Tuning USA: Meeting the

Challenges of US Higher Education

John H. Yopp, PhDStrategic Partnerships, Tuning USA

David W. Marshall, PhDAssociate Director, Tuning USA

Presentation Goals

• Discuss how the unique features of U.S. higher education versus other national educational systems challenge the Tuning USA process

• Show how these challenges are being addressed and the role of the Institute for Evidence-Based Change (IEBC) in the process

• Provide a progress report on Tuning USA from its origins in 2009 to its current state

2

3

European OriginsTuning USA, like other Tuning processes worldwide, had its origins in Europe (1999) in a project called “Tuning Educational Structures in Europe”1,1A

4

Europe’s Goals for Reform

Common Definition of a Degree

Europe's Tripartite Structure

European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)

Quality Assurance Systems

5

Elements of European Tuning Process

Tuning Europe – designed and implemented ‘by and for universities’

– developed in phases - moved form an operational methodology for the design of degree programmes in specific thematic areas

– “It became known as the universities’ response to the Bologna Challenges put to them by their Governments.” 2

– focused on qualifications (degrees) and their elements

6

Elements of European Tuning Process• European Tuning Degree components:

– Profile– Learning Outcomes and Competences (generic and subject-specific)– Workload– Levels of Qualifications– Teaching/Learning and Assessment Methodologies– Program Quality

• These components were to become essential parts of the description called the Degree Profile

• Ensuring cultural diversity:“The tension between the identification of the common and the richness of the diverse runs in each of the documents of the Tuning Process”. 3

7

The Evolution of Tuning Europe

I. Initial Tuning Europe Project that began in 1999:A. Defined common language and methodology for updating

or creating a degree program (grass roots level).

B. Developed Tuning reference points (both generic & subject-specific SLOs) through Subject Area Groups (SAGs), in concert with Thematic Network Projects (TNPs) of the Socrates Program• initially defined for nine subject areas (Business, Chemistry, Earth

Sciences, Education Sciences, European Studies, History, Mathematics, Nursing, and Physics).2

Competences in Education and Recognition Project (CoRe)8a

A Tuning Guide to Formulating Degree Programme Profiles

Including Programme Competences and Programme Outcomes

Jenneke Lokhoff and Bas Wegewijs (Nuffic)Katja Durkin (UK NARIC)

Robert Wagenaar, Julia Gonzlez, Ann Katherine Isaacs, Luigi F. Dona dalle Rose and Mary Gobbi

(TUNIING)Editors

Bilbao, Groningen and The Hague, 2010

8

9

The Evolution of Tuning EuropeII. Necessity of frameworks emerged

A. Establishes common reference points for learning outcomes and competences at the national and European levels

B. Enables comparability and compatibility within and across the diverse European national educational systems to achieve an EHEA

C. Developed Qualifications Frameworks6

• National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) • European Qualification Framework (EQF)6

10

III. The next phase in Tuning Europe began in 2008

A. Responded to the establishment of national and European qualifications frameworks

B. Tuning Europe developed broad disciplinary Sectorial Qualifications Frameworks (SQF).2

The Evolution of Tuning Europe

11

IV. Tuning Academya. announced in 2008

b. launched in 2011

V. Tuning Journal in Higher Education a. creating continuing generations of new Turning

individuals and dissemination the outcomes of Tuning

b. meta-profile concept and its attendant process

The Evolution of Tuning Europe

WHY TUNING USA?

• The Tuning Educational Structures in Europe Project and the Lumina Foundation.1,1a

• Facilitated by an increasing number of presentations by U.S. and European educators working on the Bologna Process to the annual conferences of the major international education associations in the U.S. (e.g. NAFSA, AIEA, CGS, AACRAO) since 2002.1,1a

13

Why Tuning USA?

14

• Global education is borderless and the U.S. is a global player2,3,11:– Tuning Latin America (2005) http://www.tuningal.org– Tuning USA (2009) http://www.tuningusa.org – Tuning Russia (2011) http://www.russia.org– Tuning Africa (2011) http://www.africa.org– Pilot in Australia (2010)– Pilot in China – (2012)

• Each Tuning project utilized similar processes but with different but related goals

Tuning’s Global Reach

The Lumina Foundation • Set its “Big Goal” of “increasing the percentage of Americans

with high quality two or four-year college degrees and credentials from 39% of the population to 60% by 2025”

• Identified “Tuning” as a means to ensure quality of those degrees

• Established and funded the first U.S. Tuning.1a,12,13

Pilot project: TUNING USA, co-funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.14

15

Why Tuning USA?

16

Tuning USA’s Potential Contribution to US Higher Education14

1. Facilitating student success and retention, especially among students from underserved groups, by creating clear expectations for, and pathways to, degree completion;

2. Simplifying the process for students transferring credits between institutions;

3. Emphasizing lifelong learning and important but often undervalued transferable skills;

17

Tuning USA’s Potential Contribution to US Higher Education14

4. Aligning the roles of higher education institutions;

5. Increasing higher education’s responsiveness to changes in knowledge and its application;

6. Ensuring that the knowledge and applied skills associated with coursework align with civic, societal, and workforce needs.

18

Tuning USA’s Principal Advisors14

Dr. Tim Birtwistle, a Bologna expert and emeritus professor at Leeds, Metropolitan University in the United Kingdom

Dr. Clifford Adleman, senior associate, Institute for Higher Education Policy

Dr. Robert Wagenaar, a professor at the University of Groningen in The Netherlands, and co-coordinator of the projects Tuning Educational Structures in Europe, Tuning South-East and Eastern Europe, Tuning Latin America, Tuning Russia, and Tuning Georgia.

Tuning USA’s Operational Partner: the Institute for Evidence-Based Change (IEBC).1a,14

Primary consulting group for states and associations that undertake a Tuning USA initiative;

Provides expert staff resource, guide, problem-solver, and advisor through the multi-stage Tuning process, from concept paper to implementation;

Serves as a collaborator with the IHE-appointed Faculty Tuning Working groups, the state higher education governing boards, and other stakeholders to continually improve the Tuning USA process;

19

Tuning USA’s Operational Partner: the Institute for Evidence-Based Change (IEBC).1a,14

Is charged by Lumina and the Tuning USA Advisory Board to expand the initiative nationally;

Works with U.S. faculty consultant experts on the Tuning European Structures and Bologna Process and their differences from Tuning USA; and

Performs analyses and evaluative instruments to assess the success of Tuning USA Projects in achieving the project goals.

20

TUNING USA’S TUNING PROCESS

23

Define

Discipline Core

Map Career

Pathways

Consult

Stakeholders

Hone

Discipline Core

Implement

Locally

Draft general degree profile Identify core concepts Draft competency statements Draft measurable student learning outcomes

Research student career destinations Develop career pathways map

Identify stakeholders Draft survey instruments or focus group protocols Gather stakeholder input

Review stakeholder feedback Review discipline core in light of feedback

Identify departmental assets/priorities/missions Emphasize departmental distinctiveness Write degree specifications for each degree level

Pieces of a Tuning Initiative

SIMILAR OUTCOMES OF EUROPEAN AND US TUNING: DEGREE PROFILES AND DEGREE SPECIFICATIONS

The European Degree Profile

• Title Field: Full name of the degree in original language (and English translation)– Full name of the programme offered by

the institution– Type of degree (cycle) and length; name

of awarding institution(s); accreditation organization(s)

• Purpose: General statement about the degree program (2 sentences)

• Characteristics: Main subject areas/disciplines of the degree programme; orientation (research, practical, professional, applied, etc.); distinctive features (that distinguish it from other similar degree programmes)

Components of the Degree Profile in Europe8a

25

The European Degree Profile

• Employability and Further Education: Employment opportunities (3 sentences); further studies (opportunities for access to further studies (e.g. Master programmes)

• Education Style: Main teaching and learning strategies and methods

• Programme Competences: List of generic and specific programme competences

• Complete List of Programme Learning Outcomes: All learning outcomes up to total of 20.

Components of the Degree Profile in Europe8a

26

27

Institution Name & Department Degree Name

PurposeThis field can be used to provide a succinct statement of a

department’s philosophy as it relates to the specific degree

level. The field might begin with a more general statement

about the nature and purpose of the degree.

CharacteristicsThis field can highlight the distinctive features of the

degree track, including disciplines and featured subject

areas, general and specific focuses, etc.

Career PathwaysThis field identifies possible destinations of the degree

program’s graduates.

Education Style

This field identifies the department’s particular learning/

teaching approaches, such as lectures, small seminars,

and labs, and describe the assessment methods used by

the department, such as discursive tests, analytical papers,

culminating research projects, and comprehensive exams.

Degree Specification Template From Tuning USA14

Program Competencies & Outcomes

This field lists the program-level learning outcomes,

organized by competency area, that were developed by

the Tuning work group. It should also include additional

competencies and their relevant learning outcomes in

addition to those developed by the Tuning work group.

CHALLENGES TO TUNING USA AS A FUNCTION OF UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF U.S. HIGHER EDUCATION

29

Key Differences

Tuning Europe

• Tuning Europe is associated with the Bologna Process

• Endorsed and supported bythe Ministers of Higher Education in the 49 nations that are “Bologna” signatories5, and the stakeholders in The Lisbon Agenda (enhancement of economic and workforce goals).

Tuning USA

• The U.S. has no Ministry of Higher Education and Tuning USA was launched and funded by non-governmental foundations, Lumina and Hewlett.

• Major challenges for the U.S. Tuning initiative, which is accomplished institution by institution, state by state, or association by association, are institutional and financial sustainability once the Tuning Process is finished.

30

Key Differences

Tuning Europe

• A key component of the European Tuning process is integrating workload as the dimension of time required by the student to achieve learning outcomes specified in the degree profile and tied to the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS).

Tuning USA

• This component does not exist in the Tuning USA process.

– Relies on the increasingly criticized Carnegie Credit Hour System. Research continues in this area.12

31

Key Differences

Tuning Europe

• European Tuning process has become specialized with respect to those involved in each of its stages and implementation.

• There are faculty that create the degree profiles (profile designers) and others that implement them into the programs. Yet another group may oversee and advise students on individualized learning paths.

Tuning USA

• Currently, the responsibility for implementation of Tuning USA’s discipline core and degree specification lies disproportionally on administratively-appointed faculty in the Tuning work groups. This makes implementation a much greater challenge than in the European model. 2,3

32

Key Differences

Tuning Europe

• Tuning Projects and Processes in Europe and other parts of the world start at the bachelor’s level.

Tuning USA

• Tuning USA also must incorporate the associate's degree level. The U.S. community college system- and the number of community college students transferring to four-year colleges- are large enough so that any inclusion of progressive learning outcomes in a discipline that does not include both levels is incomplete. 14

33

• The Community Colleges’ associate degree is a major pathway to the job market or transfer to a four-year institution.

• Tuning in the U.S. system has been focused on majors.

• Tuning USA also necessitates the integration of the typical liberal education (General Education) component of the U.S. bachelor’s degree into the discipline core and degree specification. The European higher education systems are generally more focused on the majors without the need to address an equivalent of the U.S. general education component.

34

Key Differences

Tuning Europe

• Tuning Europe is involved in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) - led AHELO (Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes) project.

Tuning USA

• Tuning USA has not linked learning outcomes and to a particular form of assessment.

• Tuning USA has not yet, nor necessarily should, become associated with one form of assessment.

• The highly decentralized U.S. higher education system is more amenable to a variety of assessments or assignments as currently tracked by the non-profit National Institute of Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) which monitors the use of the various forms of assignments used by U.S. IHEs.

35

Key Differences

Tuning Europe

• The European Qualifications Frameworks provide an overarching set of reference points for scaling expectations within degree-level learning.

Tuning USA

• Disciplinary outcomes are not currently linked to a Framework of broad learning outcomes and competences to facilitate inter-state comparability (except as noted). The potential for linking to Lumina’s Degree Qualification Framework (DQP) is currently under study. 15

• Tuning USA continues to define itself as a function of the input and contributions of the disciplinary faculty Tuning Work Groups but it must continue to adapt to the characteristics of the U.S. higher education, which is, in many ways, an evolving target.

PROGRESS AND ACHIEVEMENTS IN TUNING USA 2009 – PRESENT

Tuning in the US

BiologyPhysicsChemistryMathematicsCivil EngineeringElectrical EngineeringIndustrial EngineeringMechanical EngineeringChemical EngineeringBiomedical Engineering

Elementary EducationPhysics EducationHistory EducationMarketingNursingSocial WorkPsychologyBusinessGraphic DesignHistory Communication Studies

Tuning in the USStates

– Indiana (pilot)– Minnesota (pilot)– Utah (pilot & ongoing)– Texas– Kentucky– Montana

Regions– Midwest Higher Education Compact

National Associations– American Historical Association– National Communications Association

Lingering Questions1. Extent to which collaboratively developed

discipline core documents have been implemented locally

2. Extent to which discipline core documents are revised or tailored to fit specific local contexts

3. In state- or regionally-based projects, extent to which institutions might adopt a discipline core to which it did not contribute

QUESTIONS?

THANK YOU

For specific questions about this webinar, contact:

John Yoppj.yopp@twc.orgDavid Marshall

dmarshall@iebcnow.org

For general questions about Tuning USA, contact:

Brad PhillipsPresident/CEO IEBC

bphillips@iebcnow.org