Establishing Rigor and Quality in Doctoral Programs Through Program Assessment

  • Maida Finch Salisbury University
  • Jake D. Follmer University of West Virginia
  • Heather Porter Salisbury University
Keywords: program assessment, student learning, continuous improvement

Abstract

This essay describes the development and implementation of a CPED-grounded program assessment system and the ways in which it contributes to quality assurance in Ed.D. programs broadly. We begin by articulating program quality and describing the contextual factors that guide our approach to program assessment. Next, we overview major components and processes of our program assessment system. Specific emphasis is placed on describing the development and evaluation of program effectiveness based on CPED-influenced student learning outcomes. We then briefly describe how we leverage an existing learning management system to implement program assessment efficiently, and outline continuous monitoring and improvement efforts that are based on our program assessment work. Finally, we describe our experiences with academic program review and discuss lessons learned and suggestions to promote program rigor and success.

Author Biography

Maida Finch, Salisbury University

Associate Professor and Department Chair, Literacy Studies

References

Bogue, E. G. (1998). Quality assurance in higher education: The evolution of systems and design ideals. New Directions for Institutional Research, 99(99), 7-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.9901

Bonvillian, G., & Dennis, T. L. (1995). Total quality management in higher education: Opportunities and obstacles. In S. J. Simms & R. R. Simms (Eds.), Total quality management in higher education: Is it working? (pp. 37-50). Praeger Publishers.

Bowker, L. (2017). Aligning accreditation and academic program reviews: a Canadian case study. Quality Assurance in Education, 25(3), 287-302. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-11-2016-0061

Brooks, R. L., & Heiland, D. (2007). Accountability, assessment and doctoral education: Recommendations for moving forward. European Journal of Education, 42(3), 351-362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2007.00311.x

Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. (2019). Guiding principles for program design. https://www.cpedinitiative.org/the-framework

Denecke, D., Kent, J., & McCarthy, M. T. (2017). Articulating learning outcomes in doctoral education. Council of Graduate Schools.

Ewell, P. (2010). Twenty years of quality assurance in higher education: What’s happened and what’s different? Quality in Higher Education, 16(2), 173-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2010.485728

Felten, P. (2013). Principles of good practice in SoTL. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 121-125.

Hakkola, L., & King, J. A. (2016). A developmental approach to graduate education review: A new take on a traditional process. Innovative Higher Education. 41, 137-152. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-015-9338-3

Harvey, L., & Knight, P. T. (1996). Transforming higher education. Society for Research in Higher Education & Open University Press. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED418640

Koslowski, F. A. (2006). Quality and assessment in context: A brief review. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(3), 277-288. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880610678586

Kuh, G. D., & Ewell, P. T. (2010). The state of learning outcomes assessment in the United States. Higher Education Policy and Management, 22(1). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1787/hemp-22-5ks5dlhqbfr1

Mårtensson, K., Roxå, T., & Stensaker, B. (20014). From quality assurance to quality practices: An investigation of strong microcultures in teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 39(4), 534-545. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.709493

McKenny, P., & Anderson, C. (2019). Quality with integrity: Working in partnership to conduct a program review. International Journal for Students as Partners, 3(2), 27-43. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v3i2.3757

National Commission on the Future of Higher Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education. U.S. Department of Education.

Openo, J. A., Laverty, C., Kolomitro, K., Borin, P., Goff, L., Stranach, M., & Gomaa, N. (2017). Bridging the divide: Leveraging the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning for quality enhancement. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2017.2.6

Shulman, L. S., Golde, C. M., Bueschel, A. C., Kristen, J., Shulman, L. S., Golde, C. M., Bueschel, A. C., & Garabedian, K. J. (2016). Reclaiming education’s doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 25-32. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X035003025

Tagg, J. (2010). The learning‐paradigm campus: From single‐to double‐loop learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 123(119), 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl

Published
2021-10-19
How to Cite
Finch, M., Follmer, J. D., & Porter, H. (2021). Establishing Rigor and Quality in Doctoral Programs Through Program Assessment. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 6(4), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2021.171
Section
Essays