OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT IN CONSTRUCTION HIGHER EDUCATION

INTRODUCTION

Outcome Assessment is a term and a prospect which in all likelihood awaits in the future of many programs of construction higher education. The concept appears to be gathering momentum. With increasing regularity, various agencies and the body public are calling for education programs to provide substantive assessments. This paper will document some of the background for outcome assessment, and will describe some efforts which have been made and some steps which are being taken in this area.

BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE OUTCOME ASSESSMENT CONCEPT

The current assessment "movement" has emerged from a number of forces converging in higher education today: constricting resources, redefinitions of "quality," demands for institutional accountability, and the continuing need for program review, redefinition, and reform in a rapidly changing world. The terns "assessment" is tied closely to the term "excellence".

The notion of an excellent education program-- once so easily described in terms of resources, reputations, and (undocumented) education content, is additionally being redefined. Newer ideas about excellence are more closely related to documentable educational processes and outcomes, and to concepts such as students' realization of their potential-­especially their potential as learners (Dinham, 1988).

 Outcome assessment can be said to be an outgrowth of the public management model that is being urged on higher education, which is based on the premise that public administrations (programs of higher education specifically included) should:

Much writing and discussion ate currently taking place regarding the concept of outcome assessment. A recent library database search yielded one hundred twenty-two recent periodical references on this subject. Literally dozens of book-length works exist. Some of these articles and bound volumes contain listings of yet additional works on outcome assessment. A number of meetings and symposia have been conducted with outcome assessment as the central theme.

In recent years, governments at the state and national level have begun to hear and respond to a hue and cry from constituents regarding accountability and value in education programs. Fully two thirds of all states have taken action to expect new information on student progress and performance (Rossman, 1987). In a recent report from the National Governors' Association, "Time for Results," the question was asked, "What are we getting for our efforts at reform and the provisions for greater funding?" Institutions have sought additional funding in the 1980's not for growth but for the improvement of quality, and the question becomes "Is quality improving?" (Folger & Harris, 1989).

It is also worthy of note that the upsurge of interest in higher education quality improvement and the call for outcome assessment has come in large measure from citizens and state and national leaders outside higher education. It is not primarily a concern of higher education professionals, even though academics have written most of the reports. A majority of thestate reports have been the product of commissions or task forces that included public officials, business leaders, and other influential citizens. There has been a call for more and better information on results and the assessment of outcomes. When business and government leaders look at higher education, their experiences and ways of looking at things influence the conclusions they draw. There is a dominant paradigm in business, "rational management." It is taught in business schools and by consultants, and has been adapted to public sector management as well. It involves setting goals, allocating resources of personnel and money to the achievement of those goals, choosing the most effective and efficient procedures for reaching the goals, and assessing the extent of goal achievement to provide feedback for improvement of the process. Assessment is central to any improvement process; without good information about the quality of output, whether it be product or a service, improvement is unlikely. Many business and government leaders have been looking at higher education from this perspective, and they have seen that some of the elements of good management, as they define it, are missing in the higher education scene. Institutional goals are frequently not clear. There is little systematic assessment information, and the outcomes of the education process are often ambiguous.

Higher education's leadership has been quick to point out that education is not a business but a very complex process fostering intellectual development which depends on the personal interaction of teachers and students. Good teaching and good research are as much artistic as scientific performances. Just as painting by the numbers produces a recognizable but uninspiring product, so the reduction of teaching to a uniform process would remove the spark of creativity.

Lay and government leaders have generally granted these points to higher education and have trusted college leaders to manage their affairs in their own way. But the skepticism has increased in recent years. They have seen education grow bigger and much more costly, but with little evidence that it has grown better. In addition, sophisticated business leaders are aware of the additions to the rational management model that deals with the complexities of management and evaluation in decentralized, nonbureaucratic organizations like universities. If other public and private sector service activities can be improved by the application of assessment information and modem principles of management, maybe higher education can be, too.

