Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes:a ground-breaking initiative to assess quality in higher education on an international scale

Diane LalancetteDirectorate for EducationOrganisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

UNICA Rectors’ Seminar 2010Tallinn

28 May 2010

2

What we know about HE quality…

Proxies of higher education quality exist, but none are perfect

• Rankings often biased towards input factors and research• Subjectivity of reputation factor• Cultural sensitivity of satisfaction factor• Labour market outcomes sensitive to conjuncture and local

economic conditions

So what?Learning outcomes as a promising direction

•Defining them (Tuning process in Bologna area)

•Incorporating them in quality assurance processes

•Measuring them → AHELO

The massification of participation in higher education has meant much more heterogeneous abilities and expectations of students than in the past

3

Objectives

What is AHELO?

Why undertake the study?

Why is AHELO important?

A ground-breaking initiative to assess what students know and can do upon graduationCreating measures that would be valid:

• For all cultures and languages;• And also for the diversity of HE institutions.

After decades of quantitative growth in HE, consensus on the need to ensure quality for all (Athens, 2006)… but information gap on learning outcomes

Carry out a feasibility study to provide a proof of concept (Tokyo, 2008)

• Employs a wide range of measures• Provides faculties, students and government agencies with a more balanced

assessment of HE quality – not just research-driven rankings!• No sacrifice of HEIs’ missions or autonomy in their subsequent efforts to

improve performance.

4

Multi-dimensional definition of quality

Addressing the needs of various users and uses

• “Bottom line” of performance• “Value-added” to assess the quality of services • Contextual data to reveal best practices and problems, and to identify teaching and

learning practices leading to greater outcomes

Both in discipline-related competencies …

• Easily interpretable in the context of departments and faculties ... • But require highly differentiated instruments

And in generic skills

• Less dependent on occupational and cultural contexts, applicable across HEIs … • But reflect cumulative learning outcomes and less relevant to the subject-matter

competencies that are familiar to HEIs, departments or faculties

5

The feasibility study at a glance

What?Not a pilot, but rather a research approach to provide a proof of concept and proof of practicality.

Why?The outcomes will be used to assist countries to decide on the next steps. No pre-determined conclusion.

When?Phase 1 cognitive labs: January 2010 to June 2011 Phase 2 implementation: late 2011-2012

Who?Target population of students who are near, but before, the end of their first 3-4 year degree.

To assess whether reliable cross-national comparisons of HE learning outcomes are scientifically possible and whether their implementation is feasible.

Goal?

How? OECD guiding international expert committeesContractors in charge of developing the assessment instruments.

6

Remarks on data collection

• No comparative data at the national level

• Institutions/departments are the units of analysis, hence measures and reporting at HEI/dept level

• Feedback to HEIs: performance profiles and contextual data, with their own results and those of other HEIs (anonymously)

7

AHELO: 4 strands of work

Initial work on defining expected learning outcomes

through ‘Tuning’ approach.

Discipline strand in Engineering

Initial work on defining expected learning outcomes

through ‘Tuning’ approach.

Discipline strand in Economics

With each assessment, a collection of

contextual information:

• to look beyond student performance: (e.g. institutional missions, selectivity, student characteristics and exposure to “good practices”, satisfaction).

• to make AHELO an effective tool to reveal best practices and to identify shared problems.

International pilot test of the US Collegiate Learning Assessment

(CLA), to assess the extent to which problem-solving or critical thinking can be validly measured across different

cultural, linguistic and institutional contexts.

Generic skills strand

+ contextual data + contextual data

+ contextual data

8

AHELO: 4 strands of work

Initial work on defining expected learning outcomes

through ‘Tuning’ approach.

+ contextual data

Discipline strand in Engineering

Initial work on defining expected learning outcomes

through ‘Tuning’ approach.

+ contextual data

Discipline strand in Economics

Several perspectives to explore the issue of value-

added (conceptually, psychometrics), building on recent OECD work at

school level.

Research-based “Value-added” or “Learning gain”

measurement strand International pilot test of the US Collegiate Learning Assessment

(CLA), to assess the extent to which problem-solving or critical thinking can be validly measured across different

cultural, linguistic and institutional contexts.

+ contextual data

Generic skills strand

9

AHELO tests of instruments

3 assessment instruments

AustraliaJapan

Sweden

Generic skills Engineering Economics

Contextual indicators and indirect proxies of qualityto analyse determinants of LO and their development

3 groups of countries

Colombia (tbc)FinlandKuwaitKoreaMexicoNorway

USA

Belgium (Fl.)Italy

MexicoNetherlands

Russian Federation

2 contextual instruments

10

Work to be undertaken in 2 phases

Generic Skills

Framework(started)

EconomicsFramework(underway)

EngineeringFramework(underway)

Project management,survey operations and

analyses of results

Contextual dimension surveys

Frameworks

Instrument development & small-scale

validation

Generic Skills

Instrument(started)

EconomicsInstrument(underway)

EngineeringInstrument(underway)

Implementation

Phase 1 -Initial proof of concept

Phase 2 -Scientific feasibility & proof of

practicality

11

Practical considerations

• Test of practicality of implementation: international standards for test administration and student participation rates within HEIs

• Assessments possibly computer-delivered or web-based

• Performance described through proficiency levels and “can-do” statements

• Feedback to HEIs: performance profiles and contextual data, with their own results and those of other HEIs (anonymously)

• Use existing instruments, respecting their integrity; or combine item pools of existing instruments in ways that cover frameworks; or develop new test material

12

Imagine quality education in 2017

If AHELO were one of the QA instruments available to HEIs… • HEIs could decide to participate… or not• HEIs could decide to use it for internal improvement only, or make results public

What AHELO could do… • Benchmark HEIs against their peers

to identify strengths and weaknesses • Assist HEIs’ with student recruitment

and students’ choices• Limit academic drift by showcasing

result’s within one’s mission• Enable researchers to investigate

teaching and learning processes at depth: What works and under which contexts/conditions

• Spur QA reflection

What AHELO would not do… • Rank countries and/or HEIs…• Provide a miracle solution to

accountability requirements: learning outcomes are only one aspect of the mission of HEIs (along with equity, regional mission, etc) There is no single criterion in HE quality space

• Replace QA

13

A study with great potential…

… Diagnosis is the basis of any improvement

… Shaping the future of higher education to address key challenges

Better information on student learning outcomes is the first step to improve teaching and learning for all:

Provide evidence for national and institutional policy and practiceEquip institutions with the method and tools to improve teaching

EquityBuild fairer higher education systems, promoting success for all

ResponsivenessBetter connect higher education and society

EffectivenessHelp students make informed choices to ensure success for all

ImpactFoster international transparency and mobility

… Scope for a few more participants

14

AHELO is managed by the OECD IMHE Programme

Institutional Management in Higher Education

15

16

Thank you

Thank you!

Please sendquestions or comments to

Diane.Lalancette@oecd.org

For more information, visitwww.oecd.org/edu/ahelo