require graduate-level education.

The dynamics of graduate and professional education forminorities have as ltheirl most direct underpinning thecounseling, guidance, and mentoring of minority under-graduates. For those minority students who do make it toundergraduate school, a major proportion of these indi-viduals are somehow turned off to graduate education.One contributing factor is the lack of interest exhibited hymany active Ph.D. researchers in the counseling, develop-ment, and long-term placement of these and otherunder-graduate science majors. Indeed, a . . . four-year study qfbiology undergraduate majors at Brown University indi-ailed that less than 10 percent of these graduates matric-ulated into science graduate programs one year aftergraduation. . . . Given the historic changes in minoritystudent enrollment in majority institutions since the late1950s and early 1960s, majority four-year colleges anduniversities in the United States now enroll approximately82 percent of lAfrican-American1 undergraduates.1.1BCV (historically black college and universityl graduates,hou'ever, represent 32 percent of all lAfrican-Americanslearning science and engineering Ph.D.'s, 34 percent ofphysical science Ph.D.S, 37 percent of math Ph.D.'s, and33 percent of computer science Ph.D.'s. . . A greater pro-portion of the minority science majors at HBCUs tend togo on to graduate programs versus their counterparts atmajority institutions (Wyche and Frierson 1990, pp.989-9W.

Of the top 20 institutions granting bachelor's degrees tominority-group students who later earned Ph.D.'s from 1986to 1990, 17. or 85 percent, were HBCUs (Stimpson 1992).

Of 6,320 African-Americans who earned doctorates in allfields from 1975 through 1980, 55 percent had earlier grad-uated from 87 HBC.Us and 45 percent from 633 primarilywhite colleges and universities (Sudarkasa 1987). Eightypercent of African-American, Hispanic, and Native Ameri-can college graduates receive their degrees from 20 percentof U.S. institutions, many of which have served predomi-nantly minority group students (Deskins, cited in Richard-son and Skinner 1991). The relative success of these institu-tions with minority-group students is somewhat ironic.

84

98

Minority-group students are concentrated in institutionsthat have the most limited resources (Richardson and Skin-ner 1991).

Despite the urgent need for minority faculty members,"the intolerably small pool of qualified minority applicantsrepresents a shocking weakness, if not an indictment, ofAmerican education at all levels" (Boyer 1990b, p. 66). "Formany minority students, particularly [African-American) stu-dents on predominantly white campuses, survival in a hos-tile environment is the preordinate goal and radically altersthe usual standards of quality against which the studentexperience might be compared" (Kuh. Krehbiel, and Mac-Kay 1988, p. 29). The reason that African-American andI Iispanic students attend graduate school in low numbers isa result of their low rates of completing the bachelor'sdegree (Adelman 1990, p. 242). Given the special difficulty.najority institutions experience in graduating African-American males, the finding that academically oriented menare at special risk for dropping out of college is of specialinterest (Brower 1992).

Conclusions"Measures of cognitive development typically provide areport that reveals enormous gaps between minority andmajority students. [And) trend analyses usually reveal little,if any, progress being made to eliminate the gaps" (Nettles1991, p. 1). Minority students in particular bring with themto college two strongly positive characteristics that canmake them unusually rewarding to work with (Saul ley,Cowan, and Blake 1983). First, and "perhaps most impor-tant, minority-group students are generally characterized bystrong commitment" to education or, perhaps at first, tohelping their home community (p. 13). Second, "minoritystudents are also generally characterized by an amazingperseverance. . . . If they are given a chance to see thatthey can succeed at the university, they exhibit z. teno.ciousdetermination to work through or to beat the system" (pp.13-14). Today, numerous resources are available to provideassistance in improving the college experience for minoritystudents (Adams 1992; Border and Chism 1992; Cones,Noonan, and Janha 1983; Richardson, Matthews, andFinney 1992; Smith 1989; Wright 1987).

Redesigning Higher Education 85

90

The research reviewed here shows clearly the unequaland antidevelopmental treatment we accord many of ourstudents. Improving the climate and quality of communityexperienced by all students should dramatically improvetheir ability to succeedand thus the quality of ouroutcomes.

86

100

ACADEMIC ADVISING: Guiding Development

Our students come from widely different family back-grounds and schools, with diverse values, goals, styles oflearning, and levels of self-esteem and abilities. Few have asophisticated understanding of higher education or skills inpersonal or career planning, and many have never beentaught how to learn or been informed of the need to takean active role in their own learning. Large numbers areunderprepared for the academic work we ask of them.

In college, students suddenly find themselves in a new,strange, and, for many, much more demanding and stress-ful environment than they have previously known. Thequality of guidance they receive can markedly affect thedegree to which they profit from their years at college.Their ability to understand their own development, clarifytheir personal values and goals, plan an appropriate devel-ontnental curriculum and other educational experiences,and feel emotionally secure, integrated, and at home oncampus can all affect their degree of success, indeed, theirvery decision to remain in college. Academic advising byfaculty provides a choice opportunity for close contactbetween students and faculty out of class, one that canhave a major effect on students values, goals, and behaviorand significantly increase their satisfaction with college andthus persistence. Students who have no contact with facultyoutside class experience "significantly lower growth in prin-cipled [ethical] reasoning" (Mc Neel 1994, p. 37). Racial ten-sion is more likely on campuses "where there is a lack ofconcern for individual students" (Hurtado 1992, p. 562).High-quality academic advising unequivocally demonstratesour concern fo,- ;ach person throughout the college yearsand can provide the personal validation essential for stu-dents' success (Rendon 1994).

Entering students' expectations could confirm the needfor close attention to advising, especially during the firstyear. The CIRI3 survey of first-year students in fall 1992reveals that only 43.3 percent estimated the probability was"very good" they would make at least a 13 average; a mere14.2 percent believed they would graduate with honors(Collison 1993, pp. A3(J--A31). Although many studentsenter college knowing little of themselves or of the worldof work and many have substantial personal problems, fewexpect to seek vocational counseling (5.1 percent) or indi-

Redesigning Higher Education 87

101

vidual counseling (3.7 percent) (Chronicle 1991). Enteringstudents need the personal challenge and reflection goodadvising provides to refine their personal values and goals."Being well-off financially" was an essential or very impor-tant objective for 73 percent of student respondents in1992. In fact, 69.8 percent of the students agreed that "thechief benefit of college is that it increases one's earningpower." In contrast, only 45.6 percent had as an essentialor very important objective "developing a meaningful phi-losophy of life." Students' social and political perspectivesseemed at best narrow. Only 38.8 percent had as an essen-tial or very important objective "keeping up to date withpolitical affairs," a mere 20.1 percent "influencing the politi-cal structure." The need and opportunity for developmentaladvising in this democracy are great.

With regard to our guiding and counseling students, "wesimply have to recognize that this is probab4 the mostimpol:ant kind of teaching we do and that these encoun-ters are second in significance only to the daily life withother students" (Chickering 1969, p. 252). Academic advis-ing is "a high calling" (Johnston, Shaman, and Zemsky1987, p. 69), and "a college of quality has a year-roundprogram of academic advising and personal counseling,structured to serve all undergraduates, including part-timeand commuting students" (Boyer 1987, p 289).

Developmental Advising: Keystone ofEducational QualityEffect've high-quality advising today is developmental indesign (Crookston 1972). Based on an ongoing relationshipbetween student and adviser, developmental advising helpseach student become more aware of his or her values, per-sonal characteristics, and needs, and assists him or her insetting goals, making plans for postgraduate life and acareer, and using opportunities for development effectively,thus solving problems and building self-esteem. Qualitydevelopmental advising can be conceived of as the hub ofeach student's experience on campus (Ender, Winston, andMiller 1982). Through a mentoring relationship with anadviser, a student can understand and plan his or her timein college. The adviser and student together can identifyspecial developmental needs that interfere with learningand development, such as inadequate learning skills or

88

102

learning disorders (Schmidt and Sprandel 1982), emotionalconcerns (Altmaier 1983, Hanfmann 1978; Whitman, Spend-love, and Clark 1986), social relationships, and health is-

sues, and then determine resources available for dealingwith them. Developmental advising is pivotal to the qualityof an institution's educational process, for "academic advis-

ing can be conceived as the institution's quality controlmechanism" (Winston, Gritt.s, et al. 1984, p. 539). Develop-mental advising ensures the institution knows each studentas an individual and understands and meets his or herneeds. Rather than using sunimative assessment to weedout the unfit ("defect detection"), developmental advisingfunctions as "defect prevention," ensuring that on gradua-tion all students meet the criterion of "fitness for use."

Several studies demonstrate a positive relationship be-tween academic advising and students' achievement, satis-faction with college, personal, social, and vocational devel-opment, and p.,sistence on campus (Saunders and Ervin1984). A positive association between self-esteem and aca-demic performance suggests that, beyond improving theirstudy skills, building students' self-esteem may be a goodway of improving their academic success (Covington 1989).Developmental academic advising is an excellent way tofoster sustained improvement in students' self-esteem andtheir study habits as well.

High-quality advising has a significant positive effect onstudents' persistence on campus by increasing their achieve-ment and satisfaction and thus reducing their intent to with-draw (Pascarella and Terenzini 1991). A study of 947 institu-tions, for example, reveals that improved advising increasedstudents' persistence on campus more than 25 percent (En-der, Winston, and Miller 1984). Better academic advising istherefore often recommended as a means of improvingretention among students (Forrest 1985; Noel 1985; Saluri

1985). Over half of first-year students in one study wholacked significant involvement with an institutional author-ity, such as a teacher or adviser, failed to return to campusfor a second year (Noel 1985). In another study, a sampleof 1,033 students, 51.1 percent of all first-time, first-yearstudents, at a large public, urban commuter university inthe Midwest, rated the quality of the academic advisingthey had received (Metzner 1989). Fully one-third had re-ceived no advising at all, and, of those students, 35 percent

RedesiRning Higher Education 89

103

were lost to the institution within one year of entry. Stu-dents who perceived their advising to be of good qualitywithdrew at a rate 25 percent less than those with pooradvising and 40 percent less than those who had receivedno advising at all.*

How Good Is Our Advising?Academic advising as it is generally now practiced in thiscountry functions primarily as a means of dispensing infor-mation to students, such as requirements for registration andgraduation, rather than serving as a powerful developmentaltool to foster students' retention and success. "Advising inacademic departments is viewed more as a clerical registra-tion function than as a process in which the [adviserl inter-venes at critical times" (Habley and Crockett 1988, p. 33).

Authorities on advising today recommend an intrusiveapproach that actively seeks out students and ensures qual-ity advising for each one, but institutions tend not to beintrusive. A large number, perhaps even most, do notrequire their students to consult an adviser even for suchweighty issues as declaring a major, unsatisfactory progress,and withdrawal from the college (Habley and Crockett1988). We passively wait for our students to come to us.

Three hours per year is the minimum amount of timeeach student should spend with an adviser (Winston, Miller,et al. 1984), and "any college arguing that it cannot orga-nize its personnel and budget to accomplish this modestproposal . . . is suspect as a viable educational institution"(p. 545). "Short, limited, and irregular interactions between[advisers and students] seldom have lasting impact" (Ender,Winston, and Miller 1984, p. 16), even though a third ofnearly 20,000 students from 55 colleges in one studyclaimed usually to spend only 15 minutes when visitingtheir advisers during each of two or fewer visits a year(Noble 1988). For all respondent institutions in the samesurvey, the reported modal amount of faculty time spentadvising was between 1 percent and 5 percent; a mere 3percent of institutions reported more than 15 percent of

See Sa tun 1985 for a discussion ot programs that have signifkantlyimproved retention by raising the quality of advising.

90

104

faculty time devoted to advising across all departments(Habley and Crockett 1988). In another national study, 55percent of faculty spent four or fewer hours per week incontact of any sort with students outside the classroom(Finkelstein 1984).

Students' satisfaction with advising reflects our inattentionto this key educational process. "According to sever9lnational surveys, undergraduates tend to be more Lussatis-fled with academic advising than with almost any other ser-vice they receive" (Astin 1987, P. 16), rating college advis-ing programs "highly adequate" in 17 percent (academicadvising), 9 percent (personal advising), and 7 percent(vocational advising) of cases in one survey (13oyer 1987).In a national study of the effects of college, only 44.1 per-cent of students said they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied"with advising on their campuses (Astin 1993).

The Necessity for TrainingMost academic advising is conducted in academic depart-ments. Overwhelmingly, it is the faculty who advise ourstudents: 80 percent of all advising in one sample of 754colleges and universities (Crockett and Levitz 1984). Re-gardless of who the advisers are, however, "training is oneof the most important ingredients of an effective advisingprogram" (Gordon 1984, p. 461). Yet faculty members ;Irestill ordinarily untrained for this important and complexwork, approaching this responsibility unequipped withknowledge of student development and without the requi-site skills in communication, counseling, decision making,or career planning.

Training for advisers is not mandatory in any departmentin 44.6 percent of institutions in one survey; it is mandatoryin all departments in only 26.2 percent. In only 29.2 per-cent of the institutions with mandatory training (7.7 percentof all institutions) was this training said to be conductedsystematically (Habley and Crockett 1988). Any training thatdoes exist tends to focus on transmitting information to stu-dents: rules, policies, and procedures to follow. Training ofsome sort in such key skills as counseling, interviewing,and decision making is conducted in relatively few depart-ments: 20.5 percent, 14.7 percent, and 11.4 percent, respec-tively. More surprising yet is the limited training providedfor even the staffs of campus advising offices, where advis-

Redesigning Higher Educatkm 91

105

ing is often a full-time endeavor. Sixty percent of suchoffices provide no training whatever or do not mandate it.

Evaluation, Recognition, and RewardThe low esteem in which colleges and universities holdadvising is indicated by the limited recognition accordedthis complex and demanding task. Recognition and rewardfor advising in those few institutions where they exist at allare most often only "a minor consideration in the promo-tion and tenure process" (Hab ley ajid Crockett 1988, p. 41).When asked how they woul6 rate their advising programs,college officials in one survey rated accountability, training,evaluation, and recognition and reward for work as anadviser least effective out of 11 stated characteristics

labley and Crockett 1988).

The most si:gnificant methods by which advising can beimproved are seen as both the least ellktive and leastimproved areas in the organization and administrationqf campus advising programs. Training, accountabilily,evaluation, and recognition/reward are the cornerstonesof performance in every field or job. Yet those cornerstonescontinue to be stumbling blocks in most advising pro-grams (Habley and Crockett 1988, p. 68).

"This apparent lack of concern on the part of institutionswith the effectiveness and outcomes of their advising pro-grams is disappointing and difficult to understand" (Crockettand Levitz 1984, p. 44).

ConclusionsNot surprisingly, students perceive our apparent indiffer-ence toward our relationthips with them. At the Universityof California, before the main incursion into colleges of the"new" students, 75 percent of freshmen and 63 percent ofseniors stated they had no one on the faculty "whom theyfelt was particularly responsible to or for them" (Chickering1969, p. 252). Thirty percent of seniors, looking back ontheir college experience, "felt that very few or no facultymembers were reaily interested in students" (p. 252). Andresearch provides scant evidence of change in the qualityof advising over the 25-plus years since then.

92106

Findings . . . depict a somewhat disappointing picture ofthe stat 5 of academic advising in American colleges anduniveisities. Me results, particularly when compared tothose from earlier advising suiveys [in 1979 and 19831,reveal little or no improvement . . . (Habley and Crockett1988, p. 74).

Developmental academic advising became no more com-mon in American colleges and universities during the 1980sthan it was in the previous decade: It "is still more promi-nent in theory than it is in practice" (Habley and Crockett1988, p. 67). "Academic advising is scandalously poor inhigher education" (Johnston, Shaman, and Zemsky 1987, p.69). Apparently the advising we offer our students in gen-eral continues the inadequate quality of the guidance mostof them received in high school (Schmidt 1993). And con-cerns have been raised about the quality of advising at thegraduate level (Mooney 1991).

"Faculty perceive that they provide much more beneficialadvisement than students feel they receive. Students per-ceive a vast difference between what faculty advisingshould be and what it is" (Kramee and Spencer 1989, p.105). Surprisingly, although 79 percent of presidentsresponding to a 1989 survey stated that poor academicadvising was a problem on their campuses, only 14 percentbelieved it was a greater than moderate problem (Boyer1990a). Apparently, students' and experts' perceptions ofquality vary significantly from those of many faculty mem-bers and administrators.

"Greater efforts will have to be made to advise and coun-sel students if they are to actually complete the programsin which they enroll" (Solmon 1989, p. 36). Clearly, if col-leges and universities are to produce the fair outcomes forall students society requires today, we will have to changeour advising significantly.

Apparently,students' andexperts'perceptions ofquality varysignifwantlyfrom those ofmany facultymembers andadministrators.

1?edesigning thither Education 93

107

CAN TODAY'S STUDENTS LEARN? AchievingSuccess with High Standar& for All

Given our students' common underpreparahon for academicwork and our striking lack of success in graduating manyof them, some observers have asked whether today's di-verse students, coming as they do from such disparatebackgrounds, can reasonably be expected to succeed at ahigh level. Does widespread access to higher education bynecessity preclude achievement of high-quality outcomes?Can these students learn?

Engaging the interest of our students and motivatingthem to the high quality of effort required for excellentachievement are no mean feats. Some faculty believe manystudents simply lack the intellectual equipment required tolearn; achievement of a high school diploma may be themost to which they can realistically aspire. Research andexperience elsewhere, however, suggest that understandingmore fully the backgrounds and developmental and contex-tual reasons our students behave as they do can greatlyenhance our ability to help them develop.

Professional opinion today views students' aptitudes asproducts not only of heredity but also of experience, not "alist of independent, fixed entities always in force . . . [budexhibited in consort as resultant strengths or weaknessesrelative to present and past conditions" (Snow 1986, p.1037, emphasis in the original). The educational processmust adapt to each individual if all are to succeed.

Specific and compelling evidence suggests we can besuccessful in fostering the development of virtually all ourstudents to far higher levels than we have in the past.Using modern methods, sonic colleges and universities arenow achieving striking results in retaining their students oncampus and graduating them successfully. The researchreviewed in this monograph strongly suggests that, bydeterminedly focusing on improving the quality of theireducational processes, many institutions can achieve dra-matic gains in student development.

Working with public elementary and secondary schoolstudents, who are in most cases far less rigorously selectedand therefore much more heterogeneous and representativeof Americans generall y. than are most college students, cer-tain individual teachers and schools have, by dint of theirenthusiasm, empathy, imagination, and technical profes-sional skill, achieved startling results under improbableconditions. For example, Jaime Escakinte, whose work has

Reclesigmng Higher Muctrifiat 95

108

become well known nationally through the film Stand andDeliver, for years against daunting odds taught calculus in aLos Angeles barrio. These 98 percent Latino young people,believed by many unable to learn higher-level mathematics,consistently passed the ETS Advanced Placement Test incalculus at rates higher than students from all but a smallnumber of far wealthier schools (Mathews 1992). These stu-dents went on to college in significant numbers, includingto institutions of stature.

Henry Levin (1991) has developed accelerated schoolswhere most students are at risk for failure, coming fromirnpo-erished, poorly educated, ethnic minority families(Wells 1989). By giving these students experiences typicalof programs for the gifted and talented rather than reme-dial classes, Levin has dramatically improved their rateof learning.

The potential of schools and colleges today is suggestedby a search for instructional methods that could increaseproductivity in teaching (El lson 1986). This study uncov-ered 125 different methods that were at least twice as effec-tive as more traditional methods used in experimental con-trol groups on at least one index of productivity, such aseffectiveness, cost, or instructional time.

Solving the Two-Sigma ProblemBenjamin S. Bloom and his doctoral students at the Uni-versity of Chicago established that high school studentstutored one-to-one, one-to-two, or one-to-three in varioussubjects achieved test scores averaging about two standarddeviations or "sigmas" higher than sin.ilar students taughtby conventional group instruction (Bloom 1984). In otherwords, the average tutored student performed better than98 percent of the conventionally taught students. Withtutoring, 90 percent of the students reached the level ofperformance of the top 20 percent of conventionally taughtstudents. "The tutoring process demonstrates that most ofthe students do have the potential to reach this high levelof learning" (p. 6, emphasis in the original). Comparedwith conventional group methods, however, tutoring is avery labor-intensive and thus expensive form of instruction.

Using mastery learning, a well-researched method ofinstruction (Block 1971; Bloom 1976; Guskey 1988; Kulik,Kulik, and Bangert-Drowns 1990; Levine and Associates

96

100

1985), the researchers consistently achieved a full one-sigma increase in assessed learning over conventionalinstruction; the average mastery student scored higher than84 percent of those in the conventionally taught class. Withmastery methods, 70 percent of the students achieved alevel equal to only the top 20 percent of conventionallytaught students. The researchers also discovered that thevariation in amount of learning among students alsochanged dramatically, becoming much smaller in masterygroups. Taken together, these results demonstrate that thehigher the quality of instruction, the less relevant to achieve-ment are the entering student's abilities. Or, "the better thecoaching, the less the correlation between height and suc-cess in basketball" (Baird 1985, p. 73).

In a search for those variables that have the strongesteffects on learning, Walberg (1984) reviewed and sum-marized 3,000 empirical studies of students' learning inschools conducted during the previous 50 years. By manip-ulating certain of those variables, Bloom's group by 1984was able to close fully the two-sigma gap between the out-comes produced by tutoring and conventional instructionwith six different methods of group instruction. And opti-mizing all nine of the strongest variables Walberg identifiedshould improve learning by 3.7 standard deviations or sig-mas over current achievement produced by conventionalmethods (Walberg 1984, p. 24).

Bloom's group found that the higher the quality ofinstruction, the lower the correlations between students'assessed aptitude and their achievement. This correlationwas .60 for the conventionally taught control groups in thestudies. With mastery learning methods, the correlationdropped to .35 and with tutoring to .25 (Bloom 1984). Inother words, improving the quality of instruction dramati-cally reduced the impact of stadents' abilities upon entryand enabled all of the students to learn at a high level.According to Bloom, the research is relevant to all levels ofeducation, "including . . . college and even graduate andprofessional school" (p. 8).

Higher-order thinkingDramatically improved learning is not limited to low-levelfacts and concep, alone. When comparing university stu-dents' learning from conventional instruction by lecture

Redesigning Higher hdiication 97

1 i

with discussion groups using new materials and methods,"these and other approaches [make] it clear that most stu-dents could learn the higher mental processes if they be-came more central in the teaching-learning process" (Bloom1984, P. 15, emphasis in the original). (Other research bythe same group produced a 1.7-sigma increase in higher-order cognitive processes over conventional instruction.)

The potential for human development in collegeBloom's findings with ordinary students in schools are con-sistent with later studies by his group, of 120 Americans,each rated among the top 25 people in his or her field(Bloom 1985). In the later studies as well, in addition tomotivation and effort, environmental factors were consis-tently essential to their success: chance opportunities andthe very high standards (challenge) and guidance andencouragement (support) of teachers.

"Individual differences in school learning un-i-r veryfavorable conditions of schooling will approach a vanishingpoint . . . (Bloom 1976, p. 6). "What any person in theworld can learn, almost all persons can learn if providedwith appropriate prior and current conditions of learning"(p. 7, emphasis in the original).

If these dramatic results can be achieved with ordinarystudents in schools, results with our often much more highlyselected and therefore "able" college students can surely beas impressive.

We now have lots of research that shows that intelligenceis essentially made up of learnable skills. This means wecan teach intelligence! Students gain intelligence in col-lege depending on what they study and how they learn.No longer can we dismiss students' aspirations as if theyare in some kind of hopeless situation. . . . Rather, there isnow evidence that we can work with students at all letvlsof ability (McKeachie 1991, p. 226).

Success in Mathematics for Minority StudentsOn many campuses, undergraduate calculus courses arenotorious for their low pass rates, and disadvantaged stu-dents with weak mathematics backgrounds are especially atrisk in such courses. But a marked departure from tradi-tional methods for working with students in academic diffi-

98

culty at the University of CaliforniaBerkeley that empha-sized cooperative learning methods and very high stan-dards rather than remediation achieved a high level of suc-cess with minority group calculus students (Treisman 1985).Over a decade, more than 40 percent of African-Americannonprogram students regularly failed calculus each term(grades of D+ or lower); of African-American students inthe program, however, over seven years only 3 percentfailed and repeated the course unsuccessfully. Less than aquarter of nonprogram African-American students obtaineda grade of A or B in calculus, and their grade point aver-ages in their mathematics courses were near the university'scutoff for probationary status. More than half of the stu-dents in the program, however, received A's and B's; theirgrade point averages in these courses were similar to theoverall class average. Most Berkeley students who with-draw from the university do so during their first two years.Only 57 percent of nonprogram African-American studentspersisted to their fourth semester, while 74 to 78 percent ofAfrican-American students in the program, regardless oftheir admission status, persisted to that point, the rate forBerkeley students as a whole. After five years, only 41 per-cent of African-American students at Berkeley had gradu-ated or still remained on campus, compared to 65 perceatfor program completers (and 66 percent for the overallcampus). Ten percent of nonprogram African-American cal-culus students finished college in math-based majors, 44percent L., program completers.

The ability of minority group students to succeed inmathematics is further underscored by experience at theUniversity of TexasAustin. Under a similar program, 23percent of the 500 mathematics majors were minority stu-dents, whereas 18 percent of all undergraduates were fromracial minorities (Selvin 1992). Twelve of 15 students in anadvanced Gaulois Theory course, or 80 percent, wereAfrican-American or Latino.

A study of primarily Latino students in a similar coopera-tive learning program in basic calculus at California Poly-technic State UniversityPomona reveals substantial corre-lation between program participation and achievement inthe course, achievement in successive calculus courses,progress through the calculus sequence, retention in math,science, and engineering majors, and persistence in college

Redesigning Higher Education 99

0 00

1 i 2

(Bonsangue and Drew n.d.). For example, 42 percent ofminority nonworkshop students withdrew from school overthe six years after entry, compared to only 4 percent of thestudents who attended the workshop. Fully 23 percent ofnonworkshop students required six semesters to completethe three-semester calculus sequence; only 5 percent ofworkshop participants required as long.

Graduate Professional Schools: Admission andGraduation for Minority StudentsXavier University of Louisiana is a small private institutionwith limited resources, 95 percent of whose 1,800 studentsare African-Americans from modest academic backgrounds.Xavier students have an average combined SAT score of 825,which "the Ivy League wouldn't touch" (Culotta 1992, p. 1217).Yet Xavier has become "a veritable faaory for producinglAfrican-Americanl graduates in science" (p. 1217). Whereasnationally the number of African-Americans entering sciencemajors in college was dropping, at Xavier their numberstripled, and half of all students major in science. Xavier hasbeen first in the nation in African-Americans admitted topharmacy schools and second in admission to medicalschools; 86.3 percent of its 102 1988 graduates enteringhealth professions were African-Americans ("Pre Health High-lights" 1988). Although the institution is very small, Xavierstudents were admitted to graduate programs in the healthprofessions in significantly larger numbers than the muchmore highly selected minority group students from Harvard,Stanford, Johns Hopkins, and the University of CaliforniaBerkeley ("Information" 1992). For example, Harvard's fall1985 entering class was both 20 percent minority and drawnfrom the top one-sixth of all applicants (Hodgkinson 1985)Xavier students earned graduate degrees at about the na-tional rate for all students in these programs. Not surprisingly,the keys to success at Xavier include adaptation to students'needs, a strong introductory' program in the development ofabstract reasoning, extensive contact with faculty outside theclassroom, strong social support, and a campus climate thatencourages success (Carmichael et al. 1978; Culotta 1992)

Educational Effectiveness and EfficiencyIf these methods work their dramatic effects with some of

the least well-prepared of our students, what might weaccomplish with their more experienced peers? A preemi-nent indicator of our effectiveness as educators is the pro-portion of the students we admit whom we are able tograduate. The failure of their students to persist on cam-pusthe ultimate lack of involvementis a major concernfor many institutions. Of all 210,739 first-year students at431 two- and four-year institutions who responded to the1991 ACE-UCLA C1RP survey, a mere 0.8 percent estimatedtIley had a "very good" chance of dropping out permanently,1 percent temporarily (Chronicle 1992). About 40 to 45 per-cent of all first-time college students do withdraw from col-lege without graduating, however (Tinto 1985). For exam-ple, the rates of graduation after five years for studentsentering 10 New Jersey public four-year colleges and uni-versities in 1983 ranged from 29 percent to 67 percent, withan institutional average of 42 percent (College CutcomesEvaluation Program 1990a). The range for students enteringin 1984 at the 10 institutions was 26 percent to 65 percent,with an institutional average of 41 percent (College Out-comes Evaluation Program Council 1991). The average five-year graduation rate for minority students entering the 10institutions in 1983 was 22.9 percent (College OutcomesEvaluation Program 1990a), in 1984, 24.2 percent (CollegeOutcomes Evaluation Program Council 1991). Althoughsome additional students will waduate from these institu-tions in succeeding years, their number is unlikely to belarge. In more than a few institutions across the country, amajority of students who enter fail to graduate.

The losses incurred by unnecessary, inappropriate with-drawal from college are enormous to these students andtheir families, their institutions, which forfeit significantsums of money, the states, and the nation. Although thereasons for withdrawal are diverse, evidence suggests thequality of our educational processes and the climate wecreate on campus are primary factors affecting the decisionwhether to remain on campus or leave. Only a small mi-nority of 10 to 15 percent of college withdrawals resultfrom academic failure; in most cases, withdrawal has moreto do with students' experiences in college than their char-acteristics on entry, particularly the degree to which a stu-dent is integrated into the life of the campus (Tinto 1987).

Redesigning Higher Education

Of particular importance are those experiences [thud arisefrom the daily interactions between students and facultyoutside the classroom. Other things being equal, the morefrequent those interactions are, and the warmer andmore rewarding they are seen to be by the students, themore likely is posistenceindee(Z, the more likely is socialand intellectual development generally (Tinto 1987, p. 84).

Beyond the rates at which we are able to graduate ourstudents, an important related concern is our ability to edu-cate them efficiently, enabling them to complete theirdegrees in a timely manner and to move into society asfully productive members. Undergraduate students are tak-ing longer and longer to graduate. The percentage of un-dergraduate students in regular four-year programs whotake five years his doubled during the last 10 years (Kra-mer 1993). Only a third of the students at four-year institu-tions in Virginia graduate in four years ("Virginia" 1992). In1992, the state colleges of New Jersey graduated 37 percentof their full-time, first-time, degree-seeking students in fiveyears; the two-year community colleges graduated 15 per-cent of their equivalent cohort in three years (Goldberg1993a). One recent study of 298 colleges and universitiesshows that, after six years, an average of only 54 percent offirst-time, full-time, first-year students had graduated (Cage1993). Another national study reveals that, of students en-tering four-year colleges and universities for the first timedirectly from high school, only 23 percent graduated in fouryears (16.5 percent in public institutions). After six years,the rate rose to 46 percent, still less than half (Porter 1990).

Students who are slow to finish can include among themmany of our most academically able students. Studies bythe Educational Testing Service have shown that only 51percent of college students considered "high-obility" highschool seniors who had scored in the top 25 percent onNAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) testshad graduated from college in seven years, a pattern thatwas stable through the 1970s and 1980s (Dodge 1991). Astime passes, increasing frustration, alienation, and accumu-lating debt can discourage many students from continuingon campus, our institutional inefficiency leading them towithdraw.

102

115

Dropping out holds significant fiscal implications for usas well. "The fact that we get only half of our studentsthrough a baccalaureate degree in six years is a condemna-tion of higher education. If we were running an automobileplant, we would be out of business" (Reginald Wilson,cited in Cage 1993). Evidence suggests that, once we admitthem, we are in many cases not providing the assistancestudents need.

Graduate programs suffer some of these same problems.The attrition rate of doctoral students, a decades-old con-cern ("Ph.D. under Attack" 1966) and deemed "disturbinglyhigh" (Association 1990, P. 2), is estimated at 50 percent,frequently greater in some fields. The median time spentregistered in graduate programs between the bachelor'sand doctoral degrees in 1988 was 6.9 years (Association1990). A study of a large and prestigious Ph.D. program athe University of CaliforniaBerkeley reveals the averagetime to degree was 9.6 years, about 25 percent of a gradu-ate's 40-year career span, and only one-third of the stu-dents even completed a degree (Seymour 1992). Theseslow rates of learning and high rates of attrition have signif-icant financial implications for our students and for societyat large.

ConclusionsTaken together, old-fashioned methods take a heavy toll inlost human potential and reduced learning productivity incolleges and universities. At the same time, the systematicuse of methods validated by research holds promise fordramatically improving the value we are able to create forboth our students and our supporters, and for society morebroadly. If we would do what works and stop doing whatdoes not, virtually all of our students could learn. The nextseLtion introduces a number of specific methods that haveproven their worth in effecting high-quality learning.

Only 51percent ofcollegestudentsconsidered"high-ability"high schoolseniors hadgraduatedfrom collegein sevenyears.

Mylecwiiing Higher Filuca lum

116103

1.

IMPROVING QUALITY: The Need for a Sea Change

Our students' sojourn with us in higher education oftenresembles not much a carefully crafted educationalexperience tailored to each person's developmental needsas one of fruit bouncing erratically on a conveyor in a masspacking facility. The student experience seems more fre-quently determined by academic tradition than research-based theory, our educational process more often based onexpediencythe convenience of administrators and facultythan our students' developmental needs. To produce high-quality results for our stakeholders requires the insights ofresearch-based theory rather than what often seems to bean atheoretical or lay hypothetical approach to studentsand learning. In many cases, our students lack all but themost rudimentary academic advisingoften they havereceived none at alland they receive little assessment oftheir developmental levels or needs upon entry to collegeother than of basic verbal and mathematical skills. Thus,neither they nor their teachers have the crucial informationboth require to construct developmental plans and pre-scribe activities that can provide an appropriate response totheir needs. For most students, academic activities appar-ently involve classes where they listen passively to authori-ties tell them facts; they seem to do relatively little learningon their own outside class, rarely work with other studentsor have contact with faculty outside class, infrequentlyreflect systematically about their own development, andconsider college primarily as a station on the way to a bet-ter job and salary.

Even for culturally and educationally advantaged stu-dents, such experiences are ill suited to foster their devel-opment Because of their previous status, however, thesemore privileged students may survive the system, evenlearn quite a bit, and certainly emerge with excellentgrades For their less advantaged peers, however, theirexperiences on campus can all too often be developmen-tally destructive. Unsure of what to expect in this new andforeign culture, frequently consumed by self-doubt, lackingadequate academic skills, and fearful of asserting theirneeds to authority, these students often find the collegeexperience a frustrating and demoralizing path to failurefailure whose impact can last a lifetime.

The system of higher education in this country is oftenclaimed to be the best in the world, and it may well be.

Redesigning Higher Education

1.17

105

motr

Our more than 3,600 institutions provide access to postsec-ondary schooling for a larger percentage of our peoplethan do the colleges and universities of perhaps any othernation. Annually, other countries send 460,000 of their peo-ple here to attend our postsecondary institutions (Barbett etal. 1995). But, "what if, in light of what organizations couldhe, 'excellence' is actually 'mediocrity'?" (Senge 1990, p. 18,emphasis in the original). Judged by a standard more exact-ing than the current performance of colleges elsewhere, bythe standard of human potential, by the standard of qualitymodern educational methods can produce, and by the stan-dard of what society now requires, we fall far short. Ourcurrent standards no longer serve us well. Our institutionsare, for the most part, mere shadows of what they couldbecome as engines of human development.

The pattern of checkered quality and institutional ineffec-tiveness suggested by the studies reviewed in this mono-graph is fully consistent with serious concerns repeatedlyraised in the long series of reports issued over the lastdecade by various government agencies and educationorganizations. These reports, prepared by panels of promi-nent academicians and other distinguished Americans, aresharply critical of colleges and universities. A number ofbooks published during the same period further detail ourperceived inability to educate our students (see, e.g.,Bloom 1987; Huber 1992; Smith 1990; Sykes 1988; VonBlum 1986; Wilshire 1990). Other reports cited earlier areequally critical of our ineffectiveness in preparing bothundergraduate and graduate students in specific disciplinesand fields. Students' achievement is related to our own per-formance: "Development thrives in a richly interactive andpersonalized environment, a hothouse for intellectual growth.The potential for such growth remains largely untappedin most institutions of higher learning . . ." (Kurfiss1988, p. 68).

Widespread agreement among observers suggests we areat a watershed in American higher education. The nation'ssocial and economic future depends on a number of clearlyidentified and widely agreed-upon human qualities in itscitizens, among them well-developed intellectual skills andvalues, the capacity to work well with others, and thedesire for lifelong learning. Our research-based knowledgeof how these human qualities can be developed is now

106

118

sufficiently sophisticated for us to nurture development to ahigh level and on a truly wide scale. We cannot, however,accomplish this task using what are, in many cases, meth-ods unchanged from the 1960s, 1950s, or even before.

Today, national and state leaders are calling for a signifi-cant restructuring of higher education analogous to theprocess now under way in the K-12 sector (Mingle 1993).Few knowledgeable observers believe isolated repairsmade here and theremore add-on programs or tinkeringwith or fine-tuning the status quoare likely to achieve theresults required or to do so in a reasonable length of time.Society's needs require fundamental rethinking of how wein higher education work. Thus, at the 1992 annual meet-ing of the Education Commission of the States, the program"reflected the growing interest in radical approaches tosolving higher education's problems" (Mercer 1992). Ahigh-level task force has recommended a national councilbe established to develop standards for students' achieve-ment in college and the means to assess achievement ofthose standards (Task Force on Assessing 1992).

We can modernize our educational processes and im-prove our capacity to produce learning in many importantways. A number of newer professional practices, if cor-rectly applied (often in combination) and systematicallyand systemically managed, hold especially great promisefor improving the quality and quantity of learning in ourcolleges and universities.

1. Clear Missions and Goals: Setting HighExpectations, Focusing Effort, Reducing Waste"If we don't know where we're going, we may end upsomeplace else." "Clarity of institutional purpose, coinmuni-cated both through the curriculum and through the con-sistency with which the institution acts" (Peterson et al.1986, p. 105), is "vely important" in determining students'outcomes. "An effective college has a clear and vital mis-sion. Administrators, faculty, and students share a vision ofwhat the institution is seeking to accomplish" (Boyer 1987,p. 58). Moreover, "the moment we lose sight of the mis-sion, we begin to stray, we waste resources" (Drucker1990, p. 141).

Because of their broad language, mission statementsneed to be translated into more specific goals and objec-

Redeskoing Higher Education

1i9107

tives to be fully useful on an operational level (Gardiner1989). Authorities today consider an essential foundationfor all institutional activitiesplanning, implementation,and monitoring qualitya series of carefully stated out-comes describing clearly for everyone the results the insti-tution and its programs intend to produce. These outcomegoals and objectives guide the design of the curriculum,instruction, advising, and cocurricular activities, and the sys-tematic assessment of the actual results these educationalprocesses produce. If development is the aim of education,as Kohlberg and Mayer (1972) suggest:

The most important issue confronting educators and edu-cational theorists is the choice of ends for the educationalprocess Without clear and rational educational goals, itbecomes impossible to decide which educationalprogramsachieve objectives of general import and which teach inci-dental facts and attitudes of dubious worth (Kohlberg andMayer 1972, p. 449).

Of course, both mission statements and goals must beused to be useful, and evidence suggests in all 'oo manycases we are not now using them. "The American collegeor university is a prototypic organized anarchy. It does notknow what it is doing. Its goals are either vague or in dis-pute" (Cohen and March 1974, p. 3). Many facuity membersand others on campus do not understand their institution'sobjectives (Study Group 1984). "We found at most collegesin our study great difficulty, sometimes to the point ofparalysis, in defining purposes and goals" (Boyer 1987, p.59). The result of such confusion can be the adding on ofprograms and activities that could be peripheral to the insti-tution's educational purpose, academic departments' con-trolling specialized pieces of what should be an integratedcurriculum, and instruction occurring as uncoordinated,individual courses often the privatc preserves of individualprofessors. "Common goals are blurred" (p. 59), effortunfocused, resources wasted, and results mediocre. Suc-cessfully serving our diverse clients at a high level of qual-ity will require us to take far more seriously than we inmost cases now do the crafting and use of statements ofour missions and intended outcomes.

108

1 0

"All leadership is goal-oriented [and] the failure to setgoals is a sign of faltering leadership" (Burns 1978, p. 455).Through leadership and commitmentand more forcefulpressure from their external stakeholdersour colleaguesin the K-12 sector have outdistanced us in efforts to clarifyintended results. Dozens of national and statewide effortsspecify demanding outcome "standards" for all students,teachers, and institutions ("Struggling" 1995). "One is hardpressed to think of any organization that has sustainedsome measure of greatness in the absence of goals, values,and missions that become deeply shared throughout theorganization" (Senge 1990, p. 9). Clarifying our educationalmissions, values, and goals fx everyone is a first step wecan take to move our institutions unequivocally towardhigh quality.

2. Knowledge of Results: Using Systematic AssessmentTo Create a Culture of EvidenceEqually as important as clearly defining the outcomes weintend to produce is assessing their actual achievement.Assessment is essential not only to guide the developmentof individual students but also to monitor and continuouslyimprove the quality of programs, inform prospective stu-dents and their parents, and provide evidence of account-ability to those who pay our way. Nevertheless, "it is rarethat an institution evaluates its impact on individual stu-dents across a coherent spectrum of institutional objectives"(Korn 1986, p. 5). In most cases, we simply do not knowhow our students are developing or how effective we are.Even today, we often fly blind.

Given the inadequacy of grades as indicators of students'learning, "the consequent lack of data about [students'] per-formance and a college's leaves the stakeholders in highereducation . . with little information about the learningoutcomes of a single college or system of colleges" (Turn-bull 1985, p. 24). Baccalaureate-level results are not theonly ones shrouded in mystery. A widely publicized reporton quality in basic medical education states, "The effective-ness of an educational program should be measured byhow well its students perform later in their careers. Mostinstitutions of higher education employ short-term mea-sures, if any, to determine whether or not their educationgoals are accomplished" (Panel 1984, p. 31). "Outsiders

Redestgning 11wher Education

121109

find this peculiar, given academia's thirst for data andknowledge" (Keller 1983, p. 131)not to mention our vir-tually universal trained expertise in research.

In the absence of timely and reliable information pro-d ced by effective assessment and evaluation, how can webe sure of what is happening in our institutions? An addi-tional consequence of our failure to assess results regularlycould be our own misperception of reality. Thirty-sevenpercent of faculty respondents to one survey said theirinstitutions did an "excellent" job in undergraduate generaleducation, and another 38 percent selected "better thanadequate"; only 6 percent believed their institutions dida job that was "less than adequate," 1 percent "poor"(Boyer 1989).

Monitoring results continuously and at every point willhave to become an important fo, us for us if we are toimprove the quality of our work as required. Moreover,assessment will have to apprise us not only of the out-comes we produce, but also of inputsthe specific charac-teristics of our incoming studentsand the quality of oureducational processes (Adelman 1988, 1989; Anderson et al.1975; Assessment Update; Astin 1991; Banta 1988, 1993;13anta et al. 1995; Dressell 1976; Erwin 1991; Halpern 1987;Hanson 1982, 1989; Light, Singer, and Willett 1990; Mentkow-ski et al. 1991). (For assessment in courses, see p. 65.)

3. Coherent Curricula: Integrating DevelopmentAs the overarching, integrated framework for students'development, the curriculum and its purpose, design, andfunction are fundamental to educational quality. "The cur-riculum, too, if properly designed, should intellectuallyintegrate the campus. In a putposeful community, learningis pervasive" (Boyer 1990a, p. 16, emphasis in the original).The studies reviewed earlier strongly suggest many institu-tions may need to rethink their curricula. "Traditional cur-ricula and course structures are generally insensitive to theneeds, interests, and abilities of the individual student,unaffected by the changing needs of society, and ineffickmtin their use of available talents and resources" (Diamond1989, p. 188). A necessary starting point for curriculardesign or redesign, as for any other program, is to defineclearly the specific outcomes the curriculum is expected toproduce and then to assess continuously in a valid and i eh-

110

1 22

able. fashion both the actual results produced and the qual-ity of the curricular processes that produced them. To pro-duce high-quality results consistently, curricula must beactively managed.

Use psychological theory at every pointGoals and objectives for curricular outcomes, instructionalprocesses, the cocurriculum, academic advising, and assess-ment should all systematically incorporate what we nowknow about our students' psychological development, suchas their capacity for abstraction, epistemology, moral de-velopment, ego development (Knefelkamp, Parker, andWidick 1978; Kronholm 1996; Loevinger 1976; Weathersby1981), capacity for intimacy (Douvan 1981), interpersonalsocial skills (Torbert 1981), and identity (Chickering andReisser 199:-). Students should be helped to understand theimplications of this research and learn to apply it metacog-nitively in their own lives.

If the preeminent outcome we value is students' cogni-tive development, the curriculum should at all points focuson producing this result. Thorough step-by-step trainingspecifically designed to develop critical thinking skills anddispositions, and the ability for and habit of metacognitionshould be planned throughout the curriculum and shouldprovide abundant practice with timely corrective feedbackin diverse contexts (Brookfield 1987; Cromwell 1986;Facione 1990; Facione, Sanchez, and Facione 1993; Halo-nen 1986; Kurfiss 1988; Meyers 1986; Paul 1995; Stice 1987).We should consciously be developing, in a word, wisdom(Sternberg 1990).

Cognitive development, although central to our entoprise.is . . . not enough. To the extent that cognition developsapart from affective development, it is likely to result in adistorted, fragmented conception of reality where one iswholly unaware of one's projections. Psychopathology isthe likely result. . . . An educational system that fosters thedevelopment of cognitive proc, sses at the expense of that ofthe whole, integrated person fails in its mission if the goalis, in part, to nurture people capable of contributing to thebetterment of society and, indeed. all of life (Kramer and13acelar 1994, p. 39).

Redesigning Higher hducalinn ill123

A Japanese religious sect, among its other antisocial,destructive, and criminal activities, produced and releasedin a crowded Tokyo subway the deadly military chemicalagent sarin, killing and injuring many people. A number ofJapanese university faculty members linked the attraction ofthe sect for graduates of some of Japan's most prestigiousuniversities to the quality of these universities' curricula(WuDunn 1995). These teachers attributed their students'inability to resiFt charismatic, authoritarian ideology to theirinstitutions' emphasis on memorizing rather than thinking."It reflects a profound crisis in the educational system,"said one. Students "are absorbing ever greater amountsof information, but they don't acquire the ability to makevalue judgments on basic human values like responsibil-ity for human life or respect for freedom of the individ-ual" (p. A6).

Here, in the United States, a young man is thought tohave used the knowledge he gained as a chemical engi-neering major at Ruzgers University to bomb the WorldTrade Center for a righteous cause, in the process killingsix people, injuring over a thousand, and causing manymillions of dollars of damage. These true believers (I Ioffer1951) are, of course, extreme examples. But how muchreassurance can we draw from the research reviewed inthis monograph concerning the critical thinking skills anddispositions of the rest of our graduates and their ability topick their way reliably through the minefields of potentiallydestructive social, political, and religious blather surround-ing them?

Fundamental humane and democratic values characteris-tic of well-developed people should be specifically devel-oped across the curriculum (Collins 1983; Earley, Ment-kowski, and Schafer 1980; McBee 1980; Morrill 1980;Valuing 1987; White 1981). At every point, we should buildour students' general and academic self-esteem (Ca ifornia1990; Covington 1985, 1989; Covington and Beery 1976).Students should be specifically taught to understand theirown emotional dynamics, particularly the interactionbetween their levels of self-esteem and hostile responses,and apply this understanding skillfully in their personaldecision making and interactions with others (Altemeyer1988; Layden 1977; Saul 1976).

.:' V.

Use available curricular resourcesA wide variety of curricular formats are available that can

serve our institutions' diverse missions and students' needs.To achieve a high-quality curriculum, colleges reviewingtheir curricula must seek specific guidance in the profes-sional literature on curricular design (see, e.g., Chickering

et al. 1977; Conrad and Pratt 1986; Diamond 1989; Fincher1986; Gaff 1983, 1991; Gaff et al. 1980; Levine 1978; Project

on Liberal Learning 1991; Project on Redefining 1985; Stark1989; Toma and Stark 1995; Toombs and Tierney 1991;

Wood and Davis 1978; Zemsky 1989).

4. Research-Based Methods of Instruction:Doing What WorksA curriculum can only be as strong as its constituent courses.

The design, implementation, and assessment of coursesrequire newer, more modern professional methods than wegenerally now use, methods that are known empirically torespond effectively to students' diverse levels of develop-ment and styles of learning (see, e.g., Claxton and Murrell1987; Keirsey and Bates 1978; Kolb 1981; McKeachie 1994;

McKeachie et al. 1990; Myers and McCaulley 1985; Myers

and Myers 1980; Provost and Anchors 1987; Schroeder 1993).The untoward effects of large size on organizational

effectiveness (see, e.g., Chickering 1969; Chickering andReisser 1993; McKeachie et al. 1990; Sale 1980) means weneed to make the large small. Every method described inthis subsection can be used to reduce the effect of largesize, thereby individualizing mass ins'ruction.

Systematically designed instructionSystematic design provides an overarching framework forthe many components of instruction. It can help a teacherspecify important developmental outcomes that should beachieved, analyze the learning tasks students must perform

to reach those outcomes, identify the resources required forthis learning, structure activities for the course, and assessthe results achieved (Briggs 1977; Davis and Alexander1977b; Davis, Alexander, and Yelon 1974; Diamond 1989;Gagné and Briggs 1974; Hannum and Briggs 1982; Kemp1977; Rothwell and Kazanas 1992; Russell and Johannings-rneier 1981). Systematic design provides an effective means

A young manis thought tohave used theknowkdge hegained as achemicalengineeringmajor tobomb theWorld TradeCenter.

Redesigning Higher EducaliuF,

1 2 5

113

for organizing the components of instruction of all types:for all outcomes, students, instructors, and programs. Al-though most teachers in higher education are unaware ofsystematic design, this now-standard professional conven-tion should become widely used in colleges and universities.

Students' active involvement in learningSystematic design is the framewoik for planning instruction.But what methods of learning can produce the diverse andabstract higher-order cognitive outcomes society demands,involve students in sustained, intensive work with oneanother, develop a challenging and supportive classroomclimate that builds self-esteem, specifically teach interper-sonal and team skills, develop the capacity and desire forlifelong learning, and, in large institutions, personalize massinstruction? Clearly, our one-size-fits-all educational tool,the traditional lecture, cannot produce these results.

Diverse forms of individualized instruction that respondto students' widely divergent styles and rates of learningconsistently produce greater learning of content than pas-sive listening only (Pascarella and Terenzini 1991). "How,then, does one reconcile . . . lstudents'l heterogeneity withthe homogeneity of most institutions in their . . . curricularcontent and structure, course content and sequences, [and]instructional methods?" (p. 645). Today, newer, empiricallybased methods of instruction await widespread use in highereducation. Some of these methods of individualizing andpersonalizing mass instruction permit even a lecture withlarge numbers of students to include substantial interactionamong students and between students and teachers.

We need to ensure our students are actively involved inlearning at every point, both inside and outside the class-room and in both academic and nonacademic, cocurricularactivities. Ninety-one percent of college and university pres-idents in a Carnegie Foundation study said an "important"need exists for more collaborative learning among studentsas a means of improving campus life; 33 percent said thisneed is "very important" (Boyer 1990a).

The use of active learning may limit the amount of con-tent we can cover in a course, but the research reviewedearlier shows that much, if not most, of the conceptualmaterial we now cover is poorly learned and soon forgot-ten. t inder traditional instruction, students will have coy-

114

126

ered more but learned less in the sense of meaningfully

retaining and integrating knowledge (Kurfiss 1983). We

need to be more selective in choosing the outcomes wevalue most. Describing its new science-as-a-liberal-art cur-

riculum, the American Association for the Advancement ofScience states, "The traditional survey course and con,.emabout 'coverage' have no place in the curriculum describedhere" (Project on Liberal Education 1990, p. xviii). Work-

shop Physics at Dickinson College has reduced course con-

tent by 30 percent (Tobias 1992). A plan now being imple-mented in British universities to improve the competenciesof physics graduates will cut "the content of physics de-

grees by at least two-thirds. 'If we aimed to teach less, wecould teach far better- ("English Physics" 1990).Disciplining ourselves to prune away forgettable and for-

gotten content and focus on the most important knowl-edge, skills, and values can lead to learning so deeplyembedded it cannot easily be lost.

Mastery learning: Reaching high expectationsRather than accepting most students' low-quality learning

semester after semester, mastery learning emphasizes high-quality achievement on the part of all students (Block 1971;Bloom 1976; Guskey 1988; Kulik, Kulik, and Bangert-Drowns 1990; Levine and Associates 1985). Mastery learn-

ing eliminates time as the independent variable in learningand replaces it with mastery of specific, preidentifiedknowledge and skills, allowing variable amounts of time

according to the needs of individual learners and thusremoving a major barrier to success. The focus of mastery

learning is on results, not time spent.

Integrated systems of instructionPowerful instructional systems that specifically use the

results of empirical research on learning have been devel-

oped to achieve higher education's important aims. The

superiority of these systems to conventional instruction is

supported by numerous studies. These overarching instruc-

tional frameworks systemically link together principles of

good educational practice.

Personalized System of Instruction. PSI, or the Keller

plan, is characterized by clearly defined objectives, depen-

Redesigning Thgber Mucenum

127115

dence on the written word, students' active involvement inlearning at every point, self-pacing to accommodate widelydiffering rates of learning, insistence on mastery of a sub-ject, use of student "proctors" or peer tutors, frequent con-tact between students, and timely and nonpunitive assess-ment and feedback (Guskey 1988; Keller 1968; Keller aridSherman 1974; Reboy and Semb 1991; Ruskin 1976). In aPSI course, the instructor serves as a manager of learningrather than primarily as a transmitter of information throughlectures. The instructor specifies the outcomes of thecourse through learning objectives, sets the standards ofmastery, and evaluates, selects, and develops instructionalmaterials. PSI depends on the written word. All studentsare acsumed capable of high achievement, and mastery isrequired of all. They are given considerable responsibilityfor their own learning as well as freedom to achieve thecourse objectives at their own rate and methods, and attimes and in places of their own choice. Students progressthrough the course in a carefully predetermined sequence,achieving the objectives of each unit before being permit-ted to proceed to the next. Students who do not achieve"mastery" on a unit test restudy until they can demon-strate their understanding and skills at that level on addi-tional tests.

More advanced studen! (proctors), in a ratio of aboutone proctor to 10 students, help students learn by adminis-tering, scoring, and recording tests and discussing coursematerial with them. They also provide valuable feedback tothe instructor on all aspects of students' progress andcourse functioning.

PSI courses can include textbooks, laboratory work, dis-cussions, and other traditional methods. Lectures, however,are few in number, short, of relatively minor signific-mce,optional foi students, and reserved primarily for motiva-tional purposes rather then the transmission of information.

Cooperative learning. "The best thing colleges could dofor students in coming years would be to train them howto engage in group efforts productively" (Light 1990, p. 71)."Few students, if any, have these skills when they arrive atcollege. Fewer still ever get formal training in them" (p.71). The complex of methods collectively known as "co-operative learning" (CI.) is a highly flexible and variable

group of instructional procedures that can involve studentsactively in learning, provide extensive contact between andamong students, specifically teach interpersonal and teamskills, help students learn personal responsibility to others,and be used to achieve almost any desired cognitive, affec-tive, or motor learning outcome in any discipline (Boutonand Garth 1983; Cooper et al. 1990; Johnson, Johnson, andSmith 1991a, 1991b; Kagan 1989; Michaelsen 1992; Millis1991; Winston et al. 1988). CL has been used widely at alllevels of schooling and has substantial empirical supportfor its effectiveness. The methods used in CL can be linkedto form a coordinated instructional system or used withboth traditional methods or other research-based methods,such as group problem solving with Guided Design (Walesand Stager 1977; White and Coscarelli 1986). Widespread,effective use of CL methods throughout higher educationcould lead to major gains in the development of studentsof almost every kind.

The use of CL has dramatically improved class atten-dancewith absenteeism dropping from 50 percent to 1percent in one studyand has had strong positive effectson students' self-esteem, relations among members of dif-ferent races, and cooperativeness in other situations (Bon-well and Eison 1991). CL could have especially powerfuleffects in achieving the major paradigm shifts that charac-terize development of abstract thinking, epistemology, andprincipled ethical reasoning. These types of developmentmay be better facilitated by interaction among peers, whoin most cases are closer to each other in developmentallevel than faculty. CL can also significantly increase contactof various sorts between students and faculty.

Learning communitiesAcross the country teachers and students are developingcommunities that are involved in collaborative learning incourses, programs, academic departments, and residencehalls (Gabelnick et al. 1990; Schroeder 1994; Wilcox andEbbs 1992), perhaps most notably through the WashingtonCenter for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Educa-tion (Washington 1994). Such learning communities bringeveryone involved together in a joint quest for learning.A psychological climate can he developed that brings to-gether students different in experience, ethnicity, religion,

Redesigning Higher Educanon

129117

and other characteristics and permits them to learn fromeach other intensively and cooperatively. Learning commu-nities can help integrate fragmented curricula, build socialand team skills, reduce students' boredom and attritionfrom courses and institutions, and validate the worth ofeach as a person and learner.

5. Campus Climate: Beginning in the ClassroomMost students have their most sustained contact with offi-cial representatives of their institutions in the classroom.Although development and management of a campus cli-mate requires many specific actions, the classroomtheindividual teacheris central: "It is in the classroom wherecommunity begins. . ." (Boyer 1990a, p. 16). Althoughimportant for all students, community on campus is espe-cially critical for the "new" students: women, minority-group students, older students, and commuters.

It's in the classroom where social and intellectual bonding45 most likely to occur. For commuter students this is theprimary point of campus contact. . . . The classroom canbe an oasis of social and emotional support in the oftenhectic lives of older students (Boyer 1990a, p. 53).

Cooperative learning and learning communities are power-ful methods for structuring just this sort of supportive, vali-dating learning environment in virtually every course. Well-designed instruction can set the psychological tone acrossthe entire curriculum and campus.

6. Learning to Learn: Strategies that WorkThe ho Irs students reported studying per week, in Astin's1993 study, were significantly correlated with over two-thirds of his 82 student outcome variables, including virtu-ally all academic outcomes. Hours spent in class per weekwere correlated with far fewer outcomes. Students who useeffective learning strategies tend to be retained on campus:those who do not tend to withdraw. The effort put forth bystudents is possibly the most important factor in theirdevelopment. According to the research reviewed earlier,most students do not study nearly enough for effectivelearnir.: in college. Students learn what they study, and it

118

1. 3 0

is important that they understand just how much they needto study. But effort from students is not enough; quality ofeffort is what counts.

Today, much is known about how students learn (see,e.g., Schmeck 1988; Weinstein 1988b). Most students do notlearn effective study methods by themselves or use them togood effect (McKeachie et al. 1990). Many students routinelyuse methods for learning that are well known not to work,such as repeatedly rereading their textbooks; as long agoas 1917, this method was shown to be far inferior to recit-ing the material being learned (Gates, cited by Brethower1977). Students need to be directly taught specific methods oflearning and metacognition (McKeachie et al. 1990). Re-search shows formal instruction in effective learning strat-egies can help students achieve significantly greater learn-ing (Dansereau 1985; Davies 1983; McKeachie et al. 1990;Weinstein I988a), yet despite urgings for us to teach ourstudents how to be skilled and avid lifelong learners, ableto improve their own intelligence, very few students haveever been taught how to learn, either in high school or incollege. Of 745 Rutgers University undergraduates surveyedinformally, for example, only 14.1 percent claimed ever tohave been taught how to study. By withholding this essen-tial information from our students, we are in many casesforeclosing them from success and from the pleasure oflearning in college and perhaps throughout their lives.The attendant toll for society is enormous.

If we are to enable our students to be effective learnersboth in college and beyond, to engage in deep rather than"surface" learning ("Deep Learning" 1993), we should sys-tematically ensure that every person becomes skilled atlearning. This one act on our part could alone dramaticallyimprove students'and therefore our ownlearning pro-ductivity while transforming the college experience formany thousands of students. Using tools like the LASSI, E-LASSI (Weinstein, Palmer, and Schulte 1987), and MSLQ(Pintrich and Johnson 1990; Pintrich et al. 1991) to assesslearning skills can help systematically diagnose the learningskills students need to develop. Other resources can helpus teach them how to learn effectively, enjoy learning, andbe successful at it (Johnson et al. 1991; Sherman 1985:Weinstein 1988a. 1988b; Weinstein and Mayer 1986;Weinstein and Underwood 1985).

Redeskorng11441.wi 1 ducation 119

1 3

7. Developmental Academic Advising: BuildingSupportive RelationshipsAcademic and personal guidance, advising, and counselingappropriate to each person throughout his or her collegeyears are well established as vitally important for students'development and institutions' educational success. Equallywell known is the generally poor qualityor even com-plete lackof academic advising on most campuses. Theresulting confusion and developmental loss for students,frustration and disappointment for faculty and staff, andfinancial loss to colleges and universities because ofstudents' attrition are significant. And despite the well-established central importance for development of contactbetween students and faculty outside class, Pascarella andTerenzini (1991) concluded from their review of researchthat interaction between students and faculty in many insti-tutions is generally limited to "formalized, somewhat struc-tured situations, such as the lecture, laboratory, or discus-sion section" (p. 393).

The concept of developmental academic advising is anoverarching, r?.search-support.ed concept that systematicallylinks various advising and counseling efforts now typicallydisjunct and sciltered across campus (Brown and De Coster1982; Crookston 1972; Gordon 1992, 1994; King 1993;Winston, Ender, and Miller 1982; Winston, Miller, et al.

984). Responding to the needs of each student, develop-menial academic advising provides thorough assessment ofa student's characteristics and feedback, guidance, andmentoring from trained advisers throughout college.

Rather than being a frill peripheral to the real educationalenterprise of classroom teaching and a drain on more im-portant work, high-quality academic advising can be one ofthe most prudent investments an institution can make, par-ticularly in a time of fiscal austerity. "Probably the singlemost important move an institution can make to increasepersistence to graduation is to ensure that students receivethe guidance they need at the beginning of the journeythrough college to graduation" (Forrest 1985, p. 74). Andhigh-quality developmental advising need not require amajor increase in fiscal resources (hines 1984). Even forpublic institutions, where tuition is relatively low, "if effec-tive academic advising is associated with lighcr retentionrates, the tuition revenue alone will compensate for the

1203 2

institution's investment in academic advising as a sepa-rate and distinct budget item" (p. 340). The cost of qual-ity is zero.

ConclusionsThis section has focused on only a handful of basic actionswe can and should take to transform our institutions andachieve the very large gains in students' learning and de-velopment society require:. We can do many more thingsto improve the quality of Dui- results, and the resourcescited throughout this mon )grph can point the way.

We need to act with dis,oatch. Higher education oftentakes twice as long to adopt inncvations as industry(Siegfried, Getz, and Anderson 1995). Society cannot waitfor us; we need to act now.

Redesigning Higher Education133

121

PRODUCING RESULTS: Leadership for Quality

This review of the research on student development incolleges and universities has revealed numerous substan-tive problems in our educational processes. Twelve yearsof efforts to reform and restructure the schools, efforts farmore vigorous, comprehensive, and sustained than thoseso far applied to higher education, have led to successonly in a limited number of schools and districts ("FromRisk" 1993). How can we in higher education act in amore effective and timely way to improve the quality ofpostsecondary education?

Managing for QualityJust as research has clarified the process of student devel-opment -.self, it has illuminated the functioning of our com-plex academic organizations, and methods exist today formanaging our educational work systematically and systemi-cally. We have been using the relatively laissez-faire meth-ods of the past, however, which have often lacked cleargoals and objectives; regular monitoring of entering stu-dents' characteristics, outcomes produced, or educationalprocesses used; and systematic coordination and linksamong units. These methods have permitted educationalactivitiescurricula, instruction, advising, assessment, gen-eral education, the disciplinary majorseach to run alongon its own track. As has been so clearly shown by theresearch surveyed in this monograph, our educationalprocesses are all too often incoherent and fragmented;efforts are unfocused and thus fail to achieve the synergyrequired to produce the complex, high-quality develop-mental results we want and society requires. We need anew way of leading and managing our enterprise.

Continuous Quality Improvement is a powerful syntheticmethod that can integrate these efforts systematically andcomprehensively, consistently focusing on the quality ofboth processes and results (Crosby 1979; Deming 1986;Juran 1988, 1989; Walton 1986). Where it has been used,quality improvement has often led to dramatic increases inmorale, more efficient use of resources, and higher-qualityresults. The widespread application of the philosophy ark'methods of quality improvement in Japan after World War11 is credited with transforming that nation's war-weakenedindustry into the highly effective international economicpowerhouse of today.

We need anew way ofleading andmanaging ourenterprise.

l&designing Higher Education

134123

Principles and methods of quality improvement are nowbeing successfully adapted to the needs and culture of col-leges and universities (Chaffee and Sherr 1992; Corneskyand Associates 1990; Cornesky and Mc Cool 1992; Corneskyet al. 1991; Harris, Hillenmeyer, arid Foran 1989; Marchese1991b, 1993; North Dakota n.d.; Seymour 1991, 1992;Seymour and Collett 1991; Sherr and Teeter 1991). Qualityimprovement focuses everyone's attentionfaculty mem-bers, administrators, staff, students, trusteeson improvingquality at every point; everyone is involved. A continuous,never-ending effort is made to improve the quality of out-comes by improving the quality of the educational processat every point along the way by identifying, understanding,and eliminating problems that reduce quality.

Using Research to Improve QualityThe professional literature in higher educationIn a very real sense, ours is an amateur industry. Althoughour primary mission is almost always education, we our-selves have traditionally been well trained for neither class-room nor administrative office. What is perhaps even moresurprising, however, is our common unwillingness toemploy in our own affairs those appreciable skills we dopossess, those of scholarship and research. As long as twodecades ago, Chickering (1974) noted that "the results ofsocial science research are seldom seriously taken intoaccount by educational decision makers" (p. xii). Morerecently, the NIE Study Group concurred; "Colleges, com-munity colleges, and universities rarely seek and apply thisknowledge in shaping their educational policies and prac-tices" (Study Group 1984, p. 17). Others ask "why the evi-dence of systematic social science research is rarely broughtto bear on actual decisions about educational planning orgoal attainment" (Winter, McClelland, and Stewart 1981, p.ix). Quality processes that produce quality results will re-quire us not only to produce research but also to use it.Institutions that apply research succeed with all their stu-dents; those that ignore research can help relatively few."We educators may do well to think more explicitly andunsentimentally about our business and try to found it onthe emerging consensus of scientific evidence" (Walberg1984, p. 20); it is time for research to inform and guideeducational policy and planning.

Research on assessment: Understanding our educa-tional processes and developing a culture of evidenceU.S. colleges and universities have increased tremendouslyin complexity since World War II. The huge influx of stu-dents, their increasing diversity, the growing number andtechnical complexity of our disciplines and thus the diver-sity of departments and programs and of their faculty andstaffall have profoundly changed the nature of our insti-tutions. We need to match this organizational reality withnewer, more effective, and more productive methods thatcan help us ensure high-quality educational processes andhigh-quality results throughout our institutions. But "con-ventional wisdom concerning what constitutes 'high-qualityeducation' will not be appropriate for most institutions inthe 1990s" (Bergquist and Armstrong 1986, p. xiv).

Quality improvement emphasizes clearly defined out-comes and institutional researchusing continuous assess-ment to provide everyone with crucial evidence al.out whatis happening in the institution. laput assessment providesinformation about important characteristics of entering stu-dents, both individually and as a group, such as their,knowledge, abstract and critical thinking skills, learningstyles, and levels of epistemological development. Processassessment continuously monitors the educational process:how programsorientation, curricula, instruction, advis-ingare functioning. Outcome assessment shows whatresults are being produced. Faculty-conducted classroomassessment is a natural part of this effort.

Traditionally, we have depended for our judgments ofquality on quantitative measures of our resources or inputs,such as the SAT or ACT scores of entering students, num-ber of volumes in the library, percentage of faculty mem-bers who hold doctorates, and size of physical plant andendowment. Although these types of information are im-portant, they paint a far from complete picture of institu-tional quality. None tell us how effective we are in usingthese resources to produce resultsthe desired outcomesand it is the results that count.

The 1980s brought a national refocusing of attention onresults: a college or university s intended results as de-scribed by its stated outcome goals and objectives and theactual results produced by the institution's educationalprocesses. Ironically, because most of us have only limited

Redesigning Higher Education 125

136

information on the results of our work by which to judgeour true quality, many institutions have come to depend onthe opinions of writers for popular magazines, "quantifiedgossip" as it has been called, to judge their quality com-pared to other institutionsin reputation (an input), notresults (outcomes).

Of course, specifying and assessing outcomes does nottell the whole story. Necessary as it is, assessment of out-comes can tell us only what our results are and how muchof them we have reached. it cannot tell us why we havereached them. We cannot identify the educational processesthat caused the outcomes or determine whether we our-selves are even responsible for the results. Perhaps, forexample, our students possessed the same characteristicswhen they entered, or the outcomes are products of bio-logical maturation or off-campus experiences.

In other words, in addition to knowing both the re-sources or inputs provided to an institution and its out-comes, we need to devote considerable attention to under-standing its educational processes. We need to identifyclearly the characteristics theory suggests typify effectiveprocessesthe experiences our students must have if weare to help them achieve important outcomes. Then weneed to assess educational processes to learn the extent towhich they possess these essential characteristics.

Me central focus in civilizing and achieving "high qual-ity" must bc on the educational prucessf, uhichl requiresserious attention to be given to what actually happens topromote (and inhibit) the cognitive and affective develop-ment cf the individual student through die educationalprogram (Bergquist and Armstrong 1986, p. xiv).

We need to invest time and energy in applying powerfulresearch methods and findings to the design and manage-ment of our own educational activities. We will now needto use this valuable information and what is today consid-ered by experts to he accepted professional practice in amuch more deliberate and systematic way if we are toachieve the complex developnwntal (aitcomes we desirefor our students and for the well-being of society.

Adequate Resources: The Cost of WasteOur institutions may seem deceptively orderly and busi-nesslike on the surface. Students are admitted, classes aretaught, and commencement ceremonies stir emotions. Aswe have seen when we examine our educational processesand results with the more powerful lens of research-basedprinciples of modern professional education and manage-ment, however, another, less satisfying image of academetoo often emerges. The research reviewed in this mono-graph presents an all-too-consistent picture of an enterprisethat has not kept pace with developments in education andmanagement. Like Rip van Winkle of Sleepy Hollow, wehave allowed the developments of the last two decades inour profession to pass us by. As a result, the effectivenessof our colleges and universities in achieving the resultssociety urgently needs and the efficiency with which theyexpend their resources are both generally far lower thanthey can and should be.

Every student who withdraws from college unnecessarilybecause of dissatisfaction or avoidable failure induces costsbeyond those of dreams delayed or development retarded.The average cost to students of a degree at a public four-year college is more than $40,000 (Goldberg 19931)). Lossof this income to the institution is significant, but otherfinancial losses accrue as well: (1) annual income lost intuition, room, board, bookstore sales, incidental food, andpuichases by visitors to campus, all multiplied by, say,three years, as most withdrawals occur during the first year;(2) lost gifts from alumni, multiplied by 50 years; and (3)the cost of replacing these students with new ones (withthe average recruitment cost for a single student, accordingto the Admissions Marketin,', Group, ranging from about$1,700 to as much as $2,400, covering the admission staff stime, publications, videos, postage, telephone calls, andtiak el) (Seymour 1992). With many institutions losing one-half or more of their students before graduation, a 5 per-cent increase in persistence could "[recapture] $750.000 inlost revenue. Figures like that command attention" (Mar-chese. cited by Noel et al. 1985 p..456).

We need to be much more concerned than we now areabout the losses resulting from the attrition I d odcnts.or x. rap."

RilieSIKIIII1,14 Higher hill( anfIll

1 3 c

127

And how does the institution respond? With quiet indiffer-ence. In fact, as long as the aggregate numbers hold upenough frwuromeis to replace the ones who leftthe lo.:susually goes virtually unnoticed. No one takes the time tocalculate the cost of scrap. No one seems to care (Seymour1992, p. 139).

With finances in such short supply, we need to calculateand we need to care. Clearly, we can he far more effectiveand efficient. Beyond the practical matters of quality resultsand, for some institutions, survival itself, clear ethical issuesare involved: our treatment of our student clients and ourstewardship of our supporters resources. We need to heconsiderate and responsible; we need to become aware ofour students.

Although perhaps more obvious than others, unnecessarywithdrawal is just one source of waste on campus. Unin-volved, unmotivated students, ineffective and inefficientcurricula and instruction, and mediocre advising all lead toadditional significant costs beyond withdrawal; taking thcwrong courses and learning the wrong things, repeatingcourses unnecessarily ("rework"), and that ocean of me-diocre learning signified by ubiquitous C and Dbut "pass-ing"grades. Each inefficiency can be thought of as ha% inga concrete dollar value now and in the future to both sti [-dents and institutions, and each is a form of waste.

Business organizations ca .1 waste fully 15 to 20 percentof sales income by "doing things wrong . . without eventrying." as "a result of not doing things right the first time"(Crosby 1979, p. 15). Quality experts assert the cost ofwaste in manufacturing organizations can be 25 to 30 per-cent of income and as high as 40 percent in service organi-zations like colleges and universities (Cornesky et al. 1901.PP. 13. 35; Seymour 1993b). With only about 50 percent ofall students who intend to earn degrees graduating (StudyGroup 1984) and the greater than 50 percent rate of stu-dents' withdrawal in many institutions, the real waste ofresources is substantial from doing things wrong and hav-ing to redo themor simply discarding the results. In ourconcern with fiscal solvency, we have allowed "educationalsolvency . . . to drift" (Cross 1986, p. 10). Beyond its obvi-ous central importance to our mission, educational solvencyalso has enormous fiscal implications.

128

139

A well-run business organization "can get by with [a costofl less than 2.5 percent of sales" (Crosby 1979, P. 15),which, rather than being wasted, is invested in preventingwaste and monitoring to ensure high quality. The AmericanSociety for Training and Development has estimated that,each year, businesses must expend no less than 2 percentof their payroll on professional development training to becompetitive internationally (Howard n .d.). Some well-managed companies spend as much as 5 or o percent ofsalaries on training. Baldrige National Quality Award win-ner Motorola calculates a 30-to-1 return on training expen-ditures (Marchese 1993). What would we learn about ourcolleges and universities, and what would be the effecton quality, if we were to invest 2 to 2.5 percent of oureducation-related budgets, a small fraction of our waste, onassessment and training and then use the results of thisresearch deliberately and systematically to improve qualityand productivity by doing things right the first time?

W. Edwards Deming, a long-time professor at New YorkUniversity and centrally influential in Japan's postwar eco-nomic resurgence, noted that we need to monitor quality:

If anybody needs quality control, it's the service industries,including univeisilies. College presidents, like most execu-tives, fail to see that improving quality is their main busi-ness. We're in a new economic era. Quality is the keyto higher productii 'ity. because approximately 20 per-cent of the cost of things, from automobiles to college edu-cations, is a chaige fbr waste (Deming, cited in Keller1983, p. 136).

Our Standards: Setting HighExpectations for OurselvesIf we are to achieve high-quality outcomes, we need tohave high expectations, not only for our students but alsofor ourselves, and we must be willing to change. "It's notthe case that American higher education lacks all standards.The problem is that the standards we deploy are often notnotably high, evenly applied, or much discussed; they arevarious, idiosyncratic, and privateto outsiders they looklike cheese" (Marchese 1991a, p. .1). The expectations others now have for usckarly defined goals for outcomesand regular assessment of results, the nlaintenance of high

Redesigning Higher Educenuin 129

1 .4 0

public standards, the continuous use of research to irnprove our educational processes"contravene a century'sway of doing things in American universities" (Marchese1991a, p. 4).

Consider the academic culture that characterizes manyinstitutions. The culture of the academic department, wherestudents and faculty interact, is often observed to be hostileto students and learning. Based on interviews with 300 fJc-ulty members at 20 diverse colleges and universities, re-searchers observed widespread isolation of faculty fromtheir colleagues, a "veneer of civility," lack of common pur-pose and effort to solve educational problems, and primaryemphasis on disciplinary research coupled with neglect ofteaching with respect to serious evaluation, salary, and pro-motions (Massey, Wilger, and Colbeck 1994).

Blaming our students (our paying clients) for not know-ing or caring or studying, blaming the schools (our suppli-ers) for sending them to us in what we often believe is anundereducated condition, and blaming our sponsors (alsoour customers) for not giving us more resources cannotbecome excuses to justify inaction on our part. Lack ofclear mission, vision, values, goals, and knowledge ofresults, and low standards and untrained faculty and staffare all our ovn responsibilities. Our students' level ofinvolvement or quality of effort may ultimately be mostimportant in producing results, but

. . one should not conclude that what the college dot's isnzinor influence. . . . It is the collegethe administra-

tion as well as the proftssorsthat sets the intellectualstandards, the quality of performance it expects from s'it-dents, and exemplifies its values by the quality offacilitiesit provides (Pace 1984, p. 97).

Concluding their massive review of research on the de-velopment of students in college, Pascarella and Terenzini(1991), call for a "shift in the decision-making orientation.'of administrators toward "learning-centered management

. that consistently and systematically" focuses on theconsequences of decisions on students development (p.65(). "Modern colleges and especially universities seemfar better structured to process large numbers of studentsefficiently than to maximize [their] learning" (p. 6-16). S.

130

I I

need a new standard of quality, one based on the qual-ity of our results in producing student development.Pascarella and Terenzini found few durable differencesamong institutions as a whole in the cognitive, psychoso-cial, or economic outcomes they produced. Despite largedifferences in size, selectivity, resources, prestige, type ofgovernance, or curricular emphasis, large differences inoutcomes disappeared once students' characteristics uponentry were accounted for.

These findings . . . support libel argument that many cur-rent notions of institutional quality may be misleading,particularly those based on resources (librag holdings,endowment, faculty degrees, and so on), simplemindedoutcomes (such as the quality of an institution's graduatesunadjusted for their precollege characteristics), or reputa-tion (Pascarella and Terenzini 1991, p. 637).

We often claim very high quality in our public relationsmaterials, but the research reviewed here suggests we oftentolerate a far less exacting performance. Today, quality inorganizations is often defined as meeting or exceeding cus-tomers' needs. Such a standaid invites dramatic changes inthe way we manage our affairs and promises equally dra-matic improvement in the results we produce.

Being Clear about Purpose: What Business Are We In?Effective organizations understand their missionstheirpurposesclearly. Yet many of us are confused about ourinstitutions missions. What is our business and what busi-ness should we be in? "Teaching is in fact the business ofthe business. Thaching is the task that distinguishes col-leges and universities, along with primary and secondaryschools, from all other service agerries- (Pew 1989, p. 2).Judging by the evidence reviewed in tiiis monograph, how-ever, we are not attending nearly closely enough to ourcentral mission. our students' development: who our stu-dents are and what their needs are, what research hasshown us about how students develop, what good profes-sional practice is today and how closely our own educa-tional processes approximate those practices, what we wantour results to be and what they actually are.

kvdesigHing Educanun

1.42131

Prominent management authority Peter Drucker notes,"Most managements, if they ask the question at all, ask'what is our business?' when the company is in trouble. Ofcourse, then it must be asked" (Drucker 1974, p. 86, em-phasis in the original). Many commentators today suggestthat higher education in this country is in trouble. Perhapswe should ask what business we are in and what businesswe should be in. Doing so can have great potential value:"Then asking the question may, indeed, have spectacularresults and may even reverse what appears irreversibledecline" (p. 86).

Who Owns These Problems? Management'sRole of LeadershipIf the finding of research or students' development in col-lege and the considered views of numerous authorities andstudy groups who have found us wanting are actively used,these critiques can play a key role in improving the qualityof our work. "Institutional change and improvement aremotivated more by knowledge of problems than by knowl-edge of successes: Negative feedback is more conducive toadvancement than is positive feedback"(Cameron 1984, p.71, emphasis added). Although looking back across theresearch reviewed in this monograph is somewhat discour-aging, each area of difficulty can with equal justification beviewed as an area of opportunity: an opportunity to signifi-cantly improve quality.

Accomplishing missions, setting goals, maintaining stan-dards, monitoring quality of process and results, managingthe organizational culture, rewarding effective work, andproviding staff development are all responsibilities of man-agement. These complex issues and tasks must be deliber-ately managed to ensure they are executed effectively, bothindividually and collectively. In higher education, some ofthese functions and elements are responsibilities primarilyof administrators and faculty. Ultimately, however, the pres-ident as chief executive officer must take responsibility foraccomplishing the mission at a high level of quality.

Leadership, communication, andcooperative teamworkAn improvement in quality begins with vigorous and sus-tained leadershipa relentless "championship" of quality-

1.32

1 4 3

from the president. Leadership for quality is based on per-sonal integrity, clear moral values, and a strong effort tobuild community. It is characterized by open communica-tion throughout the institutionsharing of information andpower, cooperation rather than competition among peopleand departments, teamwork rather than isolation, vigorousidentification and removal of barriers to pride in workman-ship, the elimination of fear, and accordance of respect andconsideration to everyone (Bennis 1989; Birnbaum 1992;Bogue 1994; Burns 1978; Deming 1986; Guskin and Bassis1985; McLaughlin and Riesman 1990). Administrators, fac-ulty members, nonacademic staff, and students all becomepartners rather than isolates or adversaries.

The "85-15 rule"Experience in organizations of many types has demonstratedthat most of the problems discussed in this monographare beyond the control of individual members of the facultyor staff; they reside in the organizational systemthe aca-demic department, the college, the university as a whole.As such, these problems "belong" to management ratherthan faculty and staff members as individuals. An enormous85 percent cm even more of potentially waste-generatinginstitutional problems are of this sort (Cornesky et al. 1991;Crosby 1979; Deming 1986; Seymour 1992). "The 85-15 rule

. . states that 85 percent of what goes wrong lies withinthe system, and only 15 percent lies with the individual"(Seymour 1992, pp. 85-86). Managers own systems; theythemselves must first provide the leadership and commit-ment to quality if the needed change in quality is to occur."Since we assume that administrators control 85 to 90 per-cent of the processes and systems. we are convinced that ifthey seriously commit to quality, they can influence facultyand students to do likewise" (Cornesky et al. 1991, p. 56)Quality management of this sort will require the best-trained manager-leaders as well as the best-trained facultyand staff.

The managonent of the nonbusiness, public-sen'ice insti-tutions will indeed be a grouft concern from now on.Their nzanagement may well become the central manage-ment problemsimply because the lack of management (y.the public-service institution is such a glaring weakness,

Leadershipfor quality isbased onpersonalintegrity,clear moralvalues, and astrong effortto buiklcommunity.

Redestgnmg Higher Macanear 133

144

whether municipal water department or public university(Drucker 1974, p. 8).

Collectively, colleges and universities "constitute one of thelargest industries in the nation but are among the leastbusinesslike and well-managed of all organizations" (Keller1983, p. 5). If we Lo meet t'le needs of our manyclientsstudents, parents, employers, state, and nationwewill have to be considerably more attentive to managingour affairs than we have been, more businesslike in thehest, most positive sense.

Professional Development: Prerequisite of QualityQuality improvement strongly emphasizes professionaltraining and education of faculty and staff; everyone isthoroughly trained for his or her work. As the work or con-ditions of the work change, high-quality, effective profes-sional development training and retraining are providedautomatically and continuously. Perhaps this training aspectof nuality is most relevant here. The studies reviewed ear-lier suggest we in the academy can dramatically improvestudents' development by adopting newer, more empiricallygrounded and effective educational methods. But every oneof the several powerful, modern methods recommendedhere, such as systematic instructional design, cooperativelearning, and developmental academic advising, requiresfor its effective use the mastery of a body of professionalknowledge and the development of new and complexskills. More complex methods are required to producetoday's more complex outcomes. The telling of knowl-edgelecturesknown to instructors is inadequate. Usedunskillfully, however, the new methods cannot performeffectively. Developing effective statements of intended out-comes, designing valid and reliable assessments of actualoutcomes for both courses and curricula, leading discus-sions, advising, and managing complex instructional sys-tems are all intellectual, social, emotional, and moral chal-lenges that require considerable professional knowledgeand skill. A significant improvement in the quality of highereducation will require a major investment in the develop-ment of institutions' human resources.

Management Development: Enhancing LeadershipExisting research-based professional methods in both edu-cation and management can enable us to create unparal-leled high-quality learning on campus. While "we knowenough to revolutionize education if the knowledge wereapplied to the improvement of education" (Brethower 1977,p. 18), the problem is that, on the whole, we in academeare unfamiliar with these methods; we have in most casesstudied r/tit1--4- education nor management. A number ofbarriers impede our ins'itutions' success. Among our press-ing needs are articulation of clearer missions and visionsof the future, the definition of outcomes, and comprehen-sive assessment throughout the institution. Effecting thesechanges and producing results will first require more effec-tive leadership at all levels and deliberate management ofkey organizational processes. "Leadership is accountable forresults" (Drucker 1990, p. 47), and leadership is the respon-s;bility of management (Deming 1986).

Two cultures on campus?To what extent do academic managers communicate withand unden,tand their subordinates? Most of the presidentsin one study "portrayed themselves as listeners who wereopen to influence. But the perceptions of their constituentswere often quite different" (Birnbaum 1992, p. 176). Thecampus environment administrators perceive as rationaland orderly is one in which the faculty believe they must"scheme" and "compete" to acquire necessary resources(Neumann 1992). A study of 23,302 faculty members andadministrators at 47 universities found a striking gap in per-ception between academic administrators and facuky withrespect to the proper balance between teaching and re-search (Gray, Froh, and Diamond 1992). Although adminis-trators as a group strongly favored an emphasis on teach-ing, their faculty perceived unit heads, cleans, and centraladministrators as favoring research over teaching. Anothernational survey found consistent and striking gaps betweenthe perceptions of 45,1 presidents and other administratorsand 2.730 members of their own faculties in characteristicsvalued in faculty members and degree of faculty influencein their departments (Blackburn and Law renc2 n.d.). Al-though the faculty agreed administrators valued research

Rer: %signing iltxber hiltrtalym

skills, beyond this point their "responses seem a bit cynical:the valued faculty member . . . may be an 'operator' whomay not be an excellent teacher. . . . Faculty feel relativelyimpotent in their ability to influence certain kinds of deci-sions and to control their work environment" (p. 14)."Surprisingly high levels of job stress" exist in academe(Seldin 1987, p. 13). In one study, 62 percent of 2,000 fac-ulty at 17 colleges claimed "severe" or "moderate" stressassociated with their work, and in another, 1,900 faculty at80 public and independent universities claimed 60 percentof daily stress was job related (Seldin 1987).

Among other common causes cited for faculty burnout,now "one of the most pressing problems facing academe"(Armour et al. 1987, p. 4), are perceived lack of control overtheir work, inadequate psychic rewards for their efforts, lackof community oil campus, and lack of creative leadership intheir institutions. The quality of the institutional psychologi-cal climate is the key to developing maximum vitality andproductivity among faculty, particularly sellior faculty.

Some suggest that two cultures exist on campus, adminis-trative and faculty, and that such different perceptions of theclimate on campus are unlikely to improve the quality of thefaculty's performance (Blackburn and Lawrence n.d.). Thesame research also reveals faculty's considerable lack of trustthat administrators will act in good faith to better their insti-tutions and a belief that resources are inequitably distributedwithin the institution. (Administrators share the latter belief,although to a lesser extent.)

A further concern relates to administrators' understandingof the core student development processes they manage. Forexample, administrators "believe that competition improvesstudents' learning" (Blackburn and Lawrence d., p. 14). amisconception inconsistent with research and expert opin-ion. Most of these managers had had experience as facultyand presumably were trained in ways similar to other fac-ulty, although 30 percent of them claimed their highest de-gree was in education.

The need for trainingOther indicators also suggest we need to improve our lead-ership and management of education. About rwo-fifths (39percent) of respondents to one survey of faculty disagreed

that their institutions were managed effectively (Boyor1989). In addition, 36 percent rated their administration asexcellent or good, 64 percent as fair or poor. Fully 69 per-cent stated that the administration of their institution wasautocratic-30 percent very autocraticand 44 percentfound their jobs to be a source of considerable personalstrain. In another survey of faculty at 392 institutions, only11.9 percent of respondents said their administrations wereopen about their policies (Chronicle 1994). Everyone needsto know skilled, devoted work in support of the institution'scentral mission of students' development is appreciated andrewarded, yet a paltry 9.8 percent of respondents 'eelievedfaculty were rewarded for being good teachers on theircampuses. Today, just as faculty require a high level of pro-fessional knowledge and skill for facilitating students'development, so too do those who lead and manage ourcomplex institutions require the highest-quality training forthis demanding work.

Among the barriers to effective management in collegesand universities is our lack of training for complex and im-portant tasks beyond our disciplines (Kells 1988). Welltrained in their disciplinary specialties, faculty are frequently

. . . asked to perform in other areas for which they havelittle or no training They are exceptionally good examplesof "Peter Principled" professionals. . . . The good biologistmay become a good teacher or researcher, but he/she maynot be able to run a department or an agency if little orno training is provided for the job"(Kells 1988, p. 6,emphasis in the original).

The picture of disorganizedeven anarchic or chaoticorganizations that often emerges from the research on col-leges and universities reviewed here surely reflects thelevel of our knowledge and management skills.

Those among us who hold management responsibilities,whether faculty, staff members, or administrators, requireprofessional knowledge and skill for tasks like workingwith missions, strategy, and goals and objectives, andassessing achievement. They also need to understand stu-dent development, modern educational practices, and pro-fessional development for staff. They must be able to deal

Redesigntng Higher Education 137

148

effectively with ever-changing organizational complexityand have the knowledge and skills for understanding peo-ple and building effective relationships among them.Managers need to provide leadership by inspiring a sharedvision that can energize and win commitment from every-one, develop a supportive climate of unwavering integrityand respect for all, build trust, and develop effective teams.

Despite their crucial role in ensuring quality, however,managers in higher education, like the faculty, are at bestunevenly trained for their work. "I know of no institutionin our society that does a poorer job of educating its ownemployees than higher education" (management professorLawrence Sherr, cited in Seymour 1992, p. 104). Of 377senior academic administrators, 47 percent of whom werechancellors, vice presidents, or provosts, only two-fifthsclaimed to have taken formal college courses in manage-ment (Gallagher 1991). Half said they had attended work-shops on management. If such experiences are not fol-lowed by practice and critical feedback to develop skills,however, they are unlikely to lead to long-term changes inprofessional behavior or to have an impact on participants'organizations (Levinson-Rose and Menges 1981). Many ofthe major reports of the last decade critical of higher edu-cation have stressed the need for far broader and more rig-orous programs of faculty and instructional developmentthan we now have. We need to do as much for thoseamong us who manage education.

The academic department chairAcademic departments constitute the core of a college oruniversity. The department "is regarded, quite properly, asthe primary agent for maintaining and improving the qual-ity and productivity of undergraduate education" (Consor-tium for Policy Research in Education, cited in Goldberg1993a, p. 16). The academic department chair thereforeplays a key, frontline leadership role in ensuring high-quality educational processes and outcomes. Like othermembers of the faculty, however, department chairs arerarely trained for their complex and den,anding tasks. Theyoften lack the essential knowledge and skills they needconcerning organizations, education, and people to per-form their roles effectively. For example, of over 4,000 aca-

138

1,19

demic department chairs, only about one-quarter reportedbeing "very successful" or "successful" in motivating poorteachers or alienated or burned out tenured members ofthe faculty to De more effective.*

Detailed interviews with new faculty and administratorsin one research university found a striking gap betweendepartment chairs' perceptions of the quality of supportthey provided for their new professors and the perceptionsof the faculty themselves (Whitt 1991). The chairs usedadjectives like "exciting," "challenging," and "nonthreaten-ing" to describe the faculty experience in their departments;the faculty used "confusion, anxiety, isolation, and lack ofsupport" (p. 193). We need to do better, and help is avail-able (see, e.g., Bennett and Figuli 1990; Booth 1982; Lucas1989, 1994; McDade 1987; Tucker 1992).

Faculty Development: Foundation forStudent DevelopmentThe range of knowledge and skills required of us today ifwe are to educate all our students is substantial. The mod-em philosophy of quality improvement emphasizes thor-ough professional development for everybody in prepara-tion for each role they will assume and continuous high-quality training throughout their careers. How well do wenow prepare the professoriat for its complex and demand-ing educational work?

Large universities produce almost all new members ofthe professoriat. Seventy-five percent or more of the grad-uate students in some disciplines intend to teach in highereducation (Diamond and Wilbur 1990), and these graduatestudents often serve as teaching assistants while theystudy. Research conducted during the last decade on uni-versities' efforts to prepare their graduate students to teachshows consistently that these programs (1) are ordinarilyvoluntary (Weirner, Svinicki, and Bauer 1989); (2) reach aminority of graduate student teachers (Bowman, Loyna-chan, and Schafer 1986; Chism 1991; Diamond and Wilbur1990; Fink 1985; Ford 1991; Stanley and Chism 1991); (3)are usually limited to a few workshop sessions rather thanconstituting a systematic, sustained, and demanding profes-sional curriculum (Chism 1991; Ford 1991; Parrett 1987):

'Ann F. 1.1.1(.1N 1993. perstnial L,mullunKatIon

RetlesigIting Higher 139

150

and (4) in most cases, provide little or no supervisioneither by experts in learning and teaching or senior memhers of the disciplinary faculty (Chism 1991; Diamond andWilbur 1990, Ford 1991; McQuade 1989). In some cases,senior faculty actively discourage their students from partic-ipating in this training (Diamond and Wilbur 1990).According to former Stanford University President DonaldKennedy, faculty development efforts "encounter quietopposition in many departmental locations, where graduatestudents are told that teaching doesn't really matteratleast not in comparison with research" (Kennedy 1995, p13). When formal courses are available to novice teachers,what do they learn? The primary instructional m..thodtaught is the lecture (Parrett 1987).

When graduate students finally earn their degrees andassume their first faculty positions, many of them neverhaving taught or having taught hut without any significanttraining as educators, rather than the careful nurturing theynow require from their institutions and new senior facultycolleagues, they are more likely than not to find themselvesabandoned, left to their own devices as educators (Boice1991a, 1992; Fink 1984; Sands, Parson, and Duane 1991;Whitt 1991). Once again, some are actively discouraged bytheir superiors from participating in training that might taketime away from their research (Boice 1991a). Not surprisingly. these new teachers more often than not lecture"facts-and-principles style" (Boice 1991a, p. 168) and areunable "to stimulate students to high intellectual effort"(Fink 1985, p. 144). Only 5 to 9 percent of one group ofnew professors were effective, comfortable with their stu-dents, and enjoying their work (Boice 1991b).

The nueers of other types of part-time teachers, oftenmoonlighters with other, full-time careers off campus,jumped from 23 percent of all instructors in 1966 to 41 per-cent in 1980 (Study Group 1984). Today, about half of allteachers in New Jersey public colleges and universities arepart-timers (Goldberg 1993c). These instructors taughtabout one-third of all course sections in the state. Part-timers generally receive even less training and supervisionas educators than graduate TAs (Arden 1995; Gappa andLeslie 1993).

Much is made of the radical changes technology willallegedly bring to the "delivery" of education (Dolence and

140

151

Norris 1995; Green and Gilbert 1995). Although the Inter-net, sophisticated multimedia instructional software, andother developments will certainly greatly benefit students'learning, the faculty must still understand student develop-ment, instructional design, assessment, and all the othermodern impedimenta of the profession if they are to usetechnological innovations to good effect in fostering theirstudents development.