There is another reason for the skepticism of public officials about higher education's calls for autonomy. They have observed that the self-regulation of professionals in any field, whether it be health, the law, or higher education, often puts the self-interests of the profession ahead of the public interest, and some oversight and control body that puts the public interest first is necessary. Higher education has accepted the principle of a limited oversight role by the public without giving up its claims and interest in being largely self-regulating (Folger & Harris, 1989, pp 1-2).

Another clear call for improved evaluation has come not from business leaders but from the American Association of Colleges report of 1985. Significantly, this report was entirely the product of academics. Two passages from this report underscore the call by some academics for outcome assessment:

“One of the most remarkable and scandalous aspects of American higher education is the absence of traditions, practices and methods of institutional and social accountability (p.33).”

“As difficult as it may seem to develop the most searching and appropriate methods of evaluation and assessment, an institution that lacks refined instruments of program evaluation and rigorous instruments of student assessment is contributing to the debasement of baccalaureate education (p. 34).”

OUTCOME ASSESSMENT AND ACCREDITATION AGENCIES

Most accredited programs of construction higher education are accredited by one of two agencies: the American Council for Construction Education (ACCE), or the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET). Both ACCE and ABET receive their accreditation and their authorization to function as accrediting bodies from an element of the federal Department of Education, the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA). It can be said in a literal sense that COPA accredits the accrediting agencies of construction higher education programs.

The COPA Handbook-- Guide to the COPA Recognition Review Process contains a chapter entitled "Recognition Provisions and Procedures-- Provisions for Becoming Recognized as an Accrediting Body for Postsecondary Educational Institutions or Programs." Among the stated standards which must be met by agencies (such as ABET and ACCE) which would accredit higher education programs is the following:

 “To follow accepted practices of postsecondary accreditation, an accrediting body... utilizes evaluative criteria and processes that judge (a) the appropriateness of institutional or program purposes, (b) the adequacy of resources and organization to meet those purposes, (c) educational outcomes which indicate that those purposes are met, and (d) the reasonable assurance of continued meeting of those purposes (Council on Postsecondary Accreditation, p. 40).”

In its 1986 statement of Education Quality and Accreditation, COPA emphasizes the important role accrediting bodies should play of American higher education. Further, COPA asserts that: "The quality of an educational process relates to (1) the appropriateness of its objectives, (2) the effectiveness of the use of resources in pursuing those objectives, and (3) the degree to which objectives are achieved. Without a clear statement of what education is expected to provide, it is not possible to determine how good it is". (SACS, 1989).

There is little doubt then that COPA expects accrediting agencies to assure that outcome assessment is included in accreditation considerations. The American Council for Construction Education has recently taken positive steps toward consideration of outcome assessment. These measures are further detailed in the following section of this paper.

THE ACCE AND OUTCOME ASSESSMENT

At the 1989 Annual Meeting of the ACCE, organization leadership expressed its interest in developing consideration of outcome assessment. Accordingly, an Outcome Assessment Committee was formed. In turn, a Task Force was appointed within this committee, whose charge was to investigate this matter and to produce a white paper on the subject of outcome assessment.

 At the 1990 annual meeting, this task force and committee presented a proposed revision to ACCE Accreditation Standards to include a section on Program Planning and Outcome Assessment. Elements of this proposed new section are recapitulated below:

Additionally, the ACCE Outcome Assessment Committee Task Force has produced a white paper entitled "Outcome Assessment." In this paper, outcome assessment is defined as "the evaluation of the products of a construction education program, based on the stated goals and objectives of the program itself." This definition reflects the nature of the term and contains elements of the concept as generally used in the current literature.

 It is anticipated that ACCE will continue to further its efforts in assessing outcomes of baccalaureate programs of construction education. Inclusion of outcome assessment standards as part of the accreditation process is the likely future resultant. It is held that educators in construction programs which are accredited by ACCE may wish to be fully informed on this topic and/or to provide their input to the accrediting agency, as the accreditation agency further develops implementation of outcome assessment.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES