Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Use of Learner-Centered Assessment in US Colleges and Universities

  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over a decade ago, Barr and Tagg (Change Mag 27(6):12–25, 1995) declared that a shift had occurred in higher education from an instruction paradigm to a learning paradigm. A central element in this new paradigm is learner-centered assessment. While a growing body of literature suggests that this approach to assessment is a best practice in higher education pedagogy, it is still unclear whether faculty members have embraced it fully. Using data from the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, this study examines the extent to which faculty members employed learner-centered assessments in postsecondary classrooms at two points in time, 1993 and 2004. Findings show similar to higher rates of use for some assessment techniques in 2004 compared to reports from 1993, as well as differences by faculty gender, age, discipline, and institution type. Implications for faculty members, student learning, and institutional policy are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(1), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelo, T., & Cross, P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning—a new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change Magazine, 27(6), 12–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, S. K. (1982). Student perceptions of the expectations for male and female instructors: Evidence relating to the question of gender bias in teaching evaluations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 170–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger, E., & Long, B. (2005). Help or hinder? Adjunct professors and student outcomes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biglan, A. (1973a). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biglan, A. (1973b). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 204–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boateng, B. A., Bass, L. D., Blaszak, R. T., & Ferrar, H. C. (2009). The development of a competency-based assessment rubric to measure resident milestones. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 1(1), 45–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolge, R. (1995). Examination of student learning as a function of instructor status (full-time versus part-time) at Mercer County Community College. Retrieved 15 September 2011, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED382241.pdf.

  • Boyer, P. G., Butner, B. K., & Smith, D. (2007). A portrait of remedial instruction: Faculty workload and assessment techniques. Higher Education, 54(4), 605–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Candela, L., Darrell, K., & Benzel-Lindley, J. (2006). A case for learner-centered curriculum. Journal of Nursing Education, 45(2), 59–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centra, J., & Gaubatz, N. (2000). Is there gender bias in student evaluations of teaching? Journal of Higher Education, 71, 17–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chronister, J. L. (1996). Benefits and retirement: A changing environment. The NEA 1996 Almanac of Higher Education. Retrieved 26 September 2011, from http://www.nea.org/assets/img/PubAlmanac/ALM_96_08.pdf.

  • Clark, T., & Gottfredson, C. (2008). In search of learning agility. Retrieved 15 September 2011, from http://www.elearningguild.com/content.cfm?selection=doc.1054.

  • Cohen, A., & Brawer, F. (1998). The American community college (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crutcher, R., Obrien, P., Corrigan, R., & Schneider, C. (2007). College learning for the new global century: A report from the national leadership council for liberal education and America’s promise. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities.

    Google Scholar 

  • del Val, M. P., & Fuentes, C. M. (2003). Resistance to change: A literature review and empirical study. Management Decision, 41(2), 148–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duch, B., Groh, S., & Allen, D. (2001). The power of PBL. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagen, M. K., & Jaeger, A. J. (2009). Effects of exposure to part-time faculty on community college transfer. Research in Higher Education, 50(2), 168–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, R., & Zhang, L. (2005). Do tenured and tenure-track faculty matter? Journal of Human Resources, 45(3), 647–659.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewell, P. T. (1988). Outcomes, assessment and academic improvement: In search of usable knowledge. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 4, pp. 53–108). New York: Agathon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewell, P. (2002). An emerging scholarship: A brief history of assessment. In T. W. Banta, et al. (Eds.), Building a scholarship of assessment. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fook, C. Y., & Sidhu, G. K. (2010). Authentic assessment and pedagogical strategies in higher education. Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, R. (2010). Resistance, justice, and commitment to change. Human Development Quarterly, 21(1), 3–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gappa, J., Austin, A., & Trice, A. (2007). Rethinking faculty work: Higher education’s strategy imperative. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerdy, K. B. (2002). Teacher, coach, cheerleader and judge: Promoting learning through learner-centered assessment. Law Library Journal, 94, 59–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenn, D. (2011, March 7). Higher-education leaders grapple with the growing demand for quality assurance. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 26 March 2011, from http://chronicle.com/article/More-From-the-ACE-Meeting-/126638/.

