What Does “Quality” Look Like?

ACROSS THE BROAD SPECTRUM of disciplines and departments within higher education, it sometimes feels like there is little that unites us. We talk about silos, we bemoan divergent and fragmented efforts, and we refer frequently to “us” and “them,” regardless of where we are on the organizational chart. However, there is one topic that seems to cut across structural and disciplinary divides. We're all practically obsessed with establishing learning outcomes and assessing the extent to which our students are achieving them. Higher education associations are advocating hard for assessment, and some have articulated learning outcomes, including the Association of American Colleges and Universities, ACPA—College Student Educators International, and NASPA—Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. States are mandating accountability not just for what we do, but also for results in terms of student learning. Accrediting associations, both regional and specialized, are also requiring us to establish and assess learning outcomes. For example, in 2007, the University of Maryland underwent its five-year accreditation review. The area that received by far the greatest portion of our effort and that garnered the most attention during the site visit was our student learning outcomes assessment process. To quote Seinfeld, “Not that there's anything wrong with that,” though it does beg the question of what is it, exactly, that we should be assessing.

In this frenzy of developing learning outcomes in such areas as employing quantitative and qualitative analysis to solve problems, evaluating information from a variety of sources, and, yes, even ethical development and social responsibility, we can't ignore the how. What is in the mysterious black box that transforms the inputs of students' characteristics and collegiate experiences into learning that can be measured? What are the necessary conditions that create an environment where learning can occur? We must hearken back to Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs to remind ourselves that physiological needs, including food and sleep, and safety needs, including security of self and property, must be satisfied before an individual can proceed to the higher levels of the pyramid, including love/belonging, esteem, and, finally, self-actualization, which includes—you guessed it—learning outcomes like morality, creativity, problem solving, and lack of prejudice, the latter albeit in 1940s language. In more modern parlance, a safe and secure campus, comfortable residence halls, and healthy food are essential pieces of an infrastructure that enables learning to occur.

The CAS Standards Arose from Higher Education's Desire to set its own Standards rather than to have them Established by External Bodies and to Keep a Clear Focus on its Values of Student Learning, Quality Assurance, and self-assessment.

In addition, we must ask ourselves: Where do the interventions in the black box occur? In the classroom, certainly, but just as certainly, not only in the classroom. We know that a great deal of learning occurs in a wide variety of campus and off-campus settings, including residence halls, dining facilities, recreation centers, student unions, and internship and community service sites. There is a strong literature base to this effect thanks to Alexander Astin, Ernest Pascarella, Patrick Terenzini, George Kuh, and others. Further, we know that students benefit from opportunities for recreation, creative expression, and the development of interpersonal relationships that are not bound by syllabi and grades.

Thus, in order to facilitate the achievement of learning outcomes, we must provide the highest-quality services and programs. This requires the assessment not only of learning, but also of those services and programs. And to do that, there is a need for clear and comprehensive standards of practice to guide our work.

In fact, such standards have existed for 30 years. Since 1979, the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) has established and promulgated standards that serve as a self-regulatory means for assuring high-quality practice and continuous improvement. CAS is a consortium of 36 higher education professional associations representing student affairs domains, academic programs and services, and other institutional functional areas. The CAS standards arose from higher education's desire to set its own standards rather than to have them established by external bodies and to keep a clear focus on its values of student learning, quality assurance, and self-assessment. The 40 sets of standards help educators and professionals across organizational boundaries in colleges and universities to answer the question, “What does quality look like?” in regard to their programs and services. Using the CAS standards and the accompanying detailed self-assessment guides rather than homegrown criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and services garners credibility, because the CAS materials were developed through a collaborative approach that incorporates multiple perspectives and then approved unanimously by the CAS board of directors.

CAS standards and guidelines address a wide range of functional areas in higher education, including housing and residence life, dining services, counseling services, undergraduate research programs, service-learning, academic advising, clinical health and health promotion programs, auxiliary services, recreational sports, programs and services for multicultural and LGBT students, and religious and spiritual programs. They are designed so that any well-developed and well-managed area can meet the standards, which are written in clear statements using the word “must” to emphasize the essential nature of the standards. Also included are guidelines that explain and amplify the standards or offer examples of enhanced practice that may not be achievable in all situations. The guidelines use language like “should” and “may” to indicate that they are desirable but not essential for good practice. Each set of standards and guidelines has an accompanying self-assessment guide that provides the framework for a comprehensive review of a particular program or service. In 2003, CAS jumped on the learning-outcome bandwagon and articulated student-learning outcomes to accompany each of its functional area standards and guidelines.

In Order to Ensure a Mutually Beneficial Experience for all Participants in Servicelearning—Students, Faculty Members, Community Members, Community Organization staff, and others—a Strong Infrastructure must Exist.

Let us offer an example from the direct experience of one of the authors, a strong advocate of service-learning both on her own campus and nationally. Service-learning has become institutionalized, as we like to say, on many campuses of all shapes and sizes. The number of students participating in service-learning has skyrocketed. Federal and state governments, foundations, and individuals have generously contributed financial and technical resources to its development. Thousands of community-based organizations have provided sites and opportunities for service and learning. Thanks to a coterie of active researchers and analysts, we now have substantial evidence of service-learning's positive outcomes and numerous models and guidelines for good practice. Why on earth would we need the CAS standards and guidelines for service-learning programs? Because service-learning, when not done well, can reinforce students' stereotypes, elicit negative behaviors that embarrass the institution and harass individuals in the community, and take unfair advantage of community partners. In order to ensure a mutually beneficial experience for all participants in service-learning— students, faculty members, community members, community organization staff, and others—a strong infrastructure must exist. This includes mission, goals, and learning outcomes; well-prepared faculty, staff, and students; sound management; adequate fiscal resources, facilities, and technology; sound risk management, ethics, equity, and access for all students; and regular assessment and evaluation. These are the meat and potatoes of all CAS standards and are not all included, or not included so explicitly, in service-learning's other principles and frameworks. As valuable as these principles and frameworks are, they were created and promulgated by service-learning practitioners and advocates “by the guild, for the guild,” that is, by us for ourselves.

The type of accountability that CAS espouses raises higher education in the estimation of all our stakeholders:

♦

students, who gain knowledge and skills for a life well lived as well as a satisfying and rewarding career;

♦

alumni whose degrees become more valuable as our institutions' reputations rise;

♦

parents, who want their money's worth and for their children to be well cared for;

♦

employers, who want their workforce to be intellectually nimble and able to work creatively with diverse others to solve yet-unknown problems;

♦

administrators and trustees, who want to be able to demonstrate that their institutions are worth what they cost; and

♦

legislators and funders, who need to believe that their investments are well used and making a real difference for students.

In this accountability-crazed world, student-learning outcomes matter. They matter because it is, in the end, important to know whether and how students learn from their experiences and from our efforts. It is therefore incumbent upon us to ensure that every one of our institutions' programs and services contributes to creating the rich environments that promote student learning. We invite our colleagues across higher education to join us in using the time-tested CAS standards for the self-assessment of programs and services that enable students to achieve the learning outcomes that matter to us, to them, and to society at large.