The single-minded emphasis on research that dominatesuniversities and distracts from the faculty's professionaldevelopment is often justified by the strong salutary impactfaculty research is alleged to have on the quality of under-graduate education. A meta-analysis of 29 studies thatexamined a possible relationship between the quality offaculty research and the quality of their teaching, however,found the former made a less than 2 percent contributionto the latter under the most favorable analytic assumptions(Feldman 1987)an altogether unremarkable finding inlight of the research reviewed in this monograph (see alsoWebster 1985). The knowledge, skills, values, and disposi-tions that underpin creation of knowledge in a specializedsubdiscipline are usually very different from those requiredfor competence in nurturing human development.

Clearly, our casual approach to developing and sustain-ing our new colleaguesand renewing and upgrading theskills of the senior facultymust be directly responsiblefor much of the low-quality student experience portrayedhy research and the low-quality educational results manyof our societal stakeholders decry. Significant improve-mcnt in the quality of our educational processes and out-comes awaits dramatic improvement in the quantity andquality of the professional knowledge and skill develop-ment we achieve with each member of our faculties.

Vre need to move beyond one-shot, flash-in-the-panworkshops on this or that toward systemic and systematicprofessional development. The last two decades have wit-nessed the growth in professional methods for facultydevelopment that now permit widespread, effective prepa-ration of the college and university faculty for their work aseducators of all students (see, e.g., Bergquist and Phillips1975, 1977, 1981; Brookfiekl 1986, 1987; Brown and Atkins1987; Chism 1987; Diamond 1989; Eble and McKeachie1985; Fuhrmann and Grasha 1983: Gaff 1975; Katz and

Meta-analysisof 29 studiesfound thequality ofresearchmade a lessthan 2 percentcontributionto the qualityof teaching.

nhittilif

152141

Henry 1988; Lewis 1988. 1993; Lindquist 1978; McKeachie1994; Menges and Mathis 1988; Menges and Svinicki 1991;Nyquist et al. 1991; Povlacs-Lunde and Healy 1991;Prichard and Sawyer 1994; Quinlan 1991; Richlin 1993;Svinicki 1990; Wadsworth 1988; Weimer 1990; Wright andO'Neil 1994).

Current efforts to reform K-12 education emphasizeretraining for teachers and principals. "Massive professionaldevelopment" (Price 1993, P. 32) of school teachers isneeded if national educational reform is to be successful.flow much more needed is a continuous, never-endingprogram of high-quality faculty development in higher edu-cation, where traditionally most of us have had no formaltraining whatsoever for these complex roles. In our case.

e have the additional task of helping the current facultydevelop that base of professkmal knowledge and skillsthey now require.

Increasingly knowing only a narrow slice of a researchspecialty, new faculty may have only a rudimentary graspof their wider disciplines and havc spent little time reflect-ing on their philosophical grounding, historical develop-ment. and social implicationsimportant contextual foun-dations for any teacher. After assuming ttir first facultyposition, in many cases isolated even from colleagues withintheir own academic departments, these professors are ill-prepared to nurture the broad intellectual, emotional, andsocial development required by their studcats and society.Trained only in the technical subtleties of literary, historical.OF scientif., research and in many cases cloistered inlibraries or laboratories for /ears during their graduatetraining, they may never have read and reflected on thegreat classics of Americl 1 liberal education (Bell 1966;Committee on the Objectives 1945; Hutchins 1936; Newman1959, Van Doren 1"43) and the history of the American col-l('ge an(l university. studied the research illuminating theirstudents develi)pmental psychok)gy, learned the theoryand practice of modern developmental academic advisin:;.read the influential contemporary critical reports on highereducation, or studied and practiced under supervision thedesign and implc nentation of modern instruction. Castadrift ir profession without chart or oar by their gradu-ate sci, mentors and new colleagues and lacking theperspective, personal philosophy, and basic educational

153

skills requisite for professional competence, new facultysink or swim in the classroom and advising conference tothe enormous detriment of their students and society.

ConclusionsUsing the professional literature as a guide, we have dis-covered in each of four core areas crucial to our students'development many opportunities to significantly improvethe quality of our educational processes and thus the out-comes we produce. Understanding the processes as a global,systemic whole and skillfully managing them together areessential to the organizational success of each. Every per-son needs to have the knowledge, skills, and climate re-quired to perform his or her role at a high level. Manage-ment's leadership role is foundation to the entire enterprise;achieving widespread commitment to the vision, inducingenthusiasm for high standards, maintaining a consistentfocus on students' needs, developing teamwork, andengendering willingness to challenge old assumptions,comfortable habits, and familiar methods.

An overarching framework for examining quality in aninstitution, subunit, or system of institutions is provided bythe education criteria for the Malcolm Haldrige NationalQuality Award ("Education Pilot Criteria" 1995). Combiningthe rigorous, professional standards of the criteria with thespecific research-based education concepts and principlesreviewed in this monograph can provide powerful guid-ance for every institution. Used correctly, together they bidfair to produce the dramatic improvements in student learn-ing promised by the title of this monograph.

,desig now

154

A CALL TO ACTION: A New Kind of Community

Today, we in higher education in this country face anopportunity unmatched in human history. We are beingasked to educate all the people and to educate them to avery high level. They are coming to us in greater numbersand diversity than ever before. For the first time, we havethe opportunity to creatively link these vast human re-sources with our new knowledge of human and organiza-tional development and thus to lead the way to a far moredeveloped, mature, and humane society than the world hasever known. More fundamental to societal success than thebroad learning our students should acquire in diverse fieldsof knowledge, however, is their cognitive, ethical, emotional.and social development as human beings. We need to helpthem move beyond their relatively simple, concrete, andself-centered orientation to one that is more complex,abstract, and prosocial. Recognition is now widespread thathigher education must change, and, as in other sectors ofsociety, repeated and insistent calls have been made for asignificant, even radical, reinvention, redefinition, and re-structuring of our industry (see, e.g., Guskin 1994a, 1994b:Heydinger 1994; "It's Time" 1993; Osborne and Gaebler1992; "Twice Imagined" 1995). If we use our new researchbased knowledge to construct curricula and courses thatengage our students' imaginations and activatt.! their ener-gies in achieving important outcomesthat purposefullyand consistently involve them in active, social, cooperativemodes of learningand if we effectively use new develop-mental styles of advising, our students will surely rise toheretofore unknown levels of accomplishment. The impacton our states and on society more widely, not to mentionour institutions, could be dramatic.

Research, theory, and their skilled application are nowessential to high-quality education, but they are not enough;quality has still another dimension. We need to create oncampus a climate that inspires and supports high-qualityeffort and respect from everyone: students, teachers, lead-ers alike. We need to create a pervasively moral culture, aculture of integrity and of service to our clients. We need "amuch richer, more complex and paradoxical understandingof what happens when we teach and learn" (Parker J.Palmer, cited in Edgerton 1992, p. 6). Subjective and Objec-tive, personal and professional, emotional and intellectual"intertwine, and you can't get people to think well without

Redesign:lig Higher hdrit

155

145

attention to the feelings that blockand animategoodthinking" (p. 6). We need to interact with students and witheach other in a deeply human way. "A modern college oruniversity should be a place where every individual feelsaffirmed and where every activity of the community ishumane. Caring is the key" (Boyer 1990a, p. 47).

We need to model for both our students and societywell-managed and effective organizations: organizationsthat support people who are striving to develop, organi-zations whose behavior is richly developmental andhumane. Yet we have seen that many students and staffoften perceive our campuses as hostile and alienating."The truth is that academic community has been de-stroyed. Universities and many colleges, even small ones,are places where faculty do the main business of theircraft alonel, isolated] from one another and from the pur-poses of their institution" (Gamson 1993, p. 4). Thequality of our community is key to the quality of ourresults. A barrier to our success is our common inexperi-ence in working cooperatively together (Kells 1988).

Cooperation is relatively . . . Members are . . . inexpe-rienced at working together to solve problems. . . . Solvingcomplex tasksthe kind u.c., find all the time at placeslike colleges and universitiesrequires flexibility, trust,warmth, and risk-taking, which are often in short supplyin these organizations. . IFor these and other reasons,1most groups or commitlees at postsecondary . . . institu-tions fiinction very badly (Kells 1988, pp. 5-6).

Across the country people are reaching out to each other tobuild community (Etzioni 1993); we should lead the way.

"A pervasive belief system exists in many colleges anduniversities that questions the importance of values, erno-tions, and personal growth and places a premium on cog-nitive rationality and intellectual developmenr (Kuh,Krelibiel, and 1\1acKay 1988, p. 9). As we strive for objec-tivity, our social values and behavior have become com-petitive and individualistic, our own learning and teachingimpersonal and anticommunal, and we model this worldview for our students (Palmer 1987). We should createLanipus communities in our deplktments and courses

1-16

156

where natural conflict over ideas can be used creativelyfor understanding.

There is very little conflict in American classrooms, andthe reason is that the soft virtues of community are lack-ing there. . . . What prevents conflicts in our classrooms isfear.. . . in the hearts of teachers as well as students. It isfear of exposure, of appearing ignorant, of being ridiculed(Palmer 1987, p. 25).

Ninety-eight percent of chief student affairs officers in onesurvey believed that "greater effort to build a stronger over-all sense of community" was "very important" or "some-what important" to improving campus life (Boyer 1990a).

An analysis of metaphors used in interviews with 83administrators, faculty members, and department secretariesat a large urban state university found that 65 percent ofthe "metaphors expressed some intense emothe ventilation,

. . 75 percent . . were negative . . . 20 percent were pos-itive" (Deshler 1985, p. 22). Many of the metaphors, "anemotional barometer of campus culture" (p. 23), expressedhostility, aggression, combativeness. The author suggeststhese negative metaphors may reveal,

. . underlying positii:ii values that are perceived as beingftustrated. . . . When viewed this way, one can detect ahunger for appreciation and recognition, professionalsurvii,al, a sense of community or shared fitte, empathyand compassion for others, active participation in gover-nance, and academic responsibility. . . . One can hearthe cry for increased appreciation, recognition, dignity,and status on the part offaculty members. . . . A desire forsolidarity, unity, collaboration, reconciliation, and inte.--dependence can be inferred from mawy of the metaphors.. . . [These metaphors] reflect a longing for increased com-munity and shared fate] and they] can be interpreted asa reflection of empathy or compassion toward others(Deshler 1985, pp. 23-21).

In visits to numerous campuses across the country,Parker J. Palmer has observed "the pain of disconnection,'a sense on the part of faculty of being detached from stu-

Redesigning Ihgber Educatum 147

157

dents, from colleagues, from their own intellectual vocationand the passion that originally animated it" (cited in Edger-ton 1992, pp. 3=-1). Not only new faculty feel isolated,lonely, cut off from community; many of the rest of usdo as well.

A concerted plan to construct and maintain a coopera-tive, considerate, caring, and moral developmental climate,in classrooms and elsewhere on campus, will be necessaryto support this vision. For many of us, this new climate ofcommunity will require significant changes in the way weconduct our affairs. We will need to have an inspiringvision of the campus we want to create, and, beginningwith strong leadership from the top, we will need toinvolve everyone in making this vision a reality. We needto develop a culture of uncompromising service to every-one, inside and outside our institutions' walls. Each of uswill have to develop the professional toolsthe newknowledge, skills, and sensitivitiesthat can enable us totransform our vision into actuality. Continuous professionaldevelopment for everyone will he an essential underpin-ning for the entire endeavor as we seek together to im-prove our quality everywhere and forever. We also need todevelop a collegiality on campus in which we take the riskof being vulnerable to each other, to expose our selves,and to allow for others' weaknesses as humans (Bennett1991). We need to care more about each other; we need tobc connected to each other in a much more human way.

Our colleges and universities are among the most influ-ential institutions in America and therefore the world."Thee are few institutions in our society, with the excep-ti( n of the family, that have a more powerful impact onindividual lives and the society as a whole- (Gamson 19)1,p. 52). Our graduates fill the ranks of leadership in everysector: government, the military, business and industry,nonprofit service organizations, and education, at homeand around the world. The changes we can evoke in ourstudents through our own renewal and the changes we canevoke in society through them are virtually limitless.

The perceptions of increasing class division and antisocialbehavior in society, a coarsening of civic discourse, and ihethreat of authoritarianism have produced a concern toincrease prosocial hehavior and significantly enhance coin-

159

munity everywhere (Etzioni 1993). Society looks to us for

leadership.Central to dealing with these social challenges is the

development of the dispositions and skills of critical think-ing, master tool for all manner of self-motivated develop-ment and personal change and, when coupled with princi-pled ethical reasoning, a powerful reparative and develop-mental force in society. We need to develop a nation ofself-aware, enthusiastic, and skilled critical thinkers.

Society needs us as never before. It needs better trainedschool teachers and principals. It needs technologicallyskilled and ethical professionals in all fields, leaders andmanagers, competent and humane citizensmen andwomen of wisdomwho can interact effectively with oth-ers in the workplace and the community. Developing themis our job. The nation also needs us to help it to cometogether in community, to respect others who :iv different,

to resolve conflict creatively and nonviolently, to heal itsdivisions. The future of our democratic traditions dependson a more mature community that can solve its many prob-lems in respectful, nonviolent ways. In addition to teachingin our courses specifically how to do these things, we our-selves need to show how to live together peaceably andrespectfully.

We know how to do these things better than ever before.Many of us believe it is time to act, to seize the moment.We can develop new relationships with our students andwith each other. V'e can develop and articulate a vision forwhat society can be. And we can organize our affairs sothat we are able to lead the way to the future manifestationof the vision, a nation that is a true community, a learningsociety, a penasit.ely deeelumneutal culture. This excitingprospect can energize us allstaff, students, supportersina grand cooperative venture to create our future

Retlesommg Ihgber half( atmll

1591.19

REFERENCES

The Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouseon Higher Education abstracts and indexes the current literature onhigher education for inclusion in ERIC's data base and announce-ment in ERIC's monthly bibliographic journal. Resources in Edu-cation (RIE). Most of these publications are available through theERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). For publications citedin this bibliography that are available from EDRS, ordering numberand price code are included Readers who wish to order a publi-cation should write to the ERIC Document Reproduction Service,7120 Fullerton Rd., Suite 110, Springfield, Virginia 22153-2852.(Phone orders with VISA or Master(ard are taken at 800/227-ERICor 703/823-0500.) When ordering, please specify the document (ED)number. Documents are available as noted in microfiche (ME) andpaper copy (PC). If you have the pnce code ready when you callEDRS, an exact pnce can be quoted. The last page of the latest issueof Resources in EcluLation also has the current cost, listed by code.

AMIE Education Trust. 1994. 7binking K-16 1(1): 1-15."AAHE's New Agenda on Scho()LCollege Collaboration." 1993.

AAHE Bulletin 45(9): 10-13.Adams, M., ed. 1992. Promoting Dnemity 01 Collcge Classrooms

Innotatite 1?esponses for the Oariculum. Faculty, and institutionsNew Direction., for Teaching and Learning No 52 San Francisco.jossey-Bass.

ADAPT. 1978. MultidiSciplinary Piagetian-Based Programs forCblkge Freshmen: ADAPT DOORS, SOARS7AR, the CognnueProgram, the Fourth R. Lincoln. Uni\ of Nebraska.

Adelman, C. 1990. A College Course Map. Taximono. and TranscriptData: Based on the Postsecondary Records, 1972-1984, cf the HighSchool Class of 1972. Washington. D.C.: U.S Dept. (if Education.El) 326 153. 260 pp. MF-01, PC-11.

199-i LeSSOILS 0/ a Generation Education and U'ork lfl Owtiles of the High Scingd Class of 1972. San Francisco. JOS:Ne \

ed. 1988. Perfr,rmance and Judgment- EsmoN Principloaiul Practice in the Assessment of (.ollege Student LearningWashing-tom I) C.: 1..5 Dept. of Education. Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement. ED 299 888. 328 pp. ME-01. PC-11

, ed. 1989. Si,gris and Traces Model huluatorsStudent Learning in the Disciplines. Washington. D.0 . U S. Deptof Education, Office of Educational Research and ImprosementED 318 310. 195 pp. M1-01, PC-08.

Aerospace Education Foundation. 1989. Amenca .Next c'n.s6 TheShortiiill in Technical Manpower Arlington. \ Author

"Alliance tor Learning: Enlkting Iligher Education in the Quest forBetter Sch(x)Is.- 13 April l991. Education Week (Special Wpm

Alteinever, Nib 19(.01. Enemies of Freedom ()uA1\1(01(1004 Right-

Redesigning Higher Education

160151

W'ing Authoritarkinism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Altinaier, E.M., ed. 1983. Helping Students Manage Stress. New

Directions for Student Services No. 21. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Altman, L.K. 1i November 1989. ''Physicians Endorse More

Humanities for Premed Students." Aew York Times.America 2000. 1991. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Education.American Economics Association. 1990. "Economics." In Liberal

Learning and the Arts and Sciences Major Vol. 2. Reports from theFields. Washington, D.C.. Association of American Colleges,Project on Liberal Learning, Study-in-Depth, and the Arts andSciences Major.

American Institute of Biological Sciences. 1990. "Biology." In LiberalLearning and the Arts and Sciences Major. Vol. 2 Reports from theFields. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges,Project on Liberal Learning, Study-in-Depth, and the Arts andSciences Major.

Anderson, J.A. n d "College Survival Retaining the High-RiskMinority Student: Idealism vs. Realism." Unpublished manuscript.Indiana, Pa.: Indiana 1)ept. of Psychology.

. 1988. "Cognitive Styles and Multicultural l'opulations."Journal of Teacher Education 39(1): 2-9.

Anderson, S.G , S. Ball, R.T. Murphy, and Associates. 1975. Encyclo-pedia of Educational Etaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Angelo. T.A , and K.P. Cross. 1993. Classroom AssessmentTechniques: A flandl)ook fi.or college leachers. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Arden. E. 21 July 1995. "Ending the Loneliness and Isolation ofAdjunct Professors." Chronicle of Higher Education: Ag.t.

Armour, R.A., R.S. CalTarella. R.S. Fuhrntinn, and J.F. Wergin. 1987.-Academic Burnout: Faculty Responsibility and InstitutionalClimate." In Coping with Faculty Stress, edited by P. Seldin. NewDirections for Teaching and Learning No. 29. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Arnold, K.D. 1993. "Hie Fulfillment of Promise. MinorityValedictorians and Salutalcirians." Reileic al I ligher Education1 (A 3 ). 257-83

Assessment I pdate (bimonthly newsletter). San Franusco lossey-Bass.

Assc)ciatiiin of Amencan l'nicrsitics 1990 histiluthouil Policies toImprole Doctoral Education Washington, D.C: Author

Astin. A W. 1977 1-bur (.ritical )ears San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.July 1981. "Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory

for I ligher Education." Journal (,1Cidlege Snulein Penonnel 25297-3(18.

. 1985. Achieving Educational Evcellence San Francisco: Jossey-

152

1 6 1

Bass.1987. "Competition or Cooperation? Teaching Teamwork as

a Basic Skill." Change 19(5): 12-19.1991. Assessment for Excellence: Me Philosophy and Practice

of Assessment and El.( tluation in Higher Education. New York:ACE/Macmillan.

1993. Irliat Matten in Colkge? Four Cntical Years RevisitedSan Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bainbridge, W.S. 1978. "Chariots of the Gullible." 5keptical Inquirer3(2): 33-48.

Baird, L.L. 1985. "Do Grades and Tests Predict Adult Accomplish-ment?" Research in Higher Educatwn 23(1): 3-85.

Baker, J., Jr. 1989 And the Cheat Coes On An Esposi.; on HouStudents Are Cheating in 5chool Salem, Ore.: Forum PressInternational.

Bakierston, F.F. 1974 thmovni; Thday's Vimersity San Francis«,Jossey-Bass.

I3anta, T.W. 1988. Implenwnting Outcomes Assessment Promilse andPerils. New Directions for Institutional Research No. 49. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

. 1993. Making a Difference: Outconws of a Decade ry.A.ssessment in Higher Education San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Banta, T.W., J.P. Lund, K.E. Black, and F.W. ()blander. 1995.Assessment in Practice. Putting Principles to Work on OdhgeCampuses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barbett, S.F., IL. HollMs, R.A. Korb, and E.B. Morgan. 1995.Enrollment in Higher Education: Rill 1984 through Fall /993NCES 95-238. Wasl- 'ngton. D.C.: U. S. Dept. of Education. Officeof Educational Research and Improvement.

Barnes, C.P. 1983. "Questioning in College Classrooms." In Studies (fCollege Teaching: Experimental Results, Theoretical Intopreta-lions, and New Penpectires, edited by C.L. Ellner and C.P. BarnesLexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

Baron, J. 1985. "What Kinds of Intelligence Components AreFundamental? In Thinking and Learning Skills Vol. 2. Researchand Open Questions, edited by S.F. Chipman and J.W. Segal.Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlhaum.

Barton, P.E., and A. Lapointe. 1995. Learning by agrees: Indicatorsqf Performance in Higher Education. Princeton, N J.: EducationalTesting Service, Policy Information Center.

Battersby, J.L. 1973. Tipkal Folly Eitiluating Student Perfirmancein Higher Education Washington, D.C.: National Council ofTeachers of English.

Baxter-Magolda, M.B. 1990a. "Gender Differences in EpistemologicalDevelopment." Journal qf College Student Development 31: 555-61.

Recksigning Higher Education

16°153

1990b. "The Impact of the Freshman Year onEpistemological Development: Gender Differences." Review (y.Higher Education 13(3): 259-84.

1992a. Knowing and Reasoning in College Gender-RelatedPatterns in Students' Intellectual Development. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

. 1992b. "Students' Epistemologies and AcademicExperiences: Implications for Pedagogy." Review of HigherEducation 15(3): 265-87.

1993. "Relational Views of Self. Relationship, andKnowledge: Pathways to Marginalization?" Review qf HigherEducation 16(3): 371-84.

Baxter-Magokla. M.B., and W.D. Porterfield. 1985. "A New Approachto Assess Intellectual Development on the Perry Scheme." Journalcd. College Student Personnel 26(4): 343-50.

Bean, J. 1980. "Dropouts and Turnover: The Synthesis and Test of aCausal Model of Student Attrition." Research in Higher Education12: 155-87.

Bebeau, M. 1994. "Influencing the Moral Dimensions of DentalPractice." In Moral Development in the Professions- Psychology andApplied Ethics edited by J.R. Rest and D. Narvaez. Hillsdale, NJ.:Erlbaum.

Belenky. M.E.. B.M. Clinchy. N.1( Goldberger. and J.M. Tarule.Wiimen's Ways of Knowing- The Development of Self l'ouce, andMind. New York. Basic Books.

Bell, D. 1966. The Reforming of General Education The ColumbhiCollege Experience in Its .Vatunial Setting Garden City, NDoubleday.

Bennett. JAI 1991. "Collegiality as 'Getting Along.'" AAHE Bulletin44(2): 7-10.

Bennett. J.B., and DJ. Figuli. eds 1990. Enhancing DepartmentalLeadership The Roles if the Chairperson. New York: ACE/Macmillan.

Bennett, W.J. 1984. To Reclaim a Legacy: A Repori on the Humanitiesin Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: National Endowment forthe Humanities ED 247 880. 63 pp. MF-01; PC-03.

Bennis, W. 1989. trAv Leaders Can't Lead: The Unconscious Con-spirag Conillilivs San Francisco: lossey-Bass.

Bergyuist, and J.L. Arrnstrong. 1986. Planning EffectitelyJOrMucational Quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bergyuist. W.H.. and S.R. Phillips. 1975. A Handbook forFacultyDeielolmieni Vol 1. Washington. D.C.: Council of IndependentColleges.

1977. .4 Handbook for Faculty Development Vol. 2.Vashington, D.C.. Council of Independent Colleges.

1 54

163

. 1981. A Handbook for Faculty Development. Vol. 3.Washington, D.C.: Council of Independent Colleges.

Bernstein, A. 1990. 'Sex, Race, and Diversity Tapes: Students onCampus." Change 22(2): 18-23.

Bernstein, A., and J. Cock. 15 June 1990. "A Troubling Picture ofGender Equity." Chronicle of Higher Education: B1-B3.

Bernstein, R. 26 May 1988. "Black and White on Campus: LearningTolerance, not Love, and Separately." New York Times

"Better History Teaching Called for in Report." 22 November 1992.Chronicle qf Higher Educanc.n. A2.

"Big Gaps Found in College Students Grasp of Current Affairs." 18April 1993. New York 'limes.

Binet, A. 1909. les Nees Modernes sur les Enfants Paris: ErnestFlamarion.

Birnbaum, R. 1992. Hole Academic Leadership Works Understand-ing Success and Pailure in the Collcge Presidency. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Ithckhum, R.T, andJ.11. Lawrence. n.d. "Same Institution, DifferentPerceptions: Faculty and Administrators Report on the WbrkEnvironment." Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan, National Center forResearch to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

Blackburn, R.T., G.R. Pellino, A. Boherg, and C. O'Connell. 1980."Are Instructional Improvement Prognuns Off Target?" CurrentIssues in Higher Education 2(1): 32-48.

Block, J.11., ed. 1971. Mastery learning.. Theory and Practice NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Bloland, PA., L.C. Stamatakos, and R.R. Rogers. 1994. "Refomi inStudent Affairs: A Critique of Student Development." Greensboro,N.C.: ERIC Counseling and Student Services Clearinghouse.

Bloom, A. 19F7 The Closing of the American Mind. New York:Simon & Schuster

Bloom, B.S. 1976. Human Characteristics and School Learning NewYork: McGraw-11a

. 1984. "The Search for Methods of Group Instruction asEffective as One-to-One Tutoring." Educational Leadership 11(8)-4-17.

. 1985 Developing "latent in }bung People New York.Ballantine Books.

Bloom. 135., ed. 19%. Taxonomy ojb.ducatuoial Olyectites vol. I.Cognitity Domain. New York. Longman.

Bloom, B.S., J.T. Hastings. and G F Madaus. 1971. Handbook onFormative and Sifinnlalll s' uluatimi if Student Learning NewYork: McGraw-11in.

Blum. E 1 July 1992 "MIT !lead Calk tor Transformatp .11Engineering Education, I fits Accrednors." Chrrmicle (!pligher

Redesigning Higher Education 1 55

16,1

Education: A13.Bogue, E.G. 1994. Leadership by Design: Strerigthemng Integrity m

Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Boice, R. 1991a. "New Faculty as Teachers." Journal of Higher

Mucation 62(2): 150-73.1991b. "Quick Starters New Faculty Who Succeed." In

Iffective Practices for Improving Teaching, edited by M Thealland J. Franklin. New Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 48.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

. 1992. The Neu' Faculty Member. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bonsangue, M.V., and D.E. Drew. n.d "Long-Term Effectiveness ofthe Calculu. Workshop Model." Unpublished manuscript.

Bonwell, Cr., and J.A. Eison. 1991. Active Learning: CreatingLycik-ment in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education ReportNo. 1. Washington, D.C.: George Washington Univ., School ofEducation and Human Development. ED 336 049. 121 pp. NIF--(i1;PC-05.

Booth, D.B. 1982. I be Department Chair. Professional Deuelopmeutand Role Conflict AMIE-ERIC Higher Education Report No m.'..askrigton, D.C.. Amencan Msociation for Higher Education. El)226 689. 60 pp. MF-01: PC-03.

Niftier, 1.1. B and N.V.N. Chism, eds. 1992 Thaching jar DiversityNew Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 49. San Francisco.Jussey-Bam.

Bouton, C.. and R.Y. Garth, eds 1983. Learning in Groups NewDirections for Teaching and Learning No. 14. San Francisco:

imey- Bass.

Bowen, It R. 19""7. ThiEstmerit in learbing The bulividual andSocial lidue of American Higher Education San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

. 1980. "Outcomes A.ssessment: A New Era in Accreditation."Proceedings of the 93rd Annual Convention of the Middle StatesAssociation of Colleges and Schools. December 1979, Philadel-phia, Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: Middle States Association ofColleges and Schools.

Bowen, H.R., and Pl. Schuster. 1986. American Pmfessors. ANational Resource Imperiled New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

Bowman, R.A., T.E. Loynachan, and J.W. Schafer. 1986. "Attitude, ofAgronomy Teachers on Preparation for Teaching." Journal ofAgronomic Education 15(2): 96-100.

Boyer, E.L. 1987. College The Didergraduate Experience in AmericaNew York: Harper &

. 1989. The Condition of tbe Pmfasoriale. Attitudes andTrrnds, 1989. Princeton, NJ.: Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancenwnt of Teaching. ED 112 963. 162 pp. MF-01; PC not

/56

165

available EDRS.1990a. "Campus Life: In Search of Community." Pnnceton,

NJ.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. El)319 276. 16 pp. MF-01; PC-01.

. 1990b. Scholarship Reconsidered. Priorities of the Profes-soriate Piinceton, NJ.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancementof Teaching. ED 326 19. 151 pp. MF-01; PC not available EDRS.

Bredemeier, EU., and D.L.L. Shields. 1994. -Applied Ethics andMoral Reasoning in Sport." In Moral Demlopment in the Profes-sions.. Psychology and Applied Ethics, edited by J.R. Rest and I)Narvaez. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Brethower, D.M. 1977. "Recent Research in Learning Behavior: SomeImplications for College Teaching." In Teaching in Higher Edu-cation, edited by S. Sdioll and F.S. Inglis Columbus: Ohio Boardof Regents.

Briggs, 14., ed. 1971 Instructional Design: Principles and Alpha&tiors. Englewood Chits. N I.: Educational Technok)gy Publications

Brittingham, B.E. 1988. "Undergraduate Students' Use of Time. AClassroom Investigation." To Improve the Academy 7: 45-52.

Brookfield, S.D. 1986. I )iderstanding and Facilitatmg AdultLearning San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

. 1987. Developing Critical Thinkers Challenging Mull., toExplore Alternative trays of Thinking and Acting San Francisco.Jossey-Bass.

Brophy, J. 1986. -Teacher Influences on Student AchiecementAnwrican Pswhologist -1(10): 1069-77.

BrowerA.M. 1992 "The "Second liar of Student Integration. TheEffects of Life Task Predominance on Student Retention." JournalQf Higher Education 63(11. 1-i1-62.

Brown. G., and M. Atkins. 198. Eflectue Teacluni, in Higher Edu-cation. New York Nledmen

Brown, R D., and D.A. DeCoster. eds. 1982. Mentorthg-Transcript.S.)verns for Promoting Student Growth Nem, Directions for studentServices No. 19. San Francisco Jossey-Bass

Burns, J.M. 1978. Leadership New York: I larper ,!X Row

Burrows, U.N. 20 June 1990 "The Body of Medical KnowledgeRequired Today Ear Exceeds What Stwlents Can learn in .1 Yedr,Chronicle of Higher Education. 111+

Cabrera, A.F. M.B Castaneda, A. Nora, and I) I lengstler. 1992 "TheConvergence between Two Theories of College PersistenceJournal if Higher Edu(ation (3) 2) IA 4- 6.1

Cabrera, AI, A Nora, and M.B Castaneda 1993 "College Persis-tence. Structural Equations Modeling Test of an Integraied Modelof Student Retenticin "Journal of Higher Education ( ,1(2): 123-39

Cage, M.C. 26 May. 1993. "Graduation Rates ot American Indians and

Redesigning Higher Educalum

16C

157

Blacks Improve, Lag behind Others Chronicle of Higher&location: A29.

. 26 January 1994. "Beyond the B.A." Chronicle of HigherEducation. A29-A31.

California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and Personal andSocial Responsibility. 1990. 'Toward a state of Esteem." Sacra-mento: California State Dept. of Education.

Cameron, K.S. 1984. "Assessing Institutional Ineffectiveness: AStrategy for Improvement." In Determining the Effectiveness qfcampus Senices, edited by KA. Scott. New Directions forInstitutional Research No. 41. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Candy, P.C., and R.G. Crebert. 1991. "Ivory Tower to ConcreteJungle. The Difficult Transition from the Academy to theWorkplace as Learning Environments."Journal if HigherEducation 62(5). 570-92.

Carey, L.M. 1988. Measurmg and Eialuating School Learning,Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Carmichael, J. Jr.. J Hunter, H Hassell, L.W. Jones, M.A. Rvanand H. Vincent. 1978. "Project SOAR (Stress on AnalyticalReasoning)." In ADAPT Multidisciplinary Piagetian-BasedPrograms for College Freshmen. Lincoln. Univ. of Nebraska.

Carnevale. A.P. L.J. Gainer, and A.S. Meltzer. 1990. Workplace BasicsThe Essential Skills Employers Winn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cashm, W.E. 198'7. -Improving Essay Tests." IDEA Paper No, 17.Manhatun. Kansas State Uni.. Center for Faculty Evaluation and1)evelopment.

Ceci, SJ. 1990. On Intelligence More or less Englewood CliffsNJ.: Prentice-Hall.

Chaffee. E.F.. and L.A. Shen. 1992. Quality TranslOrming Post-secondaty Education. ASHE-ER1C Higher Education Report No 3.Washington. D.C.: George Washington Univ.. School of Educationand Human Development. ED 351 922. 14S pp. ME-01; PC-06.

"Challenge: To Acknowledge the Role of Work-Related BehavioralSkills and Attitudes as Both a Cause ol and Remedy for the SkillsGap." 1995. EQW Issues No. 9.

Cheney, L.V 1990. Tyrannical Machines: A Report on EducationalPractices Gone Wrong and Our Best Hopes JO?. Setting Them RiphtWashington. D.C.: National Endowment for the Humanities.

Chkkenng A.W. 1969. Education and identity. San Francisco:ossey-Bass.

19' Commuting versus Rvslcit'111 Otvro)ming theEducational inequities if Living glf Campus San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Chk kering, A.\X'.. and Associates 1981 The ,tbKlern American(011ege San Francisio. Jossey-liass

167

Chickering, A.W., and Z.F. Gamson. 1987. "Seven Principles forGood Practice in Undergraduate Education." Wingspread Journal9 (Insert 2): 1-4.

. 1991. Applying the Seven Principles for Good Practice inUndergraduate Dlucation. New Directions for Teaching andLearning No. 47. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A.W., D. Halliburton, W.H. Bergquist, and J. Lindquist.1977. Developing the College Curriculum: A Handbook for Facultyand Administrators. Washington, D.C.: Council for the Advance-ment of Small Colleges.

Chickering, A.W., and R.J. ILivighurst. 1981. "The Life Cycle." In 7heModern American College, edited by A.W. Chickering and Asso-ciates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A.W., and L. Reisser. 1993. Education and identity. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Ibss.

Chism, N.V. 1991. "Supervisors and TAs on the Teaching Help TheyGive and Receive." In Prcparing the Professoriate of Tomorrow toTeach: Selected Readings in TA Training, edited by J.D. Nyquist, R.D.Abbott, D.H. Wulff, and J. Sprague. Dubuque. Ia.: KendalL'Hunt.

, ed. 1987. "Institutional Responsibilities and Responses in theEmployment and Education of Teaching Assistants. Readings froma National Conference." Columbus: Ohio State Univ., Center forTeaching Excellence.

Chronicle of Higher Education. 28 August 1991. "Almanac- 38(1): 28.. 26 August 1992. "Almanac" 39(1). 13.. 1 September 1994. "Almanac" 41(1): 3-t.. 17 February 1995a. "Notebook": A37.. 23 June 1995b. "Notebook": A27.

August 1995c. "Notebook": A27.Claxton, C.S., and P.11. Murrell. 1987. (gaming Styles. Implications

fiir Improving Educational Practices. ASHE-ERIC Higher EducatkReport -i. Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of11ighe, acation. El) 293 478. 116 pp. ME-01: PC-OS.

Clegg, V.L., and W.E. Cashin. 1986. Improving Multiple-ChoiceTests." IDEA Paper No. 16. Manhattan: Kansas State Univ., Centerfor Faculty Evaluation and Development.

Clement.). 1981. "Solving Problems with Formulas: Some Limiu-iions." Engineering Mucation 7212). 152-62.

Clinchy. B 1989. "On Critkal Thinking and Connected KnowingLiberal Education 75( 5): 14-19.

Cohen, M.D., and J.G. March. 197-1. Leadership and Ambiguity MeAmerican Colkwe President. New York. McGraw-I1111.

Cohen, P.A. 1984. "College (trades and Adult Achievement. AResearch Synthesis." Research in Higher Education 20(3): 281-93

Colby, A., and L. Kohlberg 1987. The Measurement Moral judg-

Redesign 'ng Higher Education 159

16S

merit. Vol. 1. Theoretical Thundations and Research ValidationCambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Cole. C.C., Jr. 1982. Improving histruction. Issues and Alternatnes forHigher Education. AAHE-ERIC Higher Education Research ReportNo. Washington, D.C.: American Association fur Higher Edu-cation. ED 222 159. 75 pp. MF-01; PC-03.

College Outcomes Evaluation Program. 1990-a. Assessing HigherEducation's Outcomes.- An Annual Report on Outcomes andA.ssessment Activities at Public Colleges and Universities in NewJersey Trenton: New Jersey Dept. of Higher Education.

. 1990b. "Report to the Board of I ligher Education on theFirst Administration of the General Intellectual Skills (GIS)Assessment.- Trenton: New Jersey Dept. of Higher Education.

College Outcomes Evaluation Program Council. 1991. "A Report onAccess, Retention, Transfer, and Graduation at New Jersey's PublicColleges and Universities." Trenton: New Jersey Dept. of HigherEducation

N1J. 1983. Teaching liihies and Ethics ni College. NewDirections for Teaching and Learning No. 13. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass

Collison, M. N-K. 13 January 1993. "Survey Finds Many Freshmen!lope to Further Racial Understanding.- Gyromcle of HigherEducation: A29-A32.

Commission on Admission to Graduate Management Education1990. "Leadership for a Changing World: The Future Role ofGraduate Management Education." Los Angeles: GraduateManagement Admission Council.

Commission for Educational Quality. 199-i. Changing States HigherEducation and tbe Public Good AtLinu: Southern RegionalEducation Board ED 366 280 C5 pp MF-01; PC-03

Commission on I ligher F.ducation and the Adult Learner 1984"Adult Learners: Key to the Nation's Future.- Columbia, Md.:Author.

Commission on Minority Participation in Education and AmericanLite. :988. One-Thnil if a Nation. V'ashington. D.C.: AmericanCouncil on Education'Education Comnussion of the Sutes.

Conunittee un Education. 1984. "Science as a Way of Knowing.- vol.1. American Zoologist 24: 421-53-i.

. 1985. "Science .is a Way of Knowing.- Vol. 2. AmericanZoologist 25: 377-(H1

1986. "Science as a Way of Knowing V(il. 3. AmericanZoologist 26: 569-918.

198' "Science as a Way of Knowing AmericanZoologist 27: 411-732.

1988 "Science as a Vav of Know ing Anwrican

160

169

Zoologist 28: 441-808.. 1989. ''Science as a Way of Knowing." VA. 6. American

Zoologist 29: 481-817.

. 1990. -Science as a Way of Knowing." Vol. 7. Anu.,ricanZoologist 30: 403-505+.

Committee on the Objectives of a General Education in a HeeSociety. 1945. "General Education in a Free Society: Report of theHarvard Committee." Cambridge. Mass : Harvard Press

Cones, J.H., Ill, J.F. Noonan. and D. Janha, eds. 1983. TeachingMinority Students. New Directions for Teaching and Learning No.16. San FrancLsco: Jossey-Bass.

Conrad, C.F., and A.M. Pratt. 1986. "Research on Acadeniic Pro-grams: An Inquiry into an Emerging Held." In Higher MucanonHandbook on Theory and Practice, edited by John C. Smart. Nev.York: Agathon.

Cooper, J , S. Prescott, L. Cook. L. SnUth, R. Mueck, and J Cuseo.1990. "O)operative learning and CA Alege Instniction Effective l'scof Student Learning 'Learns Long Beach: California State l'ruv.Foundation.

Comesky, R.A., and Associates. 1990. W Edwards Deming Improv-nig Quality in Colleges and Unitersities. Madison. Wis.: Magna.

Comesky, R , and S. NIcCool 1992 Total Qualify Improt('mentGuide for Institutions qf Higher Education Madison, Wis. Magna.

Comesky, R., S. McCool. L. Bymes, and R. Weber. 1991. Implement-ing Total Quality Management in High, .ducation NladisonWis.: Magna. El) 343 535. 154 pp. MF-01; PC-06.

Covington. M.V. 1985. "Strategic Thinking a -d the Fear of Failure."In Thinking and Learning Skills Vol. 1. Relating histniction toResearch, edited by J.W. Segal. S F. Chipman. and R. GLiserHillsdale. N.J. Erlbaum.

. 1989. "Self-Esteem and Failure in School. Analysis andPolicy Implications.- In The Social Importance of SelfEswem.edited by A.M. Mecca. N J Snicker, and J. Vasconcellos. Berke-ley. 17niv. of California Press.

Covington, M.V., and R G. Beery. 1976. Self-Wiwth and SboolLearning New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Crawford, A.B. 1930. -Rubber Micrometers Schootatul %()ciety32(816) : 233-4o

Crockett, D.S., and R.S Levitz. 1984. "Current Advising Practices inColleges and Universities." In Deielopmental Academic Advising.edited by R.B. Winston, Jr., T.K. Miller. S.C. Ender, T.J. Grites. andAssociates. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.

Cromwell, L S., ed 1986 Paching Critical Thinking in Ow Art andHumanities. Milwaukee; Alvemo Productions.

Cronbacli. U. I'Mi. 1::NenttaLs of Pstvhological Testing New.

Redesigning Higher hiliwatung 161

170

Harper & Row.Crookston, B.B January 1972. "A Developmental View of Academic

Advising as Teaching." Journal of College Student PerNonnel 13:12-17.

Crosby, P.B. 1979. Quality Is Free. The Art if Making Quality Certain.New York: New American Library.

Cross, K.P. 1971. Beyond the Open Door Neu, Students to Higher&lucation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

. 1976. Accent on Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

. 1986. "A Proposal to Improve Teaching: What TakingTeaching Seriously Should Mean." AAIth Millen?: 39(1): 9-15.

Culotta, E. 13 November 1W2. "A Trio of 'reaching Successes."Science 258: 1217.

Dansereau, D.F. 1985. "Learning Strategy Research." In Thinking (IndLearning Skills. Vol. 1. Relating Instruction to Research, edited byJ.W. Segal, S.F. Chipman, and R. Glaser. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Darling-Hammond, L., and L. Hudson. 1990. "Precollege Science andMathematics Teachers: Supply, Demand, and Quality." Reciew ( fResearch in Education 16: 223-64.

Davies, U. 1983. "Teaching University Students How to Learn."Improving College and University Teaching 31: 160-65.

Davis, R.II., and LT. Alexander. 1977a. "The Lecture Method."Guides for the Improvement of Instruction in Higher EducatkmNo. 5. East Lansing: Michigan State Univ.

. 19771). "The Systematic Design of Instruction Guidesthe Improvement of Instruction in Higher Education No. 12. EastLansing: Michigan State Univ.

Davis, R.H., L.T. Alexander, and S.C. Yelon. 1974. Learning SystemDesign: An Approach to Improving Instruction. New York:McGraw-liill.

Davis, R H., J.P. Fry, and L.T. Alexander. 1977. "The DiscussionMethod." Guides for the Improvement of Instruction in HigherEducation No. 6. East Lansing: Michigan State Univ.

Davis, T., and RH. Murrell. 1993. Turning Teaching into Learning.The Role of Student Responsibility in the Collegiate Experience.ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 8. Washington, D.C.: GeorgeWashington Univ. ED 372 703. 122 pp. MF-01; PC-05.

"Deep Learning, Surface Learning." 1993. AAHE Bulletin 45(8):10-13.

Delwonh, W., G. I lanson, and Associates. 1989. Student Services. AHandbook for the Profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

"Demand for College-Educated Workers May Outstrip Supply in1990s." 3 January 1990. Chronicle cf Higher Education.: A2.

Deming, W.E. 1986. "Out of the Crisis." Cambridge, Mass.: MITCenter for Advanced Engineering Design.

/61

7 1

Deshler, D. 1985. "Metaphors and Values in Higher Education."Academe 71(6): 22-28.

Diamond R.M. 1989. Designing and Improving Courses andCurricula in Higher Education: A Systematic Approach. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Diamond, R.M., and F.P. Wilbur. 1990. "Developing Teaching SkilLsduring Graduate Education." To Improve the Academy 9: 199-216.

Dodge, S. 20 November 1991. "Poorer Preparation for CollegeFound in 25-Year Study of Freshmen." Chronicle of HigherEducation: A37.

"Does the Harrison Case Reveal Sexism in Math?" 28 June 1991.Science 252: 1781-83.

"Does Research Fraud Have Its Origins in Student Cheating?" 30November 1988. Chronkle of Higher Education: A31.

Dolence, M.G., and D.M. Norns. 1995. Transforming Higher Edu-cation: A lAsion for Learning in the 21st Century. Ann Arbor,Mich.: Society for College and University Planning.

Douvan, E. 1981. "Capacity for Intimacy." In The Modern AmericanCollege, edited by kW. Chickering and Associates. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Dressell, P.L. Winter 1957. "Facts and Fancy in Assigning Grades."Basic Culkwe Quarterly: 6-12.

. 1976. Handbook of Academic Eialuation. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,

Drucker, P.F. 1974. Management.. Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices.New York: I larper & Row.

. 1990. Managing the Nonprofit Organization Practices andPrinciples. New York: Harper (Collins).

Duckett, L.R., and M.B. Ryden. 199.1. "Education for Ethical NursingPractice." In Moral Development in the Prqlessions. Psychology andApplied Ethics, edited by J.R. Rest and D. Narvaez. Ilillsdale, J.:Erlbaum.

Dunlop, DI., and F. Fazio. 1976. "Piagetian Theory and AbstractPreferences of Q)Ilege Science Sttidents." journal ( f ColltveScience Teaching 5: 297-300.

Duster, T. 25 September 1991. "Understanding Self-Segregation onCampus." Chronicle of Iligher Education. 131-132.

Dziech, 13.W., and L. Weiner. 1984. The Lecherous Professor SexualHarassment on Campus. Boston: Beacon Press

Earley, M., M. Mentkowski, and J. Schafer. 1980. "Valuing at /therm):The Valuing Process in Lil)eral Education." Milwaukee: AlvernoProductions.

Eble, K.E., and W.J. McKeacbie. 1985. Improving ViulergraduateEclucatilm through Pik ulty Detelopnwnt. San Francisco Jilssey.Bass.

1?edesigning Higher Education 163

172

Edgerton, R. 1992. "Community and Commitment in Higher Edu-cation." AAHE Bulletin 45(1):

"Education Pilot Criteria." 1995. Malcolm Baldrige National QualityAward Program. Gaithersburg, Md.: U.S. Dept. of Commerce,National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Ehrhart, J.K., and B.R. Sandler. November 1985. "Campus GangRape: Party Games?" Washington, D.C.: Association of AmericanColleges.

Ehrlich, HT August 1988. "Campus Ethnoviolence and the PolicyOptions." A Report to the New Jersey Dept. of Higher Education,Office of Educational Policy Baltimore: National Institute againstRacism and Prejudice.

Ellner, C.L., and C.P. Barnes, eds. 1983 Studies of College Teaching:Experimental Results, Theoretical Interpretations, and New Per-spectives. Lexington, Mass.: D C. Heath.

Ellson. D.G. 1986. Improving the Productivity of Teaching: 125Exhibits. Bloomington. Incl.: Phi Delta N. ppa Center on Evalua-tion. Development, and Research.

Ender, S.C.. R.B. Winston. Jr., and T.K. Miller 1982. "AcademicAdvising as Student Development." In Deielopmental Approachesto Academic Advising edited by R.B. Winston, Jr.. S.C. Ender, andT.K. Miller. New Directions for Student Services No. 17. SanFrancisco: JONSe -Bass.

. 1981. "Academic Advising Reconsidered." In DetelopmentalAcademic Advising. edited by R.B. Winston, Jr.. T.K. Miller. S.0Ender, T.J. Gntes, and Associates. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.

"English Physics lilts the Fat Farm." 6 July 1990. Science 249: 21.

Erwin, T.D. 1991. Assessing Student Learning and Deielopment San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ettioni. A. 1993. The .Spint qf Community: Rights, Responsibilities.and the Communitarian Agenda. New York: Crown.

Evangelaul J. 10 May 1989. "Accounting Educators Plan to Upda!eCurriculum. Debate Tighter Entrance Requirements for CPAs."Chronicle qf Higher Education. A31-A32.

. 9 May 1990. "Education Research Seen in Ferment; Reten-tion Studies Called Too Narrow." Chronicle qif Higher liduca-tion A18.

Evans, E.D., P.K. Dodson, and D.T. Bailey. 1981. "Assessment ofPsychology. Instructors Perceptions and Use of Textbook Test-Item Manuals for Measuring Student Achievement." Teaching ,fPsichulogt. 8(2): 88-90.

Ese, R.A.. and EH Harrold. 1986. "Creationism. Cult Archeology,and Other Pseudoscientific Beliefs. A Study of College Students.-/ blab and Sock'ty 117(4). 396-4 21.

Ewell, P.1. 1991. "Assessment and Public Accountability: Back to tlw

173

Future." Change 23(6): 12-17.Facione, P.A. 1990. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consen-

sus for Puiposes of Educational Assessment and lnstniction. Re-search Findings and Recommendations. Newark, Del.: AmericanPhilosophical Association. ED 315 423. 112 pp. NIF-01: PC-05.

Facione, P.A., C.A. Sanchez, and N.C. Facione. 1993. "Are CollegeStudents Disposed to Think?" Paper presented at a meeting of theAAHE Assessment Forum, June, Chicago. Illinois. ED 368 311. 18pp. MF-01; PC-01.

Feder, K.L. 1986. "The Challenges of Pseudoscience." Journal (il.College Sciena, Teaching 15: 180-86.

. 1987. "Cult Archeology and Creationism: A CoordinatedResearch Project." In Cidt Archeology and Creationism Under-standing Pseudoscientific BeliefS about the Past, edited by F13Harrold and R.A. Eve. Iowa City: Univ. of Iowa Press.

Feldman, N.A. 1987. "Research Productivity and Scholarly Accom-plishment of College Teachers as Related to Their InstructionalEffectiveness: A Review and Exploration." Research in Higher&location 26(3): 227-98.

Feldman, N.A., and T.M. Newcomb. 1969. The impact rf College onStudents. 2 vol. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Field, M.J., ed. 1995. Dental Education at the Crossroads- Challengesand Change. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Fife, J.D. 1991. "Foreword... In Meeting the Mandate: Renewing theCollege and Departmental Curriculum, by W. Toombs and W.Tierney. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 6 Wishinyton.D.C. George Washington Univ., SLItool of Education and HumanDevelopment. ED 345 603. 124 pp. MF-01; PC-05.

Fincher, C. 1986. "Trends and Issues in Curricular Development InHigher Education- Handbook of Theory and Research. edited byJ.C. Smart. Vol. 2. New York: Agathon.

Fink, LI/ Md. "First Year on the Faculty: Being There." Journal ofGe(graph) in Higher Education 8( 1): 11-25.

1985. "First Year on the Facuhy: The Quality of Their Teach-ing.- Journal if Geography in I figher Education 9(2): 129-45.

Finkelstein, M.J. 1984. The American .-icademic Pr( yession A Syn-thesis if Social Scientific liquiiy since Wirth/ Weir II Columbus.Ohio State Univ. Press,

Fischer, C.G.. and G.E. Grant. 1983. intdlectual Levels in CollegeClamnxiins." In Studies if College Teaching. Experimental Results.Theoretical Interpretations, and New Perspectims, edited by C.L.Ellner and C P. Barnes. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. I leath

Flam, F. 21 June 1991. "Still a 'Chilly Climate' for Viimenr Science252: I60i-6.

Ford. W.S.Z. 1991. "An Interdepartmental. Research-Based Assess-

Redesigning /lighiT [Wm (awn /65

174

ment of Training Needs for Teaching Assistants." Paper presentedat the Third National Conference on the Training and Employ-ment of leaching Assistants. November, Austin, Texas.

Forrest, A. 1985. "Creating Conditions for Student and InstitutionalSuccess." In Increasing Student Retention, edited by L. Noel, R.Levitz, D. Saluri, and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Foster, P.J. 1983. "Verbal Participation and Outcomes in MedicalEducation: A Study of Third-Year Clinical Discussion Groups." InStudies of College Teaching Expetimental Results, TheoreticalInwtpretations, and New Perspectives, edited by C.L. Ellner andC.P. Barnes. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath.

Fried, J , ed. 1981. Education for Student Development. New Direc-tions for Student Services No. 15. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

"From Risk to Renewal: Stymied by Barriers to Fixing the Schools.Reformers Seek Pathway to True and Lasting Change." 10February 1993. Education Week (Special Supplement). 1-18.

Fuerst, P.A. 1984. "University Student Understanding of EvolutionaryBiology's Place in the Creation/Evolution Controversy." Ohiojournal of Science 84(5): 218-2P.

l'uhrrnann, B.S.. and A.F. Grasha. 1983. A Practical Handbook .1brCollege Teachers. Boston: Little, Brown.

Gabelnick, F., J. MacGregor, R. Matthews, and B.L. Smith. 1990.Learning Communities: Building Connections among Disciphnos.StutWnts, and Faculty New Directions for Teaching and LeamingNo. 41. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gaff, J.G. 1975. Toward Faculty Renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.1983. General Education Today: A Critical Analysis qf

Controtersies, Practices, and Reforms. San Francisw: Jossey-Bass.1991. New Life for the College Curriculum: Assessing Achieiv-

nwnts and Furthering Progress in the Reform of General Edu-cation San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gaff, J.G., J. Lindquist, K. Mohmtan. Cil. Reynolds, and R. Yount.eds. 1980. General Education: Issues and Resources. Project onGeneral Education Models, Society for Values in Higher Edu-cation. V(/'ashington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges.

Gagne, R.M.. and U. Briggs. 1974. Principles rf Instructional Design.New York. I bolt, Rinehart & Winston.

Gallagher, D R. 1991. "A Study of the Preparation of College andUniversity Acar: .mic Administrators in the United States." Unpub-lished manuscrip.. Glassboro, NJ.: Glassboro State College,Communication Dept.

Gallagher, J.J. 1989. "Research on Secondary School Science Teach-ers' Practices, Knowledge, and Beliefs A Basis for Restructuring."In looking into Windows. Qualitative Research in science Edn.cation, edited hy M.I. Maryas, K. Tobin, and B.J. Fraser. Washing-

100

1 "

ton, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Gamson, Z.F. 1991. "Why Is College So Influential? The Continuing

Search for Answers." Change 23(6): 50-53.1993. "The Destruction and Re-creation of Academic Com-

munity: A Personal View." Association for the Study of HigherEducation Newsletter 6(2): 4-7

Gappa, J.M., and D.W Leslie. 1993. The Invisible Faculty: Improvingthe Status of Part-Timm in Higher Education. San Francisco.Jossey-Bass.

Gardiner, L.E 1989. Planning jbr Assessment: MiSsion Statements.Goals, and Objectives. Trenton: New Jersey Dept. of HigherEducation. Available from author.

Gardner, H. 1985. Frames ql.11ind. The Theory of Multiple Intelli-gences. New York: Basic Books.

. 1991. The Unschooled Mind- How Children Mink and HowScbool5 Should Thad) New York: Basic Books.

Gilligan, C. 1977. "In a Different Voice: Women's Conceptions of selfand of Morality.- Ilanard Educational Review-17(4): -481-517.

. 1981. "Moral Development." In The Modern AnwricanC011ege, edited by A.W. Chickering and Associates. San Enincisco-Jossey-Bass.

. 1982. In a Different I "(lice: Psychological Theory and Winn-enS Development Cambridge, Mass.. Harvard Univ. Press.

Gold, A.R. 20 April 1988. "President of Harvard Urges MoreInstruction on Ethics." New liwk limes

Goldberg, E.D. January 1993a. "Chancelkir's Report to the Nordof Higher Education Trenton. New Jersey Dept. of I ligherEducation.

. April 1993b. "Special Chancellor's Report to the Board otHigher Education... Trenton New Jersey Dept. of IligherEducation.

. October 1993c. -Special Chancellor's Report to the Nordof I ligher Education Trenton. New Jersey Dept. of HigherEducation

Gordon. V.N. 198.4. "Training Professional and ParapmfessionalAdvisors." In Developmental Academic Advising, edited by RV'inston. Jr., T.K. Miller, S.C. Ender, T.J Grites, and A.ssociates SanFrancisco: Jossey-liaNS.

. 1992. Handbook on .-kadenin Advising estport. ConnGreenwood Press

. 199.1 Acthlemic Athising API Anmitaled MblugrapI!).Westport, Corm.: Greenwood Press.

Gose. B Ii April 1995. "Nlany Freshmen licc(ime Binge Dnnkersduring First Semester. Study Finds Chronide Higher Mit-cation. A39.

Redesigning Higher him wpm 176 I67

Gray. P.J.. R.C. Froh, and R.M. Diamond. 1991. "Myths and Realities."AAHE Bulletin 44(4): 4-5.

1992. "A National Study of Research Universities on theBalance between Research and Undergraduate Teaching."Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse Univ., Center for InstructionalDevelopment. ED 350 967.23 pp. MF- 01; PC-01.

Gray, T. Spring 1984. "University Course Reduces Belief in Para-normal." Skeptical Inquirer 8: 247-51.

. 1987. "Educational Experience and Belief in ParanormalPhenomena." In Cult Archeology and Creationism: UnderstandingPseudoscientific Beliefs about the Past, edited hy F.B. Harrold andR.A. Eve. Iowa City: Univ. of Iowa Press.

Green, K.C., and S.W. Gilbert. 1995. "Great Expectations: ContentCommunications, Productivity, and the Role of Infomution Tech-nology in Higher Education." Change 27(2): 8-18.

Green, Ma, ed. 1989. Minorities on 1,ampus: A Handbook forEnhancing Divenity Washington, D.C.: American Council onEducation.

Griffiths, D.II. 1973. "The Study of the Cognitive Development ofScience Studems in Introductory Level Courses." Doctoral disser-tation, Rutgers Univ.

Guskey, T.R. 1988. Improving Student Learning in Collew Class-rooms. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C Thomas.

Guskin, A.E. 1994a. "Reducing Student Costs and Enhancing StudentLearning. The University Challenge of the 1990s." Part 1. "Restruc-turing the Administration." Change 26(4): 22-29.

. 1994h. "Reducing Student Costs and Enhancing StudentLearning: The University Challenge of the 1990s." Part 2. "Restruc-turing the Role of Faculty." Change 26(5): 16-25.

Guskin, A.E., and M.A. BassLs. 1985. "Leadership Styles and Institu-tional Renewal." In Leadenhip and Institutional Renewal, editedby R.M. Davis. New Directions for Higher Education No. 49. SanFranchco: Jossey-Bass.

Gustav, A. 1969. "Retention of Course Material after Varying Intervalsof Time." Psychological Reports 25: 727-30.

labley, W.R. 1988. "Introduction and Overview." In The Status andFuture of Academic Advising Problems and Promise, edited byW.H. liabley. ACL National Center for the Advancement ofEducational Priorities.

HaNey, W.R., and D.S Crockett. 1988. 'The Third ACT NationalSurvey of Academic Advising." In The Status and Future ofAcademic Aditsing Pmblems and Promise, edited by W.1I.flabley. ACT' National Center for the Advancement of Educa-tional Priorities.

11.11f ( 1 Waterbo Students Say They Considered Suicide." 1 May.

IN? 177

1985. Chronicle of Higher Education: 35.R.M., and B.R. Sandler. 1982. "The Classroom Climate: A Chilly

One for Women?" Washington. D.C.: Association of AmericanColleges.

. 19&i. "Out 31- the Classroom: A Chilly Campus Climate forWomen?" Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges. ED254 125. 22 pp. MF-01; PC-01.

Halonen, J.S., ed. 1986. Teaching Critical Thinking in PsychologyMilwaukee: Alvemo Productions.

Halpern, D.F., ed. 1987. Student Outcomes Assessment: WhatInstitutions Stand to Gain. New Directions for Higher EducationNo. 59. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hanfinann, E. 1978. Effective Therapy for College Students SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fianna, G.S., and WE. Cashin. 1987. "Matching InsmactionalObjectives, Subject Matter, Tests, and Score Interpretations." IDEAPaper No. 18. Manhattan: Kansas State Univ., Center for FacultyEvaluauon and Development. El) 298 152. 7 pp. MF-01; PC-01.

Harnum. W.H., and L.J. Briggs. January 1982. "How Does Instmc-tional Systems Design Differ from Traditional Instruction?" Educa-tional Technology 22: 9-14.

Hanson, G.R. September 1989. The Assessment of Student Develop-ment Outcomes: A Review and Critique of Assessment InstrunwntsTrenton: New Jersey Dept. of Higher Education, CollegeOutcomes Evaluation Program.

, ed. 1982. Measuring Student Development. New Directionsfor Student Services No. 20. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hardy-Brown, K. 1981. "Formal Operations and the Issue of Gen-eralizability: The Analysis of Poetry by College Students." In SOcialDetelopment in Youth: Structure and Content, edited by J.A.Meacham and N.R. Santilli. Basel: Karger.

Harris, J., S. Hillenmeyer, and J.V. Foran. 1989. "Quality Assurancefor Private Career Schools." \Vashington, D.C.: Association ofIndependent Colleges and Schools.

Han-old, EB., and R.A. Eve. Fall 1986. "Noah's Ark and AncientAstronauts: Pseudoscientific Beliefs about the Past among aSample of College Students." Skeptical Inquirer II: 61-75.

. 1987. "Patterns of Creationist Belief among CollegeStudents." In Cult Archeology and Creationism: UndemandingPseudoscientific Beliefs about the Past, edited by F.B. Harrold andR.A. Eve. Iowa City: Univ. or Iowa Press,

Hartnett, R.T., and B.C. Schroder. August 1987. "The Validity ofUndergraduate Grades." New Brunswick, NJ.: Rutgers Univ.,Educational Policy Studies.

flaskins, C.H. 1957. The Rise of I 'nnenities Ithaca, N V (:ornell

Redesigning Higher Education 169

178

Univ. Press.Heath, D.H. 1968. Growing Lp in College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.flaer, S. 11 October 1989. "More Than Half of Students in Survey

Flunk History and Literature Test." Chronicle of Higher FAlucatirm:A15.

Helm, II., and J.D. Novak, eds. 1983. Proceedings of the Inter-national Seminar Misconceptions in Science and Mathematics.Cornell University, June, Ithaca, New York.

Ileydinger. R.B. 1994. "A Reinvented Model for Higher Education."On the Horizon 3(1): 1-.2+.

Hines, E.R. 1984. Delivery Systems and the Institutional Context. InDetelopmental Academic Advising, edited by R.B. Winston, Jr..T.K. Miller, S.C. Ender, TT Grites, and Associates. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

llodgkinson, ILL. 1985. "All One System: Demographics of Edu-cation, Kindergarten through Graduate Schc)ol." Washington, D C.:Institute for Educational Leadership. ED 261 101. 22 pp. MF-01;PC not available EDRS.

Ilolfer, E. 1951. The True BelieLer Thoughts on the Nature of MassMovementc New York: Harper & Row.

Holmes Group 1995. Tomorrow's Schools of Educatkm East Lansing,Mich.: Author.

I loud, A.B., and C. Arceneaux. 1990. Key Resources on StudentServices: A Guide to the Field and Its Literature. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

"flours Student.% Spent Each Week in Various Activities." 14 January1987 Chronicle of Higher Education: 38.

Howard. A. n cl "The Economy: Long-Term Economic Trends and: Implications for Higher Education." In The Academy and the

Economy: Working Papers for the Adviscny Council on GenendEducation Trenton: New Jersey Dept. of Higher Education.

I tuber, R.M. 1992. "How Professors Play the Cat Guarding theCream." Lanham, Md.: George Mason Univ. Press.

ludak, M.A., and D.E. Anderson. 1990. "Formal Operations andLearning Style Predict Student Success in Statistics and ComputerScience Courses." Teaching of Psycho/out-7M: 231-34.

ludson. L. 1987. "East Is East and West Is \West? A Regional Com-parison of Cult Belief Patterns." In Cult Archeology and Creation-ism. Understanding Pseudoscientlfic Beliefs about the Past, ecatedby F.B. Harrold and R.A. Eye. Iowa City: Univ. of Iowa Press.

llughes, J.0., and I3.R. Sandler. 1986. "In Case of Sexual Harassment,A Guide fur Women Students." Washington, D.0 : Association ofAmerican Colleges. ED 268 920. 9 pp. MF--01;

. 198'. "'Friends Raping Fnends: Could It I lappen to Yow"Washington, D.0 A.ssocuuon of American Colleges.

/70

179

. 1988. "Peer Harassment: Hassles for Women on Campus."Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges. ED 299 925.16 pp. MF-01; PC-01.

Hurtado, S. 1992. "The Campus Racial Climate: Contexts of Conflict."Journal of Higher Education 63(5): 539-69.

Hurtado, S., A.W. Astin, and E.L. Dey. 1991. -Varieties of GeneralEducation Programs: An Empirically Based Taxonomy." Journal ofGeneral Education 40(1): 133-62.

Hutchings, P.. T. Marchese, and B. Wright. 1991. Using Assessmentto Strengthen General Education. Washington, D.C.: AmericanAssociation for Higher Education.

Hutchins, R.M. 1936. The Higher Learning in America. New liaven,Conn.: Yale Univ. Press.

"Information for High School Students Interested in Medicine orDentistry: Probability of Success." 1992. New Orleans- XavierUniv. of Louisiana.

Inhelder, B., and J. Piaget. 1958. The Growth of Logical Thinkingfrom Childhood to Adolescence. translated by A. Parsons and SMilgram. New York: Basic Books.

Irvine Group. 1990. "Renewing Undergraduate Education. Recom-mendations from the Irvine Group." Irvine, Cal.: Author.

"It's Time to Reinvent Higher Education." 1993. On the llohzon1-2+.

"Ivy League African-Amencans Dissatisfied with Schools, Says NewPoll." 4 April 1993. Washington, D.C.: Lunti-Weher.

Jacobs, L.C., and C.I. Chase. 1992. Deieloping and Using TestsbjjeciWely: A Guide fir Faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jacoby, B. 1989. The Student-as-Commuter Deteloping aComprehensim Institutional Response. ASHE-ERIC Higher

ducation Report No. 7. Washington, D.C.: George WashingtonUniv., School of Education and Human Development. ED 319298. 118 pp. MF-01, PC-05.

Johnson, D.W., and R.T. Johnson. 1989. Cooperation and Compe-tition: Theory and Research. Edina, Minn.: interactien Book Co.

Johnson, D.W., R.T. Johnson, and K.A. Smith. 1991a. :tally Learn-ing: Cooperation in the College Classroom Edina, Minn.: Inter-action Book Co.

. 19911,. Cooperatite Learning Increasing College FacultyInstructional Productivity. ASHE-ER1C Higher Education ReportNo. 4. Washington, D.C.: George Washington Univ., School ofEducation and Human Development. ED 343 465. 168 pp.MF-01; PC-07.

Johnson, G.R 1986. -A Cognitive Interaction Analysis System."College Station, Tex.. Author.

-. 1987a. "Changing the Verbal Behavior of Teachers Journal

Redesigning Higher Education 171

1 0

of Staff Program, and Organization Development 5(4): 155-58. 1987b. "An Eclectic Systematic Instruction Model for Exposi-

tory Instruction." Journal of Staff, Program, and OrganizationDevelopment 5(3): 91-99.

Johnson, G.R., J.A. Eison, R. Abbott, G.T Meiss, K. Moran, J.A.Morgan, T.L. Pastemak, E. Zaremba, and WI McKeachie. 1991.'Teaching Tips for Users of the Motivated Strategies for LearningQuestionnaire (MSLQ)." Technical Report No. 91-B-005. AnnArbor: Univ. of Michigan, National Center for Research to ImprovePostsecondary Teaching and Learning.

Johnston, J.S., Jr., S. Shaman, and R. Zemsky. 1987. UnfinishedDesign: The Humanities and Social Science:, in UndergraduateEngineering Education. Washington, D.C.: Association ofAmerican Colleges. El) 299 900.83 pp MF-01; PC not avail-able EDRS.

Johnstone, D.B. April 1993. "Learning Productivity: A New Impera-tive for American Higher Education." Stuclies in Public HigherEducation No. 3. Albany: SLINY, Office of the Chancellor.

Jones, E.A., and J.R. Ratcliff. 1990. "Is a Core Curriculum Best forEverybody? The Effect of Different Patterns of Coursework on theGeneral Education of High- and Low-Ability Students." Paper pre-sented at an annual meeting of the American Educational Re-search Association, April, Boston, Massachusetts.

Juran, J.M. 1988. Juran on Planning for Quality New York- FreePress.

. 1989. Juran on Leadership for Quality An EvecuticeHandbook. New York: Free Press.

Kagan, S. 1989. Cooperatim Learning Resources for Teachers. SanJuan Capistrano, Cal.: Resources for I'achers.

Karplus, R., A.E. Lawson, W. Woolman, M. Appel, R. Bemoff, A.lowe. J.J. Rusch, and E. Sullivan. 1977. Science Teaching and the

Development of Reasoning: Biology. Berkeley: Univ. of California.Katz, J., and M. Henry. 1988. Turning Prufessors into Teachers: A

New Approach to Faculty Deirlopment and Student Learning NewYork: ACE/Macmillan.

Keirsey, D., and M. Bates. 1978. Please Understand Me: Characterand Temperament Twes. Del Mar, Cal.: Prometheus NemesisBooks.

Keller, ES. 1968. "Good-bye, Twcher. . "Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis 1: 78-89.

Keller, F.S., and J.B. Sherman. 1974 PSI. The Keller Plan Handbook.Menlo Park, Cal.: Benjamin.

Keller, G. 1983. Academic Strategy The Management Refutation inAmerican Higher Education. Baltimore. Johns I lopkins Univ.Press.

171

1 S 1

Kells, H.R. 1988. Self-Study Processes. A Guide for Postsecondag andSimilar Service-Oriented Institutions and Programs. New York:ACE/Macmillan.

Kemp, J.E. 1977. Instructional Design A Plan Jiff Unit and COurNeDevelopment. Belmont, Cal.: Fearon.

Kennedy, D. 1995. "Another Century's End, Another Revolution forHigher Education." Change 27(3): 9-15.

King, M.C. 1993. Academic Advising. Organizing and DelheringServices for Student Success. New Directions for CommunityColleges No. 82. San FrancLsco: Jossey-Bass.

King. P.M. 1978. -William Perry's Theory of Intellectual and EthicalDevelopment." In Applying New Deirlopmental Findings, editedhy L. Knefelkamp, C. Widick, and C.A. Parker. New Directions forStudent Services No. 4. San Francisco: Jossey-Bam

King, P.M., and K.S. Kitchener. 1994. Deivloping Refiectitefudg-ment l'nderstanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth andCritical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kirschenbaum, H., S.B. Simon. and R. Napier. 1971. Wiid-ja-get% TheGrading Game in American Education New York: Hart.

Knefelkamp, L., C.A. Parker, and C. Widick. 1978. -Jane Loevinger'sMilestones of De%elopment." In Applying New DeielopnwntalFindings, edited by L. Knefelkamp. C. %dick. and C.A ParkerNew Directions for Student Services No. 4. San Francisco. Jossey-Bas.s.

Knefelkamp, L., and It Slepitza. 1978. "A Cogniuve-DeelopmentalMrxlel of Career Development. An Adaptation of the PerrySkheme." In Encouraging Deitdopment in Colkwe Students,edited by C A. Parker. Minneapolis: tniv of Minnesota Press

Knefelkamp, L., C. Widick. and C.A. Parker, eds. 1978. Applivig .VeuDetelopmental Findings. New Directions for Student Services No

San Francisco. Jossey-I3ass.

Kohlberg, L 1981. 7he Philosophy qf Moral Deivlopment. Moralmages (ind the Idea idJustice San Francisco. Harper & Row

Kohlberg, L. D.R. Boyd. and C Levine. IVA). "The Return of Suge6: Its Principle and Moral Point of View." In The Moral Domain/c,sas in the Ongoing Discussion between Philosophy and theSocial Sciences, edited by 1' E Wren. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

Kohlberg. L.. C. Lecine. and A. !fewer 1983. Moral Stages Athrrent Formulation and a Response to Critics. Basel: Karger

Kohlberg. L., and R Mayer 1912. "Development as the Aim ofEduc.iti in Edui animal Mi 21 ) 90.

Kohn, A 1W2 No COntest Me Case against competition Bostontugh6 m Mifflin

1993 Punished by Reuards Th e Trouble with Gold Mats,

Redesigning Ilighcr Mutation

182174

Incentive Plans, Alc, Praise, and Other Bribes. Boston: Houghton

Kolb, D.A. 1981. -Learning Styles and Disciplinary Differences." InThe Modern American College, edited by A.W. Chickering andAssociates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kolbert, E. 23 March 1989. "Nearly 1($0 of Law Partners Fail to FileNew York Taxes." Neu' York Times.

Kolodiy, G. 1975. "The Cognitive Development of High School andCollege Science Students." Journal of College Science Teaching5(1): 20-22.

Korn, H.A. 1986. -Psychological Models Explaining the Impact otCollege on Students." Ann Arbor, Mich.: National Center forResearch to Improve PosLsecondary Teaching and Learning. El)287 440.24 pp. MF-01; PC-01.

Kramer. D.A., and \VT. Bacelar. 1994. "The Educated Adult inToday's Vörld: Wisdom and the Mature Learner." In Interdisciplin-ary Handbook of Adult Lifespan Learning, edited by J.D. Sinnott.Westport. Conn.: Greenwood Press.

Kramer, G.L., and R.W. Spencer. 1989. "Academic Advising." In TheFreshman Year Experience Helping Students Sunlit, and Succeedin College, edited by M.L. Uperaft, J.N. Gardner, and Associates.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kramer. M. 1993. "Lengthening of Time-to-Degree: The High Cost ofDithering." Change 25(3): 5-7.

Kronholm. M.M. 1996. "The Impact of Developmental Instruction onReflective Judgment." Review 4 lhAber Education 19(2): 199-225

Kuh, GD 1981. Indices of Qualio, in the 1'ndergraduate Experience.AMIE-ERIC Research Report No. 4. Washington. D.C.: AmericanAssociation for Higher Education.

Kuh. G.D., L E. Krehbiel, and K. MacKay. 1988. "Personal Develop-ment and tlw College Student Experience: A Review of the Litera-ture." Report to the College Outcomes Evaluation Program, Newlersey Dept. of lligher Education. Bloomington: Indiana Univ..school of Education. Dept. of Leadership and Policy Studies.

Kuhn, D., J. Linger, L. Kohlberg, and N. 11a.111. 1977. "TheDe%elopment of Formal Operations." Genetic Psychokigy.1h)rrogruph.s 95: 97-188.

Kulik. (.-L C., .1 A. Kulik. and R L Bangen-Drov%ns. 1990 "Effotiveness of Mastery Learning Programs: A Mehl-analysis." Review,y'Educational Research 601 2). 265-99.

Kurliss, .1. May 1983. "Intellectual. Psychosocial. and Moral Devekment in College: Four Major Theories." Ogden, Utah: Wbber StateCollege.

1988 Critical Thinking P. Research, Practice, andPiKti-Inhties ASHE-ERh. I ligher Education Report No. 2.

I 7,

1 5 3

, -,Tt')W

Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education.ED 304 041. 164 pp. MF-01; PC-07.

Lambert, C. May/June 1993. "Desperately Seeking Summa." HarvardMagazine. 36-40.

Lawson, A.E. 1988. "A Better Way to Teach Biology." AmericanBiology Teacher 50(5): 266-78.

Lawton, M. 10 April 1991. "More Than a Third of Teens SurveyedSay They Have Contemplated Suicide." Education Week: 5.

Layden, NI. 1977. Escaping the Hostility Trap. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall.

"Learning Slope." 1991. Pew Higher Education Research ProgramPolicy Perspectitvs 4(1): 1A-8A.

Lederman, D. 9 March 1994. "Weapons on Campus?" Chronkle ofHigher Education: A33A34.

Leming, O.T. 1977 Previous Attempts to Structure EducationalOutcomes and Outcome-Related Concepts: A Compilation andReview of the Literature. Boulder, Colo.: National Center for HigherEducation Management Systems. ED 272 109. 266 pp. MF-01;PC-11.

Lerner, B. 1989. "Intelligence and Law." In Intelligence. Measure-ment, Theory, and Public Policy, edited by R.L. Linn. Urbana:Univ. of Illinois.

Levin, H.M. 1991. Learning from Accelerated Schools. Philadelphia:Pew Higher Education Research Program.

Levine, A. 1978. Handbook on Undergraduate Curriculum SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Levine, D.U., and kssociates. 1985. Improving Student Achievementthrough Mastery Learning Programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Levinson-Rose, J., and R.J. Menges. 19,11. "Improving CollegeTeaching: A Critical Review of Research." Revieu. of EducationalResearch 51(3): 403-34.

Lewis, K.G. 1984. "What Really Happens in Large UniversityClassesr Paper presented at a meeting of the American Educa-tional Research Association, April, New Orleans. Louisiana.

. 1986. "Using an Objective Observation System to DiagnoseTeaching Problem.s." Journal of Staff Program, and OrganizationDevelopment 4(4): 81-90

. 1988. Face to Face: A Sourcebook of Individual ConsultationTechniques fur Faculty/Instructional Delvlopers Stillwater, Okla.:New Forums Press.

. ed. 1993. The TA 1:xperience Preparing for Multiple RolesStillwater, Okla.: New Forums Press.

Lewis, K.G., and G.R. Johnson. 1986. Pmgrarnnwd Wrrkbook forDeveloping Coded Skills 1:sing Johnson's Cognitive InteractionAnalysis System (CIASt

Redesigning Higher Er/minion 175

1

Light, R.J. 1990. The Harvard Assessment Seminars: Explorations withStudents and Faculty about Teaching, Learning, and Student I:fe.First Report. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ., Graduate School ofEducation.

. 1992. The Harvard Assessment Seminars: Explorations withStudents and Faculty about Teaching, Learning, and Student Life.Second Report. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ., Graduate Schoolof Education.

Light, R.J., J.D. Singer, and J.B. Willett. 1990. By Design: PlanningResearch on Higher Education Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ.Press.

Lindquist, J., ed. 1978. Designing Teaching hnprovement PrognimsBerkeley, Cal.: Pacific Soundings Press.

Linn, R.I.., ed. 1989 Intelligence Measurement, Theory, and PublicPoky. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois.

Lively, K. 21 July 1993. "Disappointments in School Refomi Laid toTraining." Chronicle of Higher Education: A22.

Locke, E.A., and G.P. Wham. 1984. Goal Setting: A MotimtionalTechnique That Works! Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall.

. 1990. A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Loevinger, J. 1976. Ego Development. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.Lucas, AR 1994. Strengthening Departmental Leademinp: A Team-

Building Guide for Chairs in Colhwes and I 'n heisities. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

, ed. 1989. The Department Chairperson's Role in EnhancmgCollege Teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning No37. San Francisco: Jossey-I3ass.

McBee. M.L. 1980. Rethinking College Responsibilities for Values. NewDirections for Teaching and Learning No. 31. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

McCabe. D.L. 1992. "The Influence of Situational Ethics on Cheatingamong College Students." Sociological Inquiry 62(3): 365-74.

McDade, S.A. 1987. Higher Education Leadership Enhancing Skillsthrough Prriessional Development Programs. ASHE-ERIC HigherEducation Report No. 5. Washington, D.C.: Association for theStudy of Higher Education. ED 293 479. 138 pp. MF-01: PC-06

MacGregor. J. 1987. "Intellectual r-evelopment of Students in Learn-ing Community Programs. 1986-1987." Occasional Paper No. I.Olympia, Wash.: Washington Center for Undergraduate Education.

McKcachie, WI. 1986. Teaching Tips. A (Juldebook for the BeginningCollege Teacher Lexington. Mass.: D.C. Heath.

. 1991. "Learning, Teaching, and Learning from Teaching. InPreparing the Prefessortate of 7innorrow to Teach Selected Read-Imo in 7A Training, edited by JD. Nyquist, R.I). Abbott, D.11.

Wulff, and J. Sprague. Dubuque, la.: KendalL/Hunt.. 1994. Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for

College and University Teachers. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath.McKeachie, W.J., P.R. Pintrich, Y-G. Lin, D.A.F. Smith, and R. Sharma.

1990. Teaching and Learning in the College Classroom: A Reviewof the Research Literature. Ann Arbor, Mich.: National Center forResearch to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

McKinnon, JW, and J.W. Renner. 1971. "Are Colleges Concernedwith Intellectual Development?" American Journal of Physics 39:1047-52.

McLaughlin, J.B., and D. Riesman. 1990. Choosing a College Presi-dent: Opportunities and Constraints Princeton, N.J.: CarnegieFoundation for the Advancement of Teaching. ED 334 878. 403pp. ME-01; PC-17

MLeish, J. 1968. Me Lecture Method Cambridge, Eng.: CambridgeInstitute of Education.

McNeel, S.P. 1994. "College Teaihing and Student Moral Develop-ment." In Moral Detellpment in the Pryessions. Psychology andApplied Ethics, edited by J.R. Rest and D. Narvziez. Hillsdale, NJ..Erlbaum,

McQuade, D. 1989. "The Teaching Assistantship as Preparation foran Academic Career." Paper presented at the American ASSOCia-tion for I ligher Education National Conference on Higher Educa-tion, April, San Francisco. California.

Malizio, A.G. 1995. National Postsecondary Student Aid StudyEstimates of Student Financial Aid. 1992-9.3 Washington, D.C.U.S. Dept. of Education. Office of Educational Research andImprovement.

Mammark. S., and M.B. Maline. 1993. "Academic Dishonesty amongCollege Students." Washington, D.C.: U. S. Dept. of Education.Office of Educational Researt.h and Imprmement. El) 360 903 I"'

pp. ME-01; PC-01.Marchese, T. 1991a. "Standard.% and Us.- Cha lige 12( 6).

. 1991b. "TQM Reaches the Academy.- AA11E Millen» 4-4( 3).3-9.

. 1993. -TQM: A Time for Ideas." Change 25(3): 10-13Marshall, M.S. 1968. 7eac1,ing without Grades Corvallis. Oregon

State Univ. Press.Marshall, R. 1989 "The Ethication Crisis and the Future of Our

Economy." Occasional Paper. New Yolk: Carnegie Corporation.Massey. W.F., A.K. Wilger, and C Colbeck. 1994. "Overcoming

'Hollowed' Collegiality. Departmental Cultures and TeachingQuality." Change 26(4 ): 11-20.

"Math Student.% Needed." 20 April 1990. Science 241. 06.Mathews, J. 20 July 1992. "Escalante Still Stands and Delivers

Redesigning Higher Education 177

1 s

Newsweek: 58-59.Mehrens, WA., and U. Lehmann. 1984. Measurement and Evaluation

in Education and Pychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Menges, R.J., and B.C. Mathis. 1988. Key Resources on Teaching,

Learning, Curriculum, and Faculty Development. San Francisco.Jossey-13ass.

Menges, RI, and M.D. Svinicki. 1991. College Teaching FromThewy to Practice. New Directions for Teaching and LearningNo. 15. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mentkowski, M., et al. 1991. Understanding Abilities, Learning. andDevelopnient through College Outcome Studies: What Can WeExpect from Higher Education Assessment?Symposium con-ducted at a meeting of the American Educational Research Asso-ciation, April, Chicago, Illinois. ED 342 296. 162 pp. MF-01; PC-07.

Mentkowski, M., and M.J. Strait. 1983../1 Longitudinal Study ofStudent Change in Cognitite Development, Learning Styles, andGeneric Abilities in an Outcome-Centered Liberal Arts Curricuhun.Research Report No. 6, Final Report to the National Institute olEducation. Milwaukee: Alverno College, Office of Research andEvaluation. ED 239 562. 394 pp. MF-01; PC-16.

Mercer, J. 12 August 1992. "Education Commission of the StatesDiscusses Radical Change for Colleges." Chronicle if HigherEducation: A20.

Mestre, J. Summer 1987. "\X'hy Should Mathematics and ScienceTeachers Be Interested in Cognitive Research Findings?" AcademicConnections: 3-5+.

Metzner, B.S. 1989. "Perceived Quality of Academic Advising: TheEffect on Freshman Attrition." Awrican Educational ResearchJournal 26(3). 422-12.

Meyers, C. 1986. Teaching Students to Think Critically. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Michaelsen, L.K. 1992. "Team Learning: A Comprehensive Approachfor Harnessing the Power of Small Groups in Higher Education."

Improm Ihe Academy 11: 107-22."Michigan State Women Protest Campus Climate." 17 March 1995.

Chronicle qf Higher Education. M.B.J. 1991. "Fulfilling the Promise of the 'Seven Principles'

through Cooperative Learning: An Action Agenda for the Uni-versity Classroom." Journal on acellence in College Teaching 2.139-44.

Milton, 0. 1982. Will Thai Be on the PitiatoSpringfiekl, Charles CThomas.

Milton. 0.. and J.W. Edgerly. 196 "Tlw Testing and Grading ofStudents." A Change Policy Paper.

Milton. 0.. 11.R Mho, and J.A. Eison. 1986. Making Sense if Ca-

711

187

lege Grades. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Mingle, J.R. 1993. "Faculty Work and the Costs/Quality/Access

Collision." AAHE Bulletin 45(7): 3-6+.Moffatt, M. 1989. Coming of Age in New Jersey: College and

American Culture. New Brunswick, NJ.: Rutgers Univ. Press.. 1990. "Undergraduate Cheating." New Brunswick, NJ.:

Rutgers Univ., Dept. of Anthropology.Monaghan, P. 21 September 1988. "Veterinary Educators, Saying

Changes Are Overdue, Expect to See Reforms This Year." Chron-icle of Higher Education: A39.

Mooney, C.J. 16 January 1991. "The Dissertation Is Still a ValuableRequirement, Survey Finds, but Graduate Students Say They NeedBetter Faculty Advising." Chronicle of Higher Education: A15.

Moore, M. 1991. Cheating 101: The Benefits and Fundamentals ofEarning the Easy 'A." Hopewell, NJ.: Moore Publishing.

Moore, W.S. 1987. "The Learning Environment Preferences: Estab-lishing the Preliminary Reliability and Validity for an ObjectiveMeasure of the Perry Scheme of Intellectual and Ethical Develop-ment." Doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Maryland-College Park.

. 1988. The Learning Environment Preferences: An InstntmentManual. Olympia, Wash.: Center for the Study of IntellectualDevelopment.

1989. "The Learning Environment Preferences: Exploring theConstruct Validity of an Objective Measure of the Perry Scheme ofIntellectual Development. Journal of College Student Detplop-meet 30: 504-14.

. 1991a. "The Perry Scheme of Intellectual and EthicalDevelop-ment: An Introduction to the Model and MajorAssessment Approaches." Paper presented at a meeting of theAmerican Edu-cauonal Research Association, April 3-7. Chicago,Illinois.

. 1991h. "Understanding and Assessing Students' Meaning-Making: The Perry Scheme of Intellectual and Ethical Develop-ment. Part 1. Overview and Context." Workshop material pre-pared for the American Association for Higher Education NationalConference on Assessment. June 11, San Francisco, California.

Morrill, R.L. 1980. Teaching Values in cblicwe. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Myers, 1.13., and M.H. McCaulley. 1985. A Guide to the Detvlopmentand ae of the Alyea-Briggs Type Indicator Palo Alto, Cal.: Con-sulting PsychologLsts Press.

Myers, LB., and P.13. Myers. 1980. Gifis DifferinR Palo Alto, CalConsulting Psychrilogists Press.

Naishitt, J. 1982. Megairends: Ten New Directions Trawforming OurDivs. New York. Warner.

liedesignitiR Higher Education 1 79

Is s

National Center for Education Statistics. 1993. Pocket Projections..Projections of Educational Statistics to 2003. NCE 93-194. Washing-ton, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Education. Office of Educational Researchand Improvement.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A Natio,' atRisk: The Imperative of Education Reform. A report to the Nationand the Secretary of Education. Washington, D.C.: Author.

National Education Goals Panel. 1994. The National Education GoalsReport: Building a Nation Qf Learners, 1994. Washington, D.C.:Author.

National Task Force for Minority Achievement in Higher Education.1990. Achieving Campus Diversitr Policies for Change. Denver.Education Commission of the States.

Nettles, MT. 1991. Assessing Progress in Minority Access andAchieiement in American Higher Education. Denver: EducationCommission of the States. ED 340 289.43 pp. MF-01; PC-02.

Neumann. A. 1992. "Double Vision. The Experience of InstitutionalStabihty." Review of Higher Education 15(4): 417-47.

"New Poll: Ivy League Students Fail Current Affairs Test." 4 April1993. Washington, D.C.: Luntz-Weber.

Newn J.11.1959. The Idea cy'a l'nitersity. Garden City, N.Y.:Doubleday.

Nicklin, J.L. Fehniary 1990. "Studies Reveal Widespread Abuse ofMedical Students during Education." Chronicle qf Higher /Witco-tum. A2.

Noble. J. 1988. "What Students Think of Academic Advising." In Thestatus and Future of Academic Aditsing: Problems and Promise,edited by W.R. Ilabley. ACT National Center for the Advancementof l.'tlucati(inal Priorities.

Noel, L. 1985. "Increasing Student Retention- New Challenges andPotential." In Increasing Student Retention, edited by L. Noel, R.Levitz, D. Saluri, and Associates San Francisco: Joasey-Bass.

Nod, L., R. Levitz. D. Saluri. and Associates. 1985. IncreasingStudent Retention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Norman, M. 20 April 1988 "Lessons. Honesty Is Not the Best-Respected Policy, Suney on College Cheating Finds." New }br4,'finws

North Dakota State Board of I ligher Education n d Total QualioManagement- :I Guide fur the ;Swill Dakota Cniversky System.Author.

N 11%, V N F Clark, and NI k. 19(a The Graduate Student as7i.acher WA. hington, D C: American Council on Education.

Nucci. L , and E T. Pascarella 1987 "The Influence of College onMoral Development." In Higher Education: Handbook of neon'and Research, edited by J C Smart Vol 3. New York: Agathon

180

159

Nyquist, J.D., R.D. Abbott, D.H. Wulff. and J. Sprague. 1991. Prepar-ing the Proftssorkite of Thmorrow to Teach: Selected Readings in

TA Training. Dubuque, Ia.: KendalLTIunt.Olson, L. 28 May 1986. -Carnegie Report: A 'Powerful Synthesis'

That Raises Both Hopes and Questions." Education Week: 1+.Osborne, D., and T. Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Goiernment: Hole

the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector New

York: Penguin.Pace, C.R. 1984. Measuring the Quality of Colltve Student Experi-

ences: An Account of the Development and Use of'the CollegeStudent aperiences Questionnaire. 'Los Angeles: Univ. of Califor-

nia Graduate School of Education. Iligher Education Reseiuch

Institute. ED 255 099. 142 pp. MF-01; PC not available EDRS.

. 1990. The lIndergraduates A Report of Their Activities andProgress in College in the 1980s. Los Angeles: Univ. of California.

Center for the Study ot Evaluation. ED 375 -701. 164 pp. ME-01,PC-077

Palmer. P.J. 1987. "Community, Conflict, and Ways of Know ing:Ways to Deepen Our Educational Agenda." Change 19(5): 20-25.

Panel on the General Professional Education of the Physician andCollege Preparation for Medicine. 1984. Physicians for the Totlity-first Century.. 7he GPEP Rtport. Washington, D.C.: Assodation ofAmerican Medical Colleges. Er 252 102. 61 pp. ME-01; PC-03.

Parker, C.A., ed. 1978. Encouraging Lievelopment in College Students

Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.Parrett, J.L. 1987. "A Ten-Year Review of TA Training Programs:

Trends, Patterns, and Common Practices." In Institutional Respon-sibilities and ReSpOnSes in the EMplOyinein and Education (y'Teaching AssiStants. Readings from a National Cimference, editedby N.V. Chism. Columbus: Ohio State Univ., Center for Teaching

Excellence.Pascarella, E.T. 1985. -College Environmental Influences on Learning

and Cognitive Development: A Critical Review and Synthesis." InHigher Mutation: I landlx,ok, (y neon, and Research. edited by J.

Smart. Vol. I. New York: Agathon.Pascarella, E.T., and P.T. Terenzini. 1991. lime thlicwe

Students Findings and Insights fmm Dawn, }ears Research

San Francisco: Jossey-BassPaul, R.W. 1995. Critical Thinking How to Prepare Students ji,r a

Rapidly Changing World Santa Rosa. Cal Toundawm for Critical

Thinking.Perry, W.G., Jr. 1970. kin-ins of Intellet Mal and Ethical Do

nwnt in the Colltge Years A Scheme New York !bolt. Rinchart.

Winsuin..

1981. "Ciignitive and Bilk al Growth "Ilw Making ol

Redesigning Higher Hui anon 181

190

Meaning." In The Modern American College, edited by A.W.Chickering and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Peterson. M.W., K.S. Cameron, L.A. Mets, P. Jones. and D. Ettington.1986. The Organizational Contextfor Teaching and Learning. AReview of the Research Literature. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan,National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teachingand Learning.

Pew Higher Education Research Program. 1989. "The Business ofthe Business." Policy Perspectives 1(3): 1-6.

1990. "Breaking the Mold." Policy Perspectires 2(2): 1.

Pfundt, H., and R. Duit. 1991. "Bibliography: Students' AlternativeFrameworks and Science Education." Kiel, Germany: Univ. ofKiel, Institute for Science Education.

"Ph.D. under Attack." 10 June 1966. Time. 75Piaget, J. 1972. "Intellectual Evolution from Adolescence to

Adulthood." Human Development 15: 1-12.Pinmch, P.R., and G.R. Johnson. 1990. "Assessing and Improving

Students Learning Strategies." In The Changing Face of CollegeTeaching. edited by M.D. Svinicki. New Directions for Teachingand Learning No. 42. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pintrich, P.R., D.A.F. Smith, T. Garcia, and W.J. McKeachie. 1991..1.11anual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Ques-tionnaire (MSLQ,' Technical Report No. 91-B-004. Ann Arbor:Univ. of Michigan, National Center for Research to ImprovePostsecondary Teaching and Learning. ED 338 122. 76 pp. MF-01;PC-04.

"Plagiarism Is Rampant, a Survey Finds." 1 April 1990. Sew YorkTimes

Plater, W.M. 1995. "Future \Thrk: Faculty. Time in the 21st Century."Change 27t3): 22-33.

Plomin, R. 13 April 1990. "The Role of Inheritance in Behavior.-Science 248: 183-88.

Ponemon, L.A., and D.R L. Gabhart. 1994. "Ethical ReasoningResearch in the Accounting and Auditing Professions." In MoralDetvlopment in the Prgjessions: Ps.whology and Applied Ethics,edited by J.R. Rest and D. Naiyaez. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Pool, R. 27 April 1990. "Who Will Do Science in the 1990sr Science248: 433-35.

Porter. 0 F 21 March 1990. "Clarifying Study of Graduation RatesChmnicle of Ilii;her Education- 136.

Poviacs-Lunde. J., and M.M. Healy. 1991. Doing FacultyDetvlop-ment by Comnnttee. Stillwater, Okla.: New Forums Press

"Prelleahh Highlights. Placement.- September 1988. New Orleans.Xavier Uttiv of Louishma

Price. Il B. 12 May 1993. "Teacher Professional Development. It's

182

191

about Time." Education Week: 32.Prichard, K.W., and R.M. Sawyer, eds. 1994. Handbook ql.Colltwe

Teaching: Theory and Applicatioms. Westport, Conn.: GreenwoodPress.

Project on the Future of Journalism and Mass Communication Edu-cation. 1984. "Planning for Curricular Change." Eugene: Univ. ofOregon, School of Journalism.

Project on Liberal Education and the Sciences. 1990. "The Liberal Artof Science: Agenda for Action." Washington, D.C.: American Asso-ciation for the Advancement of Science.

Project on Liberal Learning, Study-in-Depth, and the Arts and Sci-ences Major. 1991. Liberal Learning and the Arts and SciencesMajor. Vol. 2. Reports from the Fields. Washington, D.C.: Associa-tion of American Colleges.

Project on Redefining the Meaning and Purpose of BaccalaureateDegrees. 1985. Integrity in the College Curriculum: A Report to theAcademic Community. Washington, D.C.: Association of AmericanColleges. El) 251 059. 62 pp. MF-01; PC not available EDRS.

Provost, J.A. 1984. A Casebook: Applications of the ilyets-Bnggs TypeIndicator in Counseling Gainesville, Fla.: Center for Applicationof Psychological Types.

Provost, J.A., and S. Anchors, eds. 1987. Applications (jibe .11.isnN-Briggs Type Indicator in I hgher Education. Palo Alto, Cal.: Con-sulting Psychologists Press.

Quinlan. K.M. 1991. "About Teaching and Learning Centers." AAHEBulletin 44(2): 11-16.

Ratcliff, J.L., and Associates. n cl -Determining the Effect of DifferentCoursework Patterns on General Student Learned Abilities." Vörk-ing paper. University Park: Pennsylvania State Univ.. Center forthe Study of Iligher Education.

. 1990. Determining the Effect of Dil)erent CourseworkPatterns on the General Learned Abilities qf College StudentsWorking Paper OR 90-52-t. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. ofEducation.

Raymond. C. 16 January 1991. "Despite Their Growing Support ofRacial Equality, a Substantial Proportion of White AmericansContinues to liokl Negative Stereotypes of Blacks. llispanics.Asians, and Other Minority Groups." Chronicle hgherEducation. A8.

Reboy, L M., and G.B. Semb. 1991. "PM and Critical Thinking Com-patibility or Irreconcilable Differencesr Teaching 4pc.rchniogy18(4): 212-45.

Rendon. 1..1. 199-t. "Validating Culturally Diverse students Toward .1New Model of Learning and Student Development Innomh,eHigher Educatimi 1911) 33-il

Redesigning ligher atu 183

192

Rest, J.R. 1979. Development in Judging Moml Issues. Minneapolis:Univ. of Minnesota Press.

1984. "The Major Components of Morality." In Morality,Moral Behavior, and Mural Development, edited by W.M. Kurtinesand J.L. Gewirtz. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

1986. Moral Deielomnent: Advances in Research andlbeoly New York: Praeger.

1994a. "Background: Theory and Research." In Moral Devel-opment in the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics, editedby J.R. Rest and D. Narvilez. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

. 1994b. "Summary: What's Possible?" In Moral Developmentin the Proftssions: Psychology and Applied Ethics, edited by J.R.Rest and D. Narvaez. Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum.

Rest, J.R., and D. Narviiez, eds. 1994. Mural Development in theProfessions: Psychology and Applied Ethics. Ilillsdale, NJ.:Erlb.aum.

Rich, J.M., and J.L. DeVitis, 1985. Theories qf Moral Development.Springfield, Ill.: Charles C Thomas.

. 1992. Competition in Mucation. Springfield, Ill.: Charles CThomas.

Richardson, R.C., Jr., D.A. Matthews. and J.E. Finney. 1992. Improi.-Mg State and Campus Environments for Quality and Diversity: ASelf-Assessment. Denver: Education Commission of the States. ED349 914. 47 pp. MF-01; PC-02.

Richardson, R.C., Jr., and E.F. Skinner. 1991. Achieving Quality andDiveisity: Univeisities in a Multicultural Society. New York: ACE,'Macmillan.

Richlin, L., ed. 1993. Preparing Faculty fbr ,Vele Conctptions ofScholaiship. New Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 5q.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Robbins, R.R. 1981. "Improving Student Reasoning Skills in ScienceClasses." Engineering Education 72: 208-12.

Rodgers, R.F. 1989. "Student Development." In Student Services. AHandbook for the Prifession, edited by U. Delworth, G.R. Hanson,and Associates. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Rothman, R. 16 January 1991. "Schools Are Called Partly Responsiblefor Drop in Self-Esteem among Girls." Education Week.. 6.

Rothwell, W.J., and KC. Kazanas. 1992. Mastering the InstructionalDesign Process. A Systenzatic Approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ruskin, R.S., ed. 1976. An Eialuathe Review if the PeisonalizedSystem if Instruction Washington. D.C.: Georgetown Univ., Centerfor Personalized Instruction.

Russell, JD.. and K.A. Johanningsmeier. 1981 Improving Compe-tence through Modular Instruction. Dubuque. la.: Kendall/Hunt

Sale, K. 1980. Human Scale. New Thrk. (toward, McCann &

184

193

Geoghegan.Saluri, D. 1985. "Case Studik.s and SuccessfUl Programs." In Increas-

ing Student Retention, edited by L. Noel, R. Levitz, D. Saluri. andAssociates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sandler, B.R. 1986. The Campus Revisited: Chilly for Women Faculty,Administrators, and Graduate Students. Washington, D.C.: Asso-ciation of American Colleges. ED 298 837. 112 pp. ME-01; PC-05.

Sands, R.G., L.A. Parson, and J. Duane. 1991. "Faculty MentoringFaculty in a Public University." Journal of Higher Education 62(2):174-93.

Sanford, N. 1962. "Developmental Status of the Entering Student."In The American College: A Psychological Social Interpretation qfthe Higher Learning, edited by N. Sanford. New York: John Wiley& Sons.

. 1966. Self and Society: Social Change and IndividualDevelop-ment New York: Atherton.

Saufley, R.W., K.O. Cowan, andill. Blake. 1983. "The Struggles ofMinority Students at Predominantly White Institutions." In Teach-ing Minority Students, edited by J.11. Cones III, J.E Noonan, andD. Janha. New Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 10. SanFrancisco. Jossey Bass.

Saul, L.J. 1976. 7he Psychodynanzics of Hostility. New York: Aronson.Saunders, P. Winter 1980. "The Listing Effects of Introductory Eco-

nomics Courses." Journal of Economic Education 12: I-14.Saunders, S.A., and L. Eivin. 1984. "Meeting the Special Advising

Needs of Students." In Developmental Academic AdviSing, editedby R.B. Winston, T.K. Miller, S.C. Ender, T.J. Grites, and Asso-ciates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schaie, K.W., and J. Parr. 1981. "Intelligence." In The Modern Ameri-can College, edited by A.W. Chickering and Associates. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schmeck, R.R., ed. 1988. Learning Stratzgres and Learning Styks.New York: Plenum.

Schmidt, M.R., and I I.Z. Sprandel. eds. 1982. Helping the Learning-Disabled Student. New Directions for Student Services No. 18. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schmidt, P. 5 May 1993. "Students Lick the Guidance to Meet Their'High Hopes,' Study Reveals." Education Week 1+,

Schroeder, C.C. 1993. "New Students: New Learning Styles." Change25(4): 21-31.

. 1994. "Developing Learning Communities." In Realizing theEducational Potential of Residence Halls, edited by C.C. Schroeder,P. Mable, and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schwager, S. 20 April 1990. "Perspectives on Education." Science248: 388.

Redesigning I ligber Education 185

194

Se kiln, P 1987_ 'Research Findings on Causes of Academic StressIn Coping with Faculty Stress, edited by P. Seldin. New Directionsfor Teaching and Learning No. 29. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Self, D.J., and D.C. Baldwin, Jr. 1994. "Moral Reasoning in Medi-cine." In Moral Development in the Professions: Psychology andApplied Ethics, edited by J.R. Rest and D. Narvaez, Hillsdale, NJ.:Erlbaum.

Self, D.J., M. Olivarez, and D.C. Baldwin, Jr. 1994. "Moral Reasoningin Veterinary Medicine." In Moral Deivlopment in the Professions.Psychology and Applied Ethics, edited by J.R. Rest and D. Narviiez.Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Selvin, P. 13 November 1992. "Math Education: Multiplying theMeager Numbers." Science 258: 1200-1201.

Senge, P.M. 1990. The Fob ascipline: The Ad and Practice of theLearning Oiganization. New York: Doubleday.

Sevenair, J.P., J.W. Carmichael, S.E. O'Conner, and J.T. Hunter. n d."Predictors of Organic Chemistry Grades for Black Americans."New Orleans: Xavier Univ. of Louisiana.

Seymour, D. 1991. "TQM on Campus: What the Pioneers Are Find-ing." AARE gulletin 44(3): 10-13+.

. 1992. On Q. Causing Quality in Higher Education. NewYork: ACE/Macmillan.

. 1993a. "Quality on Campus: Three Institutions, Three Begin-nings." Change 25(3): 1-i-27.

. I993b. "TQM: Focus on Performance, not Resources. Edu-cational Record 74(2): 6-14.

Seymour, D., and C. Collett. 1991. Total Quality Management inHigher Education. A Critical Assessment. Methuen, Mass.:GOALIQPC.

Shea, C. 14 December 1994. "New Look at College Drinking."Chronicle of Higher Education: A39.

. 16 June 1995. "Suicide Signals." Chronicle of HigherEducation: A35A36.

Sherman, T.M. 1985. "Learning Improvement Programs: A RevieNNof Controllable Influences." Journal qf Higher Education 56(1)85-100.

Sherr, L.A., and DJ. Teeter, 1991. Total QualityManagement inHigher Education. New Directions for Institutional Research No71. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Siegfried, J.J., M. Getz, and K.H. Anderson. 19 May 1995. "TheSnail's Pace of Innovation in Higher Education." Chronicle ofHigher Education.. A56.

Smith, A. 1976. An Inquig into the Nature and Causes of the Wealthcf Nations. Vol. 2. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press,

Smith, 1).C. 1983. "Instruction and Outcomes in an Undergraduak:

186

195

Setting " In Studies of College Teaching Experimental ResultsTheoretical Interpretations, and New Pospectives, edited by C.L.Ellner and C.P. Barnes. Lexir ;ton, Mass.: D.C. Heath.

Smith, D.G. 1989. The Challenge of Diversity: Involvement or Aliena-tion in the Academy? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 5.Washington, D.C.: George Washington Univ. ED 314 987.129 pp.MF-01; P0-06.

Smith, D.G., L.E. Wolf, and D.E. Morrison. 1995. "Paths to Success:Factors Related to the Impact of Women's Colleges." Journal ofHigher Education 66(3): 245-66.

Smith, D L. 1992. "Validity of Faculty Judgments: Relationship be-tween Grades and Credits Earned and External Criterion Mea-sures." Journal of Higher Education 63(3): 329-40.

Smith, P. 1990. Killing the Spirit: Higher Education in America. NewYork: Viking.

Smock, R., and R. Menges. 1985. "Programs for TAs in the Contextof Campus Policies and Priorities." In Strengthening the TeachingAss45tant Faculty, edited by J.D.W. Andrews. New Directions forTeaching and Learning No. 22. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Snarey, J.R. 1985. "Cross-Cultural Universality of Social-Moral Devel-opment: A Critical Review of Kohlbergian Research." Psychologi-cal Bulletin 97(2): 202-32.

Snow, R.E. 1980. "Intelligence fur the Year 2001." Intelligence 4:185-99.

. 1986. "Individual Differences and the Design of E(bicationalPrograms." American Psychologist 41(10): 1029-39.

Solmon, L.C. 1989. "Traditional College-Age Students." In ShapingHigher Education's Future: Demographic Realities and Oppor-tunities, 1990-2000, edited by A. Levine and Associates. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sprinthall, N.A. 1994. "Counseling and Social Role Taking: PromotingMond and Ego Development." In Moral Development in theProfessions: Psychology and Applied Ethics, edited by J.R. Rest andD. Narvaez. Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum.

Stanley, C.A., and N.V. Chism. 1991. "Selected Characteristics of NewFaculty: Implications for Faculty Development." To Imp-we theAcademy 10: 55-61.

Starch, D., and E.C. Elliott. 1912. "Reliability of the Grading of HighSchool Work in English." School Review 20: 442-57.

. 1913a. "Reliability of Grading Work in History." SchoolReview 21: 676-81.

. 1913b. "Reliability of Grading Work in Mathematics." SchoolReview 21: 254-95.

Stark, J.S. 1989. "Seeking Coherence in the Curriculum." In Improv-ing Undergraduate Education in Large Univemilies, edited by C.H.

Redesigning Higher Education 187

196

Pazandak New Directions fol Higher Educauon No 66 San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stark, J.S.. and M.A. Lowther. 1986. Designifig the Learning PlanAnn Arbor: Univ. of Michigan, National Center for Research toImprove Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. ED 287 439. 99pp. MF-01; PC-0-i.

Stark, J.S.. M.A. Lowther, R.J. Bentley, M.P. Ryan, G.G. Martens, M L.Genthon, P.A. Wren, and N.M. Shaw. 1990. Planning Introductog('ollege !"ourses Influences on Faculty. Ann Arbor: Univ. ofMichigan: National Center for Research to Improve PostsecondaryTeaching and Learning. ED 330 277. 370 pp. MF-01; PC-15.

Stark, J.S., M.A. Lowther, M.P. Ryan, and M. Genthon. 1988. "FacultyReflect on Course Planning." Research in Higher Iilucation 2913):219-40.

Stark, J.S., N.M. Shaw, and M.A. Lowther. 1989. Student Goals forCollege and Courses: A .thissing Link in Assessing and ImprovingAcademic Achievement. ASHE-ERIC Iiigher Education Report No.6. Washington, D.C.: George Washington Univ., School of Edu-cation and Human Development. ED 317 121. 132 pp. MF-01;PC-06.

Steele, C.M. April 1992. "Race and the Schooling of Black Ameri-cans." Atlantic Monthly. 68-78.

Sternberg, RJ. 1985. "Instrumental and Componential Approaches tothe Nature and Training of Intelligence." In Thinking andLearning Skills, edited by S.F. Chipman and J.W. Segal. Vol 2.Research and Open Questions. Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum.

. 1986. "Inside Intelligence." American Psychologist 74:137-q3.

, ed. 1990. WiSdom: Its Nature, Origins. and DevelopmonCambridge: Can-bridge Univ. Press.

Stewart, S.S., and P. Rue. 1983. "Commuter Students: Definition andDistribution." In Commuter Students. Enhancing Their Education-al Experiences, edited by S.S. Stewart. New Directions for StudentServices No. 24. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stice, J.E., ed. 1987. Developing Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Abilities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning No.30. San Francisco! Jossey-Bass.

Stimpson, C.R. 15 January 1992. "It Is Time to Rethink AffirmativeAction." Chronicle of Higher Education: A48.

"Struggling for Standards." 12 April 1995. Education Week (SpecialReport).

Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American HigherEducation. 1984. Involtvment in Learning: Realizing the Potentialof American Higher EducatUm. Washington, D.C.: National Insti-tute of Education. ED 246 833. 127 pp. MF-01; PC-06.

188

197

Sudarkasi 1987. "Affirmatne Action or Affimution of the StatusQuo?" AAHE Bulletin 39(6): 3-6.

Svinicki, M.D., ed. 1990. The Changing Face of Colkw TeachingNew Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 42. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Sykes, CJ. 1988. ProJScam. Proli?s.sors and the Demise of HigherEducation. New York: St. Martin's.

Task Force on Assessing the National Goal Relating to Postsecond-ary Education. 1992. "Report to the National Education GoalsPanel." National Education Goals Panel.

Task Force on the Student Experience. 1986. "Attaining EducationalExcellence: The Report of the Task Force on the Student Experi-ence." Newark, N.J.: Rutgers Univ., Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

Teeter, D.J., and G.G. Lozier, eds. 1993. Pursuit of Quality in HigherMucation: case Studies in Total Quality Management. New Direc-tions for Institutional Research No.78. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

"This Year's College Freshmen: Attitudes and Characteristics." 30January 1991. Chronicle of Higher Education: A30-A31.

Thoma, S. 1994. "Moral Judgments and Moral Action." In MoralDevelopment in the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics.edited by J.R. Rest and D. Narvaez. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum

Thorndike, R.L., and E.R Hagen. 1986. Measurement and Eva/net/umin Psychology and Education. New York: Macmillan.

Tinto, V. 1985. "Dropping Out and Other Forms of Withdrawal fromCollege." In Increasiv Student Retention, edited by L. Noel, R.Levitz, D. Saluri, anc, Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

. 1987. leavi:ig Co/4;e: Rethinking the Causes and Cures ifStudent Attrition. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago.

. 1993. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures ifStudent Attrition. 2d ed. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago.

Tobias, S. 1990. They're Not Dumb. nt/re Diflerent. Stalking theSecond Tier Tucson, .Anz.: Research Com.

. 1992. Revitalizing Undergaiduate Science.. Why Some Thingslthrk and Most Don't. Tucson, Ariz.: Research Corp.

Tom, J.D., and J.S. Stark. 1995. "Pluralism in the Curriculum. Under-standing Its Foundations and Evolution." Mview of Higher Educa-(ion 18(2): 217-32.

Tonthnson-Keasey, C.A. 1978. "Piaget's Theory and College Teach-ing." In ADAPT ,llultithsciplinaiy Piagetian-Based ProgramsJiirCollege Heshinew ADAPT IX)ORS, SOAR, S7AR, The CognitiveProgram, The Founb A'. Lincoln. 1;ni.. of Nebraska

Toombs, W., and T. Ti:Iney. 1991. i feeling the Mandate. Renewingthe College and Departmental Currkulum. ASHE-ER1C IligherEducation Report No. 6. Washington, D.C.: George WashingtonUniv., 5 cht,o1(il Educaticm and I luman Des elopment. ED 345

Redesigning Higher Education 189

198

603. 124 pp. MF-01; PC-05.Torbert, W.R. 1981. "Interpersonal Competence." In The Modern

American College, edited by A.W. Chickering and Associates. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Treisman, RU. 1985. "A Study of the Mathematics Performance ofBlack Students at the Universir- of California-Berkeley." BerkeI2y:Author.

Tucker, A. 1992. Chairing the Academic Depanment Leadershipamong Peers. New York: ACE/Macmillan.

Turnbull, W.W. 1985. "Are They Learning Anything in College?"Change 17(6): 23-26.

"Twice Imagined." 1995. Pew Higher Education Roundtable PolicyPospectites 6(1): 1A-11A.

"Universities Need to Take a Hard Look at Their EngineeringPrograms." 21 April 1995. Chronicle of Higher Education.- A21.

Uperaft, M.L., J./1. Gardner, and Associates. 1989. The Freshman-Year Experience: Helping Students Sunive and Succeed in Coluge.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

"Auing in Decision Making Competence Division. 1987. "ValuingEducation Materials." Milwaukee: Alvemo College.

Vandament, W.E. 30 November 1988. "Those Who Would ReformUndergraduate Education Must Recognize the Realities of Aca-demic Governance." Chronicle of Higher Education: A52.

Van Doren, M. 1943. Libend Education. New York: Holt.Van lieuvelen, A. 199Ia. "Learning to Think lily- a Physicist: A

Review of Research-Based Instructional Strategies." Americanjournal of Physics 59(10): 891-97.

1991b. "Overview: Case Study Physics." America,: JournalPhysic,s 59( 10): 898-907.

Van Horn, C.E. 1995. Enhancing the Connection between HigherEducation and the Workplace- A Surrey of Employen. Denver:State Higher Education Officers and Education Commission ofthe States.

Viadero, D. 25 Noventher 1992. "Survey Finds Young People MoreLikely to Lie, Cheat, Steal." Education nek 5.

"Virginia May Toughen Admission Standards." 18 November 1992.Chronicle of Higher Education. A22.

Von Blum, P. 1986. Stillborn Education: A Critique of the AmericanResearch Unii.ersity. Lanham, Md.: L'niversity Press of America.

Wadsworth, E.C., ed. 1988. A Handbook fbr New Practitioners.Stillwater, Okla.: Professional and Organizational DevelopmentNetwork in Higher Education.

Walberg, HJ. 1984. "Improving the Productivity of America's Schools."Mucational Leadership qhg): 19-27.

Wales, C.E., and R.A. Stager. 1977. "Guided Design." Morgantown

/90

199

Univ. ol West Virginia.Walton, M. 1986. The Demin,g Management Method. New ',ork,

Perigee.Warren, J.R. 1971. College Grading Practices: An Overtiew Report

No. 9. Washington, D.C. George Washington Univ., ERIC Clear-inghouse on Higher Education.

ntshington Center Neu's. 1994. Special Ten-Year Anniversary Issue.8(2).

Weathersby, R.P. 1981. "Ego Development." In The Modern Ameri-can College, edited by A.W. Chickering and Associates. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Webster, D.S. 1985. "Does Research Productivity Enhance Teaching?"Educational Record 66: 60-72.

Wechsler, H., C. Deutsch, and G. Dowdall. 14 April 1995. ''Too ManyColleges Are Still in Denial about Alcohol Abuse." Chronicle ofHigher Education: B1-82.

Weimer, M. 1990. Improving College Teaching: Strategies fn. Detelop-Mg Instructional Effectiteness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Weimer, M., M.D. Svinicki, and G. Bauer. 1989. "Designing Programsto Prepare TAs to Teach." In Teaching AssOant Training in the1990s, edited by J.D. Nyquist, R.D. Abbott, and D.11. \RAT. NewDirections for Teaching and Learning No. 39. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Weinstein, C.E. 1988a. "Assessment and Training of Student LearningStrategies." In Learning Strategies and Learning Soles, edited byRR. Schmeck. New York: Plenum.

. 1988b. "Executive Control Processes in Learning: WhyKnowing about I tow to Learn Is Not Enough." Journal of CollegeReading and Learning 21: 48-56.

Weinstein, C.E., and R.E. Mayer. 1986. "The Teaching of LearningStrategies." In Handbook of Research on Teaching, edited by M.Wittrock. New York: Macmillan.

Weinstein, C.E., D.R. Palmer, and A. Schulte. 1987. LASSL Learningand Study Strategies Inventory. Clearwater, Fla.: MN Publishing.

Weinstein, C.E., and V.I.. Underwood. 1985. "Learning Strategies: TheHow of Learning." In Thinking and Learning Skills. Vol. 1. Relat-ing Instruction to Research, edirQd by J.W. Segal, S.F. Chipman,and R. Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlhaurn.

Wells, A.S. 31 May 1989. "For Slow Learners, an Accelerated Curric-ulum." New York Times.

White, G.P., and W.C.C. Coscarelli. 1986. Me Guided Design Guide-book: Patterns in Implementation. Morgantown: Univ. of WestVirginia, National Center for Guided Design.

Wlute, R.W. 1981. "Humanitarian Concern." In The Modern ,4meri-can Ciillege, edited by A.W. Chickering and Associates. San Fran-

Redesigning Higher Education 191

200

Cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Whitehead, A.N. 1929. The Aims of Education and Other Essays.New York: Free Press.

\X'hiteley, J.M. 1982. Chaiacter Development in Colkwe Stude, its. Vol. 1.The Freshman }ear. ,,chenectady, N.Y.: Character Research Press.

Whiteley, J.M., and N. Yokota. 1988. Character Detelopment in theFreshman Year and oier Four Years of Undergraduate Study.Monograph Series Net. 1. Columbia: Univ. of South Carolina,Center for the Study of the Freshman Year Experience.

Whitman, N.A., D.C. Spendlove, and C.11. Clark. 1986. IncreasingStudents Learning: A Faculty Guide to Reducing Stress amongStudents. ASHE-ERIC I ligher Education Report No. Washington,D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education. ED 274 26-i.101 pp. MF-01; PC-05.

Whitt, E.J. 1991. "Hit the Ground Running. Experiences. of NewFaculty in a School of Educati(,n.- Review ry' Higher Education1.112)

"Widespread Cheating Found by Survey at Concordia 1:." 6 May1987. Chronicle of Higher Educatiwi: 47.

Widick, C., and D. Simpson. 1978. "Developmental Concepts inCollege Insmiction In Encounigthg DeveRpment in Students.edited by C.A. Parker. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota l'ress.

J.R., and S.L. Ebbs. 1992. Me Leadership Compass: Valuesand Ethics in Higher Educati:m ASHE-ERIC Higher EducationRepon No. 1. Washington, D.C.. George Washington Univ., Scli:)olof Education and liuman Development. ED 347 955. 129 prMF-0 ; PC-06.

Wilshire, B. 1990. The Moral c011apse of the University: Profession-alism, Purity, and Alkmation Albany: State Univ. of New YorkPress.

Wingspread Group on Higher Education. 1993. An American Imper-ative. Higher Expectalums for Higher &location. Racine Wis. TheJohnson Foundation.

Winkler, KJ. 6 March 1985. "Rigor Is Urged in Preparation of NewTeachers." Chronicle of Higher Educatiwi: 1.

Winmon, R.B., Jr., W.C. Bonney, T K. Miller. and J.C. Dagney. 1988.Promoting Student Deielopment through Intentionally StructuredGroups: Principles. Techniques. and Applications. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Winston, R.B., Jr., S.C. Ender, and I.E. Miller, eds. 1982. Develop-mental Approaches to Academic Advising New Directions forStudent Services No. 17. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Winston, R.B., Jr., TJ. Grites, T.K. Miller, and S.C. Ender. 198-1.-Epilogue. Improving Acadelnit: Advising.- In DetelopmentalAoulemic Advising, edited by R B. Winston, Jr., T.K. Miller, S.C.

/92

201

Ender, T.J. Grites, and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Winston, R.B., Jr., 'F.K. Miller, S.C. Ender, TJ. Grites, and Associates,

eds. 1984. Deivlopmental Academic Actrising San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Winter, D.G., D.C. McClelland, and AJ. Stewart. 1981. A New CaseJhr the Liberal Arts. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wood, L., and B.G. Davis. 1978. Designing and Evaluating Higher1:'ducation Curricula. AMIE-ERIC Research Report No. 8.Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.

Woods, D.R. 1987. "How Might I Teach Problem Solving?" In Delet-oping Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Abilities, edited byJ.E. Stice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 30. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Vbrking Party on Effective State Action to Improve UndergraduateEducation. 1986. ThinsfOrming the State Role in l'irdergiziduateEducation: Time jiff a Difierentllen Publication No. P5-86-3.Denver: Education Commission of the States. El) 275 219. -iS pp.MF-01; PC not available EDRS.

Wnght, DJ., ed. 1987. Responding to the Veeds of Tuday's MinorityStudents. New Directions for Student Services No. 38. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wnght, W.A., and M.C. O'Neil. 1994. "Teaching Improvement Prac-tices: New Perspectives To hnproic the Academy 13. 5-37.

WuDunn, S. 22 May 1995. "Japanese Critics Say Schools Pushed Bestand Brightest into Sect's Arms." Neu.. Kirk Times

Wyche, Pi., and I I.T. Frierson, Jr. 31 August 1990. "Minorities atMajority Institutions." Science 2-i9: 989-91.

Wyer, J.C. 1993. "Change Where You Might Least Expect It: Account-ing Education." Change 25(1): 12-17.

Zemsky, R. 1989. Structure and COherence. Measuring the (graduate Curricuhim. Washington, D.C.: Association of AmericanColleges. El) 310 658. 47 pp. ME-01; PC not available EDR.S.

Zimmerman, M. 1986. "The Evolution-Creation Controversy: Opin-ions from Students in a 'Liberal Liberal Arts College." Ohm lour-nal of Science 86(4): 13.4-39.

1987. "The Evolution-Creation Controversy: Opinions ofOhio High School Biolog- -Teachers." Ohio Journal Qf Science87(4): 115-25.

January 1988. -Ohio School Board Presidencs' Views on theEvolution-Creation Controversy: Pan 2." Neusletter if the OhioCenter j r Science Edncatmn 1+

Redesigning Higher Education 193

202

AAAAS, new science-as-Iiheral-art curriculum of, 115abilities, development (N. higher order, 50-51abstract reasoning

capacity for, 10-12development of, 10-12

academic advising. See advisingacademic community, need creation of, 146academic department chair, 138-139academic practices retarding students abstract thinking, 59accelerated schools dramatically improve minority learning rate,

96accounting

critiques of college curricula of ,lower scores on moral judgment of majors, 29

ACP-UCLA CIRP survey, 101active involvement

need fm students to have in learning, 11t-115sustained, diverse and appropriate required for learning,

23actual outcomes, need specific and timely knowledge of, 60ADAPT Program at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 12administrative and faculty separate views of world. 135-136advising

as "a high calling." 88Developmental Academic, 120-121evaluation of, 90-91importance of high-quality, 87lack of concern in effectiveness and outcomes 92

necessity for training in, 91-92need for in undergraduate course selection, 28passivity of, 90student perceptions differ from faculty and administrators,

93

afctive outcomes desired by college and university faculty, 8African-American students

academically oriented males at special risk, 85degrees of 80 % received from 20 % of U.S. institutions. 84graduation rates, 83,99higher education failing. 82liberal arts increased of typically white careers. 28student perception that less intelligent, 81withdrawal from college of, 82-83

Redesi,gning IliRber &location 195

203

Xavier University as graduates in science "factory" for, 100alcohol ahuse common at most colleges, 7,-talk [native instructional strategies rarely mentioned, 38American Association for the Advancement of Science. See AAASAmerican Society for Training and Development, 129American transition from elite system to one of universal access,

xi

Analysis, disassembly of w holes to identify constituents, 41analytic reasoning, some groups of courses associated with. 32Application. use of concepts and principles in new situations. -11Asian students. See Asian-AmericanAsian-Americans

experience of ethnoviolence, 81-82graduation rates, 83increasing percentage of college students of. 2

assessment of educational programbest measured by students performance in their careep.

109

need specific characteristics of incoming students. 110research on, 125-126results that count in, 125

Association of American Colleges detailed study of curriculum. 29Assodation of Ameman Medical Colleges on premed cheating. 70Astin (1993). 26-27, 73, 80. 118American higher education in transition to universal access, xiauthoritarianism

decrease in liberal arts majors of, 28-29lack of resisunce to, 112

Baxter-Magolda (1993), 80hiolcigy

critiques of college curricula of. 31minority students, few enter graduate school in. 83

Bloom. Benjamin S.. 96Bok, Derek, 71Bologna, medieval university of, 38Bowen's Catalog of Goals, 8hull sessions may reinforce epistemologies, -Hi"Bloom Taxonomy". See Taxonomy of Educational Objectives

calculus. Latino success with cooperative learning of, 99-100

196

204

California Polytechnic State University-Pomona, 99-100campus and polity, dissolution of the boundaries between, xiCampus Climate, classroom central to, 118campus experiences as developmentally destructive, 105Campus Life: In Search of Community, 81Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 8,75challenge need for activities just above current cognitive levels, 23cheating

amount by students of, 68-70long-term developmental effects '.)f, 70-71

Chickering (1974), 124C112P

respondents organization of time, 53survey of first-year students, 87

classroom testsfacts emphasis may mislead on quality of performance, 58reliability of, 63-64technical qualities of, 63validity of, 63what do they measure, 60

Clear Missions and Goals, need for, 107-1C=)cognitive complexity. development happens slowly. 19cognitive development

definition, 22necessary but not sufficient for educational system, 111

cognitive dissonance's, development value of, 23Cognitive Interaction Analysis System, 44cognitive outcomes

desired by college and university faculty. 8understanding of, 41-42

cognitive requirements, rating for 42cognitive and ethical capacities implications, 18-19coherent curricula, need for, 110-111collaborative learning, important need for. 114college classroom

intellectual dimate of, 10-iltests usually not questioned in, 64-65

college curricula. See curriculacollege experience, no strong gains in high or low score's. 32.33college withdrawals

of more than half of students on many campuses, 102from students experiences in college than academic

failure, 101

Redesigning Higher Mucatimt 197

205

colleges, decline in sense of psychological well-being at, 75Columbia University, 81

blacks admitted to but do not belong, 81commercial tests, concerns raised about, 64Commitment as epistemological level, 13common educational experience, do students share a, 29-30community, important to build on campus a sense of, 146-148commuter students, increase over last 30 years of. 76"competition improves student learning" administrators view. 136complexity and ambiguity, need to deal with, 8concepts of field teaching as goals of introductory courses, 37Concordia University, 69concrete operational or transitional thinkers, 10

unable to follow lines of argument in lectures, 11Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education. xi"connected knowing," definition of, 21Continuous Quality Improvement, 123-124cooperation

as basi, for community, 19-21

more effective than competition or individual work, 20positive effect on self-esteem of. 26

cooper:Hive learning, 116-11 7denved from conflict between alternative explanations. 20Latino students, success with of, 99-100Piagetian stages of cognitive development promoted by,

20

course content reduction, 115COM WS

transcript, significance of. 32-3.3need to know contribution to important outcomes, 35need to know if sequence have predictable significant

effects, 35

Critical Competencies Important for success, 7critical thinking

deiinition of, 7epistemology as precondition for, 12-15fostering is most important goal of undergraduate

education, 8

listening time negatively related to change in, 11need for, 7-8

(111TiCIlla

amount learned through, 32approach and delivery importance, 27

198

206

critiques of specialized undergraduate and graduate, 34developmental needs, does it serve students , 26-28

intended educational results, few institutions detail , 25

intended outcomes, clear definition essential of, 34, 35outcomes failure to specify, 31-32patterns, not worked well for undergraduate renewal, 33patterns, significance of, 27purpose, no longer achieving intended. 34

requirements and results, disjunction hetween, 31-32resources, need to use, 113revitalization, results disappointing from, 33society needs serving with, 33-34sum of constituent parts, more than a, 25

world view, as help in construction of a coherent, 25curriculum. See curriculaCL. See cooperative learning

Dais, Fry and Alexander (1977), 39decision-making orientation of administrators, need shift from, 130"c4.,lect detection" function of developmental advising, 89del ct prevention, need to focus on, 72Deming, W. Edward, 129dentistry, critiques of college curricula of, 31developmental advising

importance of, 88-90need not require a major increase in fiscal resources, 120

Dickson College, 115disciplinary research, primary emphasis by faculty as problem. 130discussion as most significant learning method, 39dishonesty toleration on campus, 71. See also cheating"distribution" system of general education curricula. 26diversity, need for appreciation of, 8document literacy, lack of, 55Drucker, Peter, 132

Dualismas an epistemology level, 12defects of, 14reinforcement by tests of. 66

E-LASS1 tool to assess learning skills, 119

economics, critiques of college curncula f , 34

1?etlesOung Higher &Incalion 199

207

educationCommission of the States, 107"of the whole person," 8U.S. reports on problems in, 3

education remains after facts are forgotten, old adage suggests. 47Educational

Effectiveness and Efficiency, 100-103excellence, conditions of, 23outcomes expectations should be high, 24policies and practices, lack of use of research results in,

pnwess must be central locus in "high quality" efforh, 95,

quality, conditions for, 23-24solvency, fiscal implications of, 128

effective thinking as purpose of introductory courses, 37"eighty five-fifteen rule."

See waste-generating problems associated withmanagement

engineering, critiques of college curricula of , 34

epistemological development See Epistemology, development ofEpistemology

definition of, 12development of, 12-15precondition for critical thinking. 12-19

Escalante, Jaime, 95. 95-96Essex County College, 51

study of first-year physical science students at, 10ethnoviolence in form of verbal abuse, 81-82ETS

Advanced Placement lest in calculus, Litino achieve-ment in. 96

Tasks in Critical Thinking, 54hwhiation

judgment of relative value or quality, 41level thinking rarely needed to answer questions in class,

43

evolution theory, lack of understanding of. 49

E

!acuity

and academic administrators distance from student life. -7centered model, critiques of, xi

deficiencies of training of new, 142. 142-1.43Development as foundation for Student Development,

139-143discipline centered model of academic work. xiperformance criteria based upon experiel.ce with students.

58professional literature in higher education don't read, 65world view separate from that of administration, 135-136

Finkelstein, Martin J., xii, xiii"fitness for use" student meet criteria of. 89"formal reasoning" skills

consistent patterns in development of, 12definition of, 10students need of assistance from teachers to develop,

10-11

Gardiner, Lion, xi-xiiGauhis Theory course, large percentage of minority students in,

99gender effects on curriculum, significance of , 30"general learned abilities." 32general learning, counts of credits may not be a reliable proxy of,

33

gifted students, campus minority-groups experience of. 82Gilligan (1977), 17GIS. See New Jersey Test of General Intellectual Skillsgoals

national education, 57-58need for clear and rational. 108teaching concepts of field as. 37

GPA, question as to meaning of, 65grades

effect on moral development, 68how well do they communicate outcomes, 66-68predictive validity is severely limited, 67

graduate courses, difference from undergraduate courses of. 41-45Guided Design, group problem solving with, 117

Harvard University, 100nine distinct undergraduates epistemologies at, 12

IILICU provide more graduate school science majors, 84

Redesigning Higher Education 201

209

heuristics, definition and requirement of, 40high expectations

necessary for quality of education outcomes, 24emphasis on, 115

higher education

call for significant rostructuring of, 107many observers believe has entered period of great

change, 3Hispanic students. See Latino studentshistorically black college and university. See IIBCLIhistory, critiques of college curricula of, 34human qualities, social and economic future depends upon, 106

ideas, most influential interactions focus on, 21Impostors in Ole Temple, critique of faculty-centered model, xiindividual consistelitiy outperformed competitive efforts, 20Input assessment, 125

institutional quality, framework for examining. 143instruction

course employment of established principles of quality. 37research-based methods , 113-118

instructional

design, characterization of, 37-38ohectives for cours, most faculty still lack formal, 6i

integrated sys.ems of instruction, 115Integration

definition of, 74into Community and Involvement, 71-76

intellectual

conflict induces cognitive development and moralreasoning, 20

interchange not normal in a college classroom, 14intelligence

definition of, 9influenced by heredity. 9

intended outcomes, need statements of, 60introductory courses

lack modes of inquiry characteristic of fields of, 31role of, 31

Jencks's and Reisman's academic revolution, xi

202

2 0

Jewish students, experience of ethnoviolence, 81-82jobs requiring education beyond high school, 22% increase in, 1John Hopkins University, 100journalism, critiques of college curricula of , 34

Kennedy, Donald, 140Kohlberg and Mayer (1972), 108Keller plan. See Personalized System of Instruction

large classes used recall, 13large size, need to reduce effect in education of, 113LASS! tool to assess learning skills, 119Latino students. See also Mexican-American students

college degrees of 80 % from 20 % of U.S. institutions, 81graduation rates, 83success with cooperative learning, 99-100

leadership for quality, basis of, 133learner-centered model of collegiate education, xilearning-centered

management of administrators need shift to, 130models visions of desirable, xi

learning society, American higher education as gateway to, xilearning strategies, need for students to be instructed in, 119Learning to Learn, 118-119le.ture

behavior similarity of learning and grade orientedstudents, 45

benefits consistently only the most formal of students, 12educational yield low from, 38effective as discussion for low-level factual material. 39motivational purposes primary purpose, 116principal instructional method, 38

Loan (1991), 96liberal arts

practitality of programs of, 28-29students show greater gains in moral judgment. 29women's gender-atypical careers increased by. 28

library, low use connected with little time spent in studying, 52life-long learning, need for, 7listening time. See critical thinking and memorizingLouisiana State, screening out guns and knives at, 74

Redesigning Higher Education

211203

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, 1.43Management

critiques of college curricula of, 34Development as enhancement of leader:hip, 135-139role of leadership of, 132-134

Mastery learnmg, 115, 96-97focus is on results and not time spent, 115

McMaster University, 51medical students. See also pre medicine

tend not to increase quality of moral reasoning. 29medical training, as a multitude of disjointed facts, 45medium-sized classes used comprehension, 43memorizing

commonest questions asked by teachers, 13listening time positively related to, 4iretention of course material, 46-47

metacognitiondefinition of, 11self-critical is impossible, 12

Mexican-American students, higher education failing, 82Miami University of Ohio, 14, 69Milton (1982), 60, 62, 65minority-group students

life on campus is major cause of withdrawal from college,83

strong commilmenl to education and perseverance, 85success in mathematics, 98-100

misconceptionsheld by students, 47-50if passive can slip through educational net, 48problem of, 47-50

MIT, use of metal detectors to screen out guns and knives at. i

monitoring results, need continuously for assessment, 110moral development, 15-18

grades and, 68-71of faculty, 71components of, 16Stages, 17

moral issues, perception is low of, 69MSLQ tool to assess learning skills, 119

as second epistemological level, 13

204

212

;.......

key cognitive deficiency of, 13defects of, 14

A Nation at Risk: The imperative of Educational Reform, 3National Adult Literacy Survey. See National Literacy SurveyNational Education Goals, 56-58National Literacy Survey, 54, 55Native Americans, 80 % receive degrees from 20 0/0 institutions,

84natural science, critiques of college curricula of, 34negative feedback, conducive to advancement, 132New Jersey

Institute for Collegiate Teaching and Learning, xiiTest of General Intellectual Skills, 54, 55

"new" students definition of. 1-2NIE Study Group, 53, 124.

on Conditions of Excellence in American HigherEducation, xiNorthern Polytechnic University, 46Norwich (England) University, 46

0Oberlin College, 49Ohio State University, 49orthodoxy, importance of willingness to question, 8Outcome assessment, 125outcomes of higher education, data

moral development, 70-71National Literacy Survey, 55New Jersey Test of General Intellectual Skills, 5.1of courses. 46-50problem-solving skills, 50-51, 54

outcomes should be clearly defined and frequently assessed. 24,

Paris, medieval university of, 38Pa scarelk and Terenzini 1991 ), 120-121, 130

few durable differences among institutions in outcomes,131

passive student misconceptions can slip through educational net,48

peer tutors, use of, 116

I?edesigning Higher Education

Pennsylvania State University, 63"Perry Position," 14Personalized System of Instruction, 115-116pertusively developnientul culture, 149"Peter Principled" professionals, educators as, 137Piagetian stages of cognitive development, 20Plaget, abstract reasoning not possible until about age 11, 10post conventional principled ethical reasoning, 19pre medicine

cheating in, 70critiques of college curricula of. 34

president responsibility for filling university mission, 132principled ethical reasoning, capacity for, 15-18problem solving

essential to success, 50lack of improvement in skills for, 51

Process assessment, 125Pry Scam, critique of faculty-centered model, xiprofessors fill duty then students will not neglect theirs, if, 53Project SOAR at Xavier University of Louisiana, 12prose literacy, deficiencies in, 54-55psychological climate

academic performance association with, 73student responsibility for high-quality effort produced by,

53

psychological theory, need to use, 111-112psychometric work, minimal student guidance with regard to, 65psycho pathology as result of cognitive development, 111purpose, need for clarity with regard to, 131-132PSI. See Personalized System of Instruction

Quality improvementprecondition in schools for, 55-57prerequisite of professional development, 134

quality of instructionmore significant than student's abilities, 97teachers perceptions of, 57-59

quality needsa campus climate that inspires and supports, 145definition meeting or exceeding customers' needs, 131to monitor. 129

"quantified gossip," 125

206

214

quantitative literacy, lack of, 55"quiz show" as reinforcement of dualistic epistemology, 40

reading more valuable than listing to lectures, 39Recall

definition of knowledge as. 41level discourse employed by professors in classes ,

Rectesigning Higher Education, xi-xii, 4-5Relativism as epistemological level, 13Relativists

defects of, 14few students are, 1,4

reliability definition, 63required courses, do they have intended effects. 31-32research

of faculty, effect on quality of teaching is minimal, 141students should be helped to understand and apply, Illusing to improve quality of education, 124-128

"rhetoric of conclusions," 59Rutgers University, xi, 51, 52, 69, 76

few undergraduates taught how to study, 119knowledge gained at to build World Trade center bomb,

112

no Relativists in sample from, 14study of first-year physical science students at, 10support of author by, xivTeaching Excellence Center Faculty Seminar, xiii

Saint Cloud State University, faculty making racist comments at, 82Samuel Johnson, critique of lectures by, 40SAT, college learning assessed through, 32Schwab, Joseph, 59self-esteem, cooperative activities effect on, 20serious learning requires sustained effort outside the classroom. 51Seton Hall University, xiiskills, tests generally do not assess higher order, 63small classes used thinking level of analysis , 13Smith, Adam, 53Stand and Deliver, 96standards, need to be set high, 129-131Stanford University, 100, 1,10

Rede+Ignmg Ihgber Education

213207

-

student development

core areas central to the quality of, 4as central mission of university, 131people involvement is a most important ways of induc;og,

21

four key aspects of, 9student involvement

retains them on campus until graduation, 22with subject matter critical to learning, 23

student majority

between concrete and formal in their reasoning, 10majority failing to graduate at many institutions, 101

student-centered model, challenge in moving to a, xiistudent-faculty interaction

correlation's with every academic attainment outcome, 22often "formalized, somewhat structured situations",

120-121students

amount of work done by, 51-53essay generally required knowledge of facts, 62experience determined by academic tradition. 105assessment of intellectual skills of, 60lack of basic factual knowledge, 47new "emerging majority", 2perceived inability to educate, 106

study hours per week significantly correlated with outcome, 118substantive knowledge, need for, 8suicide

consideration by students of, 75, 75-76second cause of death for college students, 76

supportive

environment in comprehending and emotional support 2irelationships, the building of, 120-121

"surface" learning, 119Systematic Assessment, need for, 109-110

systematic design, need for instruction through, 113-11,1

Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives. 11-12, 13, 60-62, 61organizes cognitive behavior into six levels. .11

teachers

as part-timers, 110

education college curricula critique, 3.1

208

216

social impact of methods in higher education, 50talk made up 88.5 % of class time, 44

teaching methods, evolution theory as example of problem in, 49technical jargon, memory and recitation of, 11technology, critiques of college curricula of 34

Tests, types of, 60-62textbook rereading as ineffective learning method, 119theory of organic evolution, 48thinking

improvement of higher order, 97-98student level higher than professors, 42students active involvement with, 42-45

Tinto, Vincent, 74Tobias (1990), 80training, need for education leadeNhip and management of. 136-138

Trow. Martin, xi"true-core" curriculum

good effects of. 30interdisciplinary characteristic of few institutions, 26

tutoring teaching method than conventional group instruction, 96

U.S. Department of Labor, 1Uncertainty Principle, 66unethical behavior, effect of teaching to recognize and avoid, -73University of California, 92University of California Berkeley

cooperative learning methods and high standards, 99. 100.103

declining percent of students of Caucasian ancestry. 2University of California Los Angeles. 58, 101University of Chicago survey of minority groups on campus. 81University of Illinois, 61, 62University of Kansas, 63University of Maryland Baltimore County, 81

University of Michigan, 58University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 12University of Rhode Island. 51University of Tennessee, 61University of Tennessee-Knoxville, 65University of Texas-Austin. 'pi, 61

success with Afrkan-American mathematics majors, 99

Redesigning Lligber Education 209

217

University of Waterloo (Ontario), consideration of suicide at, 75UCLA. See University of California Los Angeles

veterinary medicine, critiques of college curricula of , 34vocationa1 y oriented programs and decrement in moral judgment,

29

Walherg (1984), 97

waste-generating problems associated with management, 133waste, cost of, 127-129"Western University", 27

students share very little of formal learning at, 30white males as a increasingly smaller part of the workforce, 1

womencare-giving in moral issues, 17emphasize interpersonal relationships, 17increase of number on campus of, 77overt sex violence against, 79students receive less encouragement than men, 78development, peer culture has devastating effect on, 80

women's liberal arts collegesdecrease n numbers of, 78gender-atypical careers increased by attending, 28

Workshop

Physics reduction of course content by 30 %, 115low value in professional development of, 138, 1,11

Worki Trade Cenier, bon hing of, 112

X

Xavier University of Louisiana, 12, 100

ASHE-ERIC HIGHER EDUCATION REPORTS

Since 1983, the Association for the Study of Higher Education(ASHE) and the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)Clearinghouse on Higher Education, a sponsored project of theGraduate School of Education and Human Development at TheGeorge Washington University, have cosponsored the ASHE-ERICHigher Education Report series. The 1994 series is the twenty-thirdoverall and the sixth to be published by the School of Educationand Human Development at the George Washington University.

Each monograph is the definitive analysis of a tough highereducation problem, based on thorough research of pertinent liter-ature and institutional experiences. Topics are dentified by anational survey. Noted practitioners and scholars are then com-missioned to write the reports, with experts providing criticalreviews of each manuscript before publication.

Eight monographs (10 before 1985) in the ASHE-ERIC HigherEducation Reports series are published each year and are avail-able on individual and subscription basis. To order, use the orderform on the 1ast page of this book.

Qualified persons interested in writing a monograph for theASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports are invited to submit a pro-posal to the National Advisory Board. As the preeminent literaturen view and isime analysis series in higher education, we can guar-antee wide dissemination and national exposure for accepted can-didates. Execution of a monograph requires at least a minimalfamiliarity with the ERIC database, including Resources inEducation and Current Index to journals in Education The objec-tive of these Reports is to bridge conventional wisdom with prac-tical research. Prospective authors are strongly encouraged to callDr. Fife at F00-773-3742.

For further information, write toASHE-ERIC I Iigher Education ReportsThe George Washington University1 Dupont Circle, Suite 630V'ashington, DC 20036

Or phone (202) 296-2597, toll-free: 800-773-ERIC.Write or call for a complete catalog.

Redesigning Higher Education 211

2 19

-

ADVISORY BOARD

Barbara E. BrittinghamUniversity of Rhode Island

Kildred GarciaMontclair State College

Rodoifo Z. GarciaNorth Central Association of Colleges and Schools

James HearnUniversity of Georgia

Bruce Anthony JonesUniversity of Pittsburgh

L. Jackson NewellDeep Springs College

Carolyn ThompsonState University of New York-Buffalo

Redesigning Higher EdutInhm 213

220

CONSULTING EDITORS

Robert J. BarakState Board of Regents, Iowa

E. Grady BogueThe University of Tennessee

John M. BraxtonVanderbilt University

John A. CentraSyracuse University

Robert A. CorneskyCornesky and Associates, Inc.

Peter EwellNational Center for h ligher Education Management Systems

John FolgerInstitute for Public Policy Studies

George GordonUniversity of Strathclyde

Jane HalonenAlverno College

Dean L HubbardNorthwest Missouri State University

Thomas F. KelleyBinghamton University

George D. KuhIndiana UniversityBloomington

Daniel T. LayzellUniversity of Wisconsin System

Frances Lucas-TaucharEmory University

Laurence R. MarcusNew Jersey Department of 1 ligher Education

L Jackson NewellUniversity of Utah

C. Robert PaceUniversity of California-Los Angeles

Rede.iviing Higher him a1lf,11

James RhemThe National Teaching & Learning Forum

Gary RhoadesUniversity of Arizona

G. Jeremiah RyanHarford Community College

Karl SchillingMiami University

Charles SchroederUniversity of Missouri

Lawrence A. SherrUniversity of Kansas

Patricia A. SpencerRiverside Community College

Frances StageIndiana University-Bloomington

David SweetOERI, U.S. Dept. of Education

Barbara E. TaylorAssociation of Governing Boards

Sheila L WeinerBoard of Overseers of Harvard College

Wesley K. WillmerBiola University

Manta YorkeLiverpool John Moores University

REVIEW PANEL

Charles AdamsUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst

Louis AlbertAmerican Association for I ligher Education

Richard AlfredUniversity of Michigan

Henry Lee AllenUniversity of Rochester

Philip G. AltbachBoston College

Marilyn J. AmeyUniversity of Kansas

Kristine L AndersonFlorida Atlantic University

Karen D. ArnoldBoston College

Robert J. BarakIowa State Board of Regents

Alan BayerVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

John P. BeanIndiana UniversityBloomington

John M. BraxtonPeabody College, Vanderbilt University

Ellen M. BrierTennessee State University

Barbara E. BrittinghamThe University of Rhode Island

Dennis BrownUniversity of Kansas

Peter McE. BuchananCouncil for Advancement and

Support of Education

Patricia CarterUniversity of Michigan

Redesigning Higher Education 217

John A. CentraSyracuse University

Arthur W. ChickeringGeorge Mason University

Darrel A. ClowesVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Deborah M. Di CrocePiedmont Virginia Community College

Cynthia S. DickensMississippi State University

Sarah M. DinhamUniversity 3f Arizona

Kenneth A. FeldmanState University of New York Stony Brook

Dorothy E. FinneganThe College of William & Mary

Mildred GarciaMontclair State College

Rodolfo Z. GarciaCommission on Institutions of Higher Education

Kenneth C. GreenUniversity of Southern California

James HearnUniversity of Georgia

Edward R. HinesIllinois State University

Deborah HunterUniversity of Vecnont

Philo HutchesonGeorgia State University

Bruce Anthony JonesUniversity of Pittsburgh

Elizabeth A. JonesThe Pennsylvania State University

Kathryn KretscluuerUniversity of Kansas

Marsha V. KrotsengState College and University Systems of West Virginia

George D. KuhIndiana University Bloomington

Daniel T. LayzellUniversity of Wisconsin System

Patrick G. LoveKent State University

Cheryl D. LovellState Higher Education Executive Officers

Meredith Jane LudwigAmerican Association of State Colleges and Universities

Dewayne MatthewsWestern Interstate Commission for Higher Education

Mantha V. MehallisFlorida Atlantic University

Toby MiltonEssex Community College

James R. MingleState Higher Education Executive Officers

John A. MuffoVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

L. Jackson NewellDeep Springs College

James C. PalmerIllinois State University

Robert A. RhoadsThe Pennsylvania State University

G. Jeremiah RyanHarford Community College

Mary Ann Danowitz SagariaThe Ohio State University

Redesigning Higher Education 219

Daryl G. SmithThe Claremont Graduate School

William G. TierneyUniversity of Southern California

Susan B. TwomblyUniversity of Kansas

Robert A. WalhausUniversity of IllinoisChica jo

Harold WechslerUniversity of Rochester

Elizabeth J. WhittUniversity of IllinoisChicago

Michael J. WorthThe George Washington University

RECENT TITLES

1994 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports

1. The Advisory Committee Advantage: Creating anEffective Strategy for Programmatic Improvement

Lee Teitel

2. Collaborative Peer Review: The Role of Faculty inImproving College Teaching

Lam) Keig and Michael D. Waggoner

3. Prices, Productivity, and Investment: AssessingFinancial Strategies in Iligher Education

Edward P. St. John

4. The Development Officer in Higher Education: Towardan Understanding of the Role

Michael J. Worth and James W Asp, II

5. The Promises and Pitfalls of Performance Indicators inI ligher Education

Gerald Gaither, Brian P. Nedwek, and John E. Neal

6. A New Alliance: Continuous Quality and ClassroomEffectiveness

Mimi Wolverton

1993 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports

1. The Department Chair: New Roles, Responsibilities andChallenges

Alan T Seagren, John W. Creswell, and Daniel WWheeler

2. Sexual Harassment in Higher Education: From Conflictto Community

Robert 0. Riggs, Patricia H. Murrell, and JoAnn C.Cutting

3. Chicanos in I figher Education: Issues and Dilemmasfor the 21st Century

Adalberto Aguirrelr, and Ruben 0. ,tlartinez

4 Academic Freedom in American Higher Education:Rights. Responsibilities, and Limitations

Robert K. Poch

5. Making Sense of the Dollars: The Costs and Uses ofFaculty Compensation

Kathryn M. Mwre and Marilyn J. Amey

Redesigning Higher Education 221

22 7

. .

6. Enhancing Promotion, Tenure and Beyond: FacultySocialization as a Cultural Process

William G. Tierney and Robert A. Rhoads

7. New Perspectives for Student Affairs Professionals:Evolving Realities, Responsibilities and Roles

Peter H. Garland and Thoir as W Grace

8. Turning Teaching Into Learning: The Role of StudentResponsibility in the Collegiate Experience

Todd M. Davis and Patricia Hillman Murrell

1992 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports

1. The Leadership Compass: Values and Ethics in HigherEducation

John R. Wilcox and Susan L. Ebbs

2. Preparing for a Global Community: Achieving anInternational Perspective in Higher Education

Sarah M. Pickert

3. Quality: Transforming Postsecondary EducationEllen Earle Chaffee and Lawrence A. Sherr

4. Faculty Job Satisfaction: Women and Minorities in PerilMartha Wingard Tack and Carol Logan Patitu

5. Reconciling Rights and Responsibilities of Colleges andStudents. Offensive Speech, Assembly, Drug Testing,and Sifety

Annette Gibbs

6. Creating Distinctiveness: Lessons from UncommonColleges and Universities

Barbara K. Townsend, L. Jackson Newell, andMichael D. Wiese

7. Instituting Enduring Innovations: Achieving Continuityof Change in Higher Education

Barbara K. Curry

8. Crossing Pedagogical Oceans: International TeachingAssistants in U.S. Undergraduate Education

Ross lyn M. Smith, Patricia Byrd, Gayle L. Nelson.Ralph Pat Barrett, and Janet C. Constantinides

222

228

"1.

1991 ASITE-ERIC Higher Education Reports

1 Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the ClassroomCharles C. Bonwell and James A. Eison

2. Realizing Gender Equality in Higher Education: TheNeed to Integrate Work/Family Issues

Nancy Hensel

3. Academic Advising for Student Success: A System ofShared Responsibility

Susan H. Frost

4. Cooperative Learning: Increasi lg College FacultyInstructional Productivity

David W. Johnson, Roger T Johnson, and Karl A.Smith

5. High School College Partnerships: Conceptual Models,Programs, and Issues

Arthur Richard Greenberg

6. Meeting the Mandate: Renewing the College andDepartmental Curriculum

William Toombs and William Tierney

7. Faculty Collaboration: Enhancing the Quality ofScholarship and Teaching

Ann E. Austin and Roger G. Baldwin

8. Strategies and Consequences: Managing the Costs inHigher Education

John S. Waggaman

1990 ASHE-ER1C Higher Education Reports

1. The Campus Green: Fund Raising in Higher EducationBarbara E Brittingham and Thomas R. Pezzullo

2. The Emeritus Professor: Old Rank - New MeaningJames E. Mauch. Jack W Birch, and Jack Matthews

3. "High Risk" Students in Higher Education: FutureTrends

Dionne J. Jones and Betty Collier Watson

-1. Budgeting for I ligher Education at the State Level:Enigma, Paradox, and Ritual

Daniel T Luyzell a,ul fan W. Lyddon

Redecipung Higher Fduccaiwi 223

,

5. Proprietary Schools: Programs, Policies, and ProspectsJohn B. Lee and Jamie P. Merisotis

6. College Choice: Understanding Student EnrollmentBehavior

Michael B. Paulsen

7. Pursuing Diversity: Recruiting College MinorityStudents

Barbara Astone and Elsa Nufiez-Wormack

8. Social Consciousness and Career Awareness: EmergingLink in Higher Education

John S. Swift, Jr.

1989 ARM-ERIC Higher Education Reports

1. Making Sense of Administrative Leadership: The 'L'Word in Higher Education

Estela M. Bensimon, Anna Neumann, and RobertBirnbaum

2. Affirmative Rhetoric, Negative Action: African-Americanand Hispanic Faculty at Predominantly WhiteUniversities

Valora Washington and William Harvey

3. Postsecondaiy Developmental Programs: A TraditionalAgenda with New Imperatives

Louise M. Tomlinson

4. The Old College Try: Balancing Athletics andAcademics in Higher Education

John R. Thelin and Laurence L. 4 i.5etrian

5. The Challenge of Diversity: Involvement or Alienationin the Academy?

Daryl G. Smith

6. Student Goals for College and Courses: A Missing Linkin Assessing and Improving Academic Achievement

Joan S. Stark, Kathleen M. Shaw, and Malcolm A.Lowther

7. The Student as Commuter: Developing aComprehensive Institutional Responsc,

Barbara Jacoby

224

230

8. Renewing Civic Capacity: Preparing College Studentsfor Service and Citizenship

Suzanne W. Morse

1988 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports

1. The Invisible Tapestry: Culture in American Collegesand Universities

George D. Kuh and Elizabeth J. Whitt

2. Critical Thinking: Theory, Research. Practice, andPossibilities

panne Gainen Kurfiss3. Developing Academic Programs: The Climate for

InnovationDaniel T. Seymour

4. Peer Teaching: To Teach is To Learn TwiceNeal A. Whitman

5. Higher Education and State Governments: RenewedPartnership, Cooperation, or Competition?

Edward R. Hines

6. Entrepreneurship and Higher Education: Lessons forColleges, Universities, and Industry

James S. Fairweather

7. Planning for Microcomputers in Higher Education:Strategies for the Next Generation

Reynolds Ferrante, John Hayman, Mao, SusanCarlson, and Harty Phillips

8. The Challenge for Research in Higher Education:Harmonizing Excellence and Utility

Alan W. Lindsay and Ruth T Neumann

'Out-of-print. Available through EDRS Call 1-800-443-ERIC.

Redesigning Higher Education

2 3 1,

225

ORDER FORM 94-7Quantity Amount

Please begin my subscription to the 1995 ASHE-ERICHigher &location Reports at $98.00, 31% off the coverprice, starting with Report 1, 1994. Includes shipping.

Please send a complete set of the 1994 ASHE-ER1CHigher Education Reportsat $98.00, 31% off the coverprice. Please add shipping charge, below.

Individual reports are available at the following prices:1993 and 1994, $18.00; 1988-1992, $17.00; 1980-1987, $15.00

SHIPPING CHARGESFor orders of more than 50 books, please call for shipping information.

U.S., 48 Contiguous States1st three books Ea. addl. book

Ground: $3.75 $0.152nd Day*: 8.25 1.10Next Day*: 18.00 1.60

Alaska & Hawaii (2nd Day Only)* : 13.25 1.40U.S. Territories and Foreign Countries: Please call for shipping information.*Order will be shipping within 24 hours of request.All prices shown on this form are subject to change.

PLEASE SEND ME THE FOLLOWING REPORTS:

Qumtity Report No. Year Title Amount

Subtotal:Please check one of the following:0 Check enclosed, payable to GWU- ERIC. Shipping:

0 Purchase order attached ($45.00 minimum). Total Due:enolcatea e

0 Visa 0 MasterCard

1 1 1 1 1

Expiration Date

Name

Title

Institution

Address

City State Zip

Phone Fax Telex

Signature Date

SEND ALL ORDERS TO: ASHE-ER1C Higher Education Reports

The George Washington UniversityOne Dupont Cir., Ste. 630, Washington, DC 20036-1183Phone: (202) 296.2597 Toll-free: 800-773-ERIC

232

rn2.

I BN 1-876380-63-X

9 781878 380630

LION GARDINER is associate professor of zoology at RutgersUniversity. A former co-coordinator of the teaching assistanttraining program of the Graduate SchoolNewark, he teachesa course in effective college teaching for Rutgers graduatestudents and faculty mcmbers at New jersey colleges anduniversities. Dr. Gardiner has developed and led the semes-R. --long Faculty Seminar on Students, Learning, and Teachingfor the campus Teaching Excellence Center, on whose advi-sory board he serves, has been a Faculty Fellow in the NewJersey Department of Higher Education, and serves as amember of the advisory boards of the New Jersey FacultyDevelopnrent Network and the New Jersey County CollegeProject on General Education, a statewide effort of NewJersey community colleges to define and assess their studentdevelopment outcomes. Dr. Gardiner's scholarly work focus-es on improving the quality of students' learning in highereducation, and he is the author of Planning for Assessment:Mission Statements, Goals, and Objectives. Gardiner has beena member of the board of directors of the Professional andOrganizational Development Network in Higher Educationand serves as a consultant to colleges and universities and apresenter at conferences around the country.

5 1 8 0 0>

233

7:'