IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/cshedu/qt2173006c.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Decoding Learning Gains: Measuring Outcomes and the Pivotal Role of the Major and Student Backgrounds

Author

Listed:
  • Gregg Thomson and John Aubrey Douglass

Abstract

Throughout the world, interest in gauging learning outcomes at all levels of education has grown considerably over the past decade. In higher education, measuring “learning outcomes” is viewed by many stakeholders as a relatively new method to judge the “value added” of colleges and universities. The potential to accurately measure learning gains is also viewed as a diagnostic tool for institutional self-improvement. This essay compares the methodology and potential uses of three tools for measuring learning outcomes: the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), and the University of California’s Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES). In addition, we examine UCUES 2008 responses of seniors who entered as freshmen on six of the educational outcomes self-reports: analytical and critical thinking skills, writing skills, reading and comprehension skills, oral presentation skills, quantitative skills, and skills in a particular field of study. This initial analysis shows that campus-wide assessments of learning outcomes are generally not valid indicators of learning outcomes, and that self-reported gains at the level of the major are perhaps the best indicator we have, thus far, for assessing the value-added effects of a student’s academic experience at a major research university. UCUES appears the better approach for assessing and reporting learning outcomes. This is because UCUES offers more extensive academic engagement data as well as a much wider range of demographic and institutional data, and therefore an unprecedented opportunity to advance our understanding of the nature of self-reported learning outcomes in higher education, and the extent to which these reports can contribute as indirect but valid measures of positive educational outcomes. At the same time, the apparent differences in learning outcomes across the undergraduate campuses of the University of California without controls for campus differences in composition illustrates some of the limitations of self-reported data.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregg Thomson and John Aubrey Douglass, 2009. "Decoding Learning Gains: Measuring Outcomes and the Pivotal Role of the Major and Student Backgrounds," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt2173006c, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:cshedu:qt2173006c
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/2173006c.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen Klein & David Freedman & Richard Shavelson & Roger Bolus, 2008. "Assessing School Effectiveness," Evaluation Review, , vol. 32(6), pages 511-525, December.
    2. repec:cdl:cshedu:qt81f4h1nn is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:cdl:cshedu:qt53g8521z is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marijk van der Wende, 2011. "Global Institutions: The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development," Chapters, in: Roger King & Simon Marginson & Rajani Naidoo (ed.), Handbook on Globalization and Higher Education, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Keywords

      ;

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:cshedu:qt2173006c. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://escholarship.org/uc/cshe/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.