  • Goubeaud, K. (2010). How is science learning assessed at the postsecondary level: Assessment and grading practices in college biology, chemistry and physics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(3), 237–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goubeaud, K., & Yan, W. (2004). Teacher educators’ teaching methods, assessments, and grading practices: A comparison of higher education faculty’s instructional practices. The Teacher Educator, 40(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., & Hinings, R. (1996). Change as an underlying theme in professional service organizations. Organization Studies, 17(4), 563–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubb, N. W. (1999). Honored but invisible: An inside look at teaching in community colleges. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedorn, L. S. (2000). Conceptualizing faculty satisfaction: Components, theories, and outcomes. In L. S. Hagedorn (Ed.), What contributes to job satisfaction among faculty and staff (pp. 5–20), NDIR #105. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

  • Hahs-Vaughn, D. (2006). Weighting omissions and best practices when using large-scale data in educational research. AIR Professional File, No. 101.

  • Hannan, H., & Silver, S. (2000). Innovating higher education. Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2003). Discipline-based education development. In R. Eggins & H. MacDonald (Eds.), The scholarship of academic development. Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2010). Understanding the new majority of not tenure-track faculty in higher education: Demographics, experiences and plans of action (ASHE Higher Education Report, Vol. 36(4)). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

  • Kinzie, J. (2010). Perspectives from campus leaders on the current state of student learning outcomes assessment: NILOA focus group summary 2009–2010. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D. (1996). Guiding principles for creating a seamless learning environment for undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 135–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: Who they are who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P. R. (1954, May–June). How to deal with resistance to change. Harvard Business Review, pp. 49–57.

  • Leslie, D., & Gappa, J. (2002). Part-time faculty: Competent and committed. In Community College Faculty Characteristics (pp. 59–68), New Directions for Community Colleges, # 118. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

  • LeSourd, S. J. (1984). Exploratory comparisons of two methods of assessing teacher attitude toward instructional strategies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 12(1), 31–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBride, K. (2010). Leadership in higher education: Handling faculty resistance to technology through strategic planning. Academic Leadership, 8(4), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeachie, W., Lin, Y., & Mann, W. (1971). Student ratings of teacher effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 8(3), 435–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K., & Xu, Y. (2009). A causal model of factors influencing faculty use of technology. Journal of Asynchronous Networks, 13(2), 58–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G. (2003). Faculty use of course management systems. ECAR Report, Educause. Retrieved 21 April 2011, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EKF/ekf0302.pdf.

  • National Association of Student Personnel Administrators & American College Personnel Association. (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience. Retrieved 10 June 2010, from http://www.myacpa.org.

  • NCES Technical Report 97-467. (1993). NSOPF:93 methodology report. Retrieved 5 March 2011, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97467.pdf.

  • NCES Technical Report 2006-179. (2004). NSOPF:04 methodology report. Retrieved 5 March 2011, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006179.pdf.

