Using standards rubrics to assure graduate capabilities within the context of undergraduate liberal arts programmes

Angus Brook; Sandra Lynch; Moira Debono

doi:10.21153/jtlge2013vol4no1art559

Authors

Angus Brook University of Notre Dame Australia, Australia
Sandra Lynch University of Notre Dame Australia, Australia
Moira Debono University of Notre Dame Australia, Australia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21153/jtlge2013vol4no1art559

Keywords:

rubrics, graduate capabilities, graduate attributes, curriculum design, assessment

Abstract

In 2011 members of the School of Philosophy and Theology at The University of Notre Dame Australia (UNDA) Sydney campus, designed two standards rubrics as part of a project aimed at undertaking research within the area of assuring graduate attributes and capabilities in Australian universities. The standards rubrics designed were oriented towards developing particular graduate attributes intrinsic to the Core Curriculum programme in philosophy, ethics, and theology; all students at UNDA are required to undertake this programme, which reflects a ‘liberal arts’ or ‘liberal education’ approach to university education.

In this paper, we engage in an institutional case study of this project, discussing the advantages and challenges of developing and using these standards rubrics with a specific focus on: how they have already been used, how we plan to use them in the continuing development of our Core Curriculum programme, and the particular challenges we face in developing standards rubrics within a ‘liberal arts’ or ‘liberal education’ environment. In doing so, we will attempt to demonstrate the usefulness of developing standards rubrics as a basis for careful and systematic review of our pedagogical approach, and curriculum and assessment design so as to assure the achievement of graduate attributes and capabilities.

Given our focus on developing these standards rubrics within a Catholic liberal education environment, the paper will begin with a discussion of the tradition of liberal education. This tradition provides the immediate context for the graduate attributes and capabilities toward which our rubrics are oriented and helps explain the specific nature of the Core Curriculum programme. The article will then consider key theoretical problems that arise in attempting to assure graduate attributes and capabilities within a liberal education environment, including problems related to educating towards objectives or attributes that are difficult to assess or measure due to their generality. In the final part of the paper, we demonstrate the usefulness of developing standards rubrics as a means of reviewing our pedagogical approach and curriculum design for the purposes of fostering graduate attributes and designing assessments that enable students to demonstrate the degree to which they have attained graduate attributes.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Association of American Colleges and Universities (2005). Liberal education outcomes: A preliminary report on student achievement in college. Washington: AAC&U Publications.

Barnett, R. (2012). ‘Learning for an unknown future’. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(1), 65–77.

Barrie, S. C. (2006). ‘Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates’. Higher Education, 51(2), 215–241.

Barrie, S. C. (2012). ‘A research-based approach to generic graduate attributes policy’. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(1), 79–92.

Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413.

Clanchy, J. & Ballard, B. (1995). ‘Generic skills in the context of higher education’. Higher Education Research and Development, 14(2), 155–166.

De la Harpe, B. & David, C. (2012). ‘Major influences on the teaching and assessment of graduate attributes. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(4), 493–510.

Donleavy, G. (2012). ‘Proclaimed graduate attributes of Australian universities: Patterns, problems and prospects’. Quality Assurance in Education, 20(4), 341–356.

Eckles, J. E. (2010). ‘Evaluating the efficiency of top liberal arts colleges’. Research in Higher Education, 51, 266–293.

Ferrall, V. E. (2011). Liberal arts at the brink. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Gentile, M. (2010). Giving voice to values: How to speak your mind when you know what’s right. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

Gibbs, G. (2003). ‘Editorial’. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27(2), 123–132.

Green, W., Hammer, S. & Star, C. (2009). ‘Facing up to the challenge: why is it so hard to develop graduate attributes?’. Higher Education Research and Development, 28(1), 17–29.

Hardwick Day (2011). The value and impact of the college experience: A comparative study.

Hoover, E. (2011). ‘Amid scrutiny and scepticism: Liberal-arts colleges restate their case with data’. Chronicle of Higher Education, 58(14), retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Volume-58-Issue-14-November/129858/

Hughes, C. & Barrie, S. (2010). ‘Influences on the assessment of graduate attributes in higher education’. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 325–334.

Jones, A. (2009a). ‘Generic attributes as espoused theory: The importance of context’. Higher Education, 58, 175–191.

Jones, A. (2009b). ‘Redisciplining generic attributes: The disciplinary context in focus’. Studies in Higher Education, 34(1), 85–100.

Kimball, Bruce A.(1995). Orators and philosophers: A history of the idea of liberal education. New York: College Board.

Kuh, G. D. (2009). ‘The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations’ in New Directions for Institutional Research, 14, 5–20;DOI: 10.1002/ir.283

MacIntyre, A. (2009). God, philosophy, universities: A selective history of the Catholic philosophical tradition. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Newman, J. H. (1996). The idea of a university. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Nussbaum, M. C. (1997). Cultivating humanity: A classical defence of reform in liberal education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Oliver, B., Whelan, B., Hunt, L., & Hammer, S. (2011). Accounting graduates and the capabilities that count: Perceptions of graduates, employers and Accounting academics in four Australian universities. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 2(1), 2 –27.

Oliver, B. (2011). Assuring graduate capabilities. Retrieved from http://boliver.ning.com/page/standards-rubrics-1

Sadler, D. R. (2009). ‘Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading’. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 159–179.

Seifert, T., Goodman, K., Lindsay, N., Jorgensen, T., Wolniak, G., Pascarella, E. & Blaich, C. (2008). ‘The effects of liberal arts experiences on liberal arts outcomes’. Research in Higher Education, 49(2), 107–125.

Star, C. & Hammer, S. (2008), ‘Teaching generic skills: Eroding the higher purpose of universities, or an opportunity for renewal?’. Oxford Review of Education, 34(2), 237–251.

Stevens, D. & Levi, A. (2013). Introduction to Rubrics. Sterling: Stylus Publishing.

Treleaven, L. & Voola, R. (2008). ‘Integrating the development of graduate attributes through constructive alignment’. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(2), 160–173.

Wood, L. N., Thomas, T. & Rigby, B. (2011). ‘Assessment and standards for graduate outcomes. Asian Social Science, 7:4, 12–17.