  • Nelson Laird, T., & Garver, A. (2010). The effect of teaching general education courses on deep approaches to learning: How disciplinary context matters. Research in Higher Education, 51, 248–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson Laird, T., Garver, A., & Niskode-Dossett, A. (2011). Gender gaps in collegiate teaching styles: Variations by course characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 52(3), 261–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences in university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, R., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 405–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, R. S., Perkins, D. N., & Smith, E. (1985). The teaching of thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palomba, C. (2002). Scholarly assessment of student learning in the major and general education. In T. Banta, et al. (Eds.), Building a scholarship of assessment. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paradis, T., & Dexter, L. (2007). Learner-centered teaching and assessment in an undergraduate field analysis course. Journal of Geography, 106(4), 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M., & Vaughan, D. (2002). Promoting academic improvement: Organizational and academic dynamics that support student assessment. In T. Banta, et al. (Eds.), Building a scholarship of assessment. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, J. (2004). Faculty member intentions to leave: A national study on worklife and satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 45(3), 285–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, V. (2005). Measure the change in faculty perceptions over time: An examination of their worklife and satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 46(1), 81–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, S. (1991). The status of women and minorities in higher education: Findings from the 1988 National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty. CUPA Journal, 42(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salthouse, T. (2006). Mental exercise and mental aging. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 68–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaie, K., Willis, S., & Caskie, G. (2004). The Seattle longitudinal study: Relationship between personality and cognition. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 11, 304–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. (2008). Creating and managing a learning culture: The essence of leadership. In J. V. Gallos (Ed.), Business leadership (2nd ed., pp. 362–369). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiffman, L., Kanuk, L., & Das, M. (2006). Consumer behavior. Toronto, ON: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlossberg, N. (1989). Overwhelmed: Coping with life’s ups and downs. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R., & Meyer, J. W. (1983). The organization of societal sectors. In J. Meyer & R. Scott (Eds.), Organizational environments: Rituals and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J., & Elton, C. (1982). Validation of the Biglan model. Research in Higher Education, 17(3), 213–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. C. (2008). Does service-learning promote adult development? Theoretical perspectives and directions for research. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 118, 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statham, A., Richardson, L., & Cook, J. (1991). Gender and university teaching. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoecker, J. L. (1993). The Biglan classification revisited. Research in Higher Education, 34(4), 451–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szabla, D. B. (2007). Multidimensional view of resistance to organizational change: Exploring cognitive, emotional, and intentional responses to planned change across perceived change leadership strategies. Human Resources Development Quarterly, 18(4), 525–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, S. L., & Heck, R. H. (2001). Analysis of large-scale postsecondary data in higher education research: Potential perils associated with complex designs. Research in Higher Education, 42(5), 517–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., Rips, L., & Rasinksi, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toutkoushian, R. K., & Conley, V. M. (2005). Progress for women in academe, yet inequities persist: Evidence from NSOPF:99. Research in Higher Education, 46(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umbach, P. D. (2008). The effects of part-time faculty on instructional techniques and commitment to faculty. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Association for the Study of Higher Education, Jacksonville, FL.

  • US Department of Labor. (2011). Occupational outlook handbook 2010–2011. Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor. Retrieved 12 September 2011, from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos066.htm#projections_data.

  • Vogelgesang, L. J., & Astin, A. W. (2000). Comparing the effects of community service and service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service-learning, 7, 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddel, D., & Sohal, A. (1998). Resistance: A constructive tool for change management. Management Decision, 36(8), 543–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waller, L.R., & Davis, J. (2009). An examination of the relationship of a tenure system to enrollment growth, affordability, retention rates, and graduation rates in Texas public two-year colleges. Retrieved 5 May 2011, from http://academicleadership.org/article/an-examination-of-the-relationship-of-a-tenure-system-to-enrollment-growth-affordability-retention-rates-and-graduation-rates-in-texas-public-two-year-colleges.

  • Wood, E. J. (2004). Problem-based learning. Acta Biochimica Polonica Quarterly, 51(2), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Y., & Meyer, K. (2007). Factors explaining faculty technology use and productivity. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanowitz, K. L., & Hahs-Vaughn, D. L. (2007). Changes in student-centered assessment by postsecondary science and non-science faculty. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(2), 171–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, P. (2010). Generic or discipline-specific? An exploration of the significance of discipline-specific issues in researching and developing teaching and learning in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 115–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Kyle Tschepikow on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602, USA

    Karen L. Webber

Authors
  1. Karen L. Webber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen L. Webber.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 6.

Table 6 NSOPF teaching field variables to Biglan categories
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Webber, K.L. The Use of Learner-Centered Assessment in US Colleges and Universities. Res High Educ 53, 201–228 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9245-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9245-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation