If you were trying to about the state of college teaching and learning, to put a stake in the ground as a starting point for what's to come, where would you begin?
Find a longtime observer for some perspective?
Identify a collection of thoughtful essays from a group of experts convened by a national body to assess the state of learning, and ask the editor to summarize them?
Elicit the views of one of the most astute higher education researchers, or a thoughtful former college president (not all of them are, you know), or the recently retired head of a foundation whose work focuses on research on learning?
Or, as a shortcut, you could just talk to Michael S. McPherson, who is all of the above.
I won't bother listing all of McPherson's titles and bona fides; here's a brief bio. But his most relevant experience, for the job at hand here, was that he co-chaired (with Roger Ferguson of TIAA) the American Çï¿ûÊÓƵ of Arts and Sciences' Commission on the Future of Undergraduate Education.
The commission's 2017 report, whose findings Inside Higher Ed's upon its release, was as thorough and wide-ranging as you'd anticipate its expansive topic would require. It identified three major priorities for ensuring that all Americans have access to the potentially life-changing opportunity of a high-quality higher education: strengthening the student educational experience, increasing completion and reducing inequities, and controlling costs and increasing affordability.
The commission very purposefully made the quality of learning its top priority, because most of the public policy conversation about higher education has focused on access, completion and affordability. And while the report itself pays attention to all three objectives, it was the quality question that the American Çï¿ûÊÓƵ -- and McPherson -- chose to explore late last fall in an issue of Daedalus, the academy's journal.
"In higher education," unlike in elementary and secondary education, "questions about what and how much students are learning and how their learning is related to the quality of instruction they receive tend to take a back seat," McPherson wrote, with his co-author, Sandy Baum, in their introductory essay to the Daedalus issue. "Instead, questions about college admissions, pricing and cost, debt, and financial returns dominate the news and policy discussion. These are worthy topics of study, but they sidestep examination of what goes on inside the 'black box' of teaching and learning that college students actually experience."
There are logical reasons why questions about learning have typically taken a back seat to issues of access and affordability.
It's fairly easy to quantify, for instance, the extent to which American higher education has been undemocratic in terms of access, with rich kids much likelier than poor ones and white and (some) Asian students likelier than black and brown ones to go to college.
And issues of affordability -- rising prices, ballooning debt and the like -- are both quantifiable and eminently comprehensible, to anyone who understands dollars and cents. The flashing neon sign of hitting $1 trillion in cumulative student debt (and now $1.5 trillion) has thrust affordability to the top of the heap of public consciousness.
But the black box of teaching and learning, as McPherson and Baum call it, is another matter. They list some questions: "What kinds of knowledge and skills are students gaining? How are students developing as human beings and as members of society? How do faculty prepare for their work, get feedback on it, and improve their teaching? How does the larger educational environment within which students are embedded meet their needs?"
The lack of attention paid to questions like these is evident when one casts an eye elsewhere on the education landscape, McPherson notes in an interview. During his time as president of the Spencer Foundation, he worked closely with the University of Michigan's and other researchers who "really worked hard at this super-challenging issue of effective elementary and secondary education," he said. "There really is not a counterpart [endeavor] with the same level of seriousness and intensity within higher education."
And it's not hard to view the "lack of progress on the measurement of learning as a reflection of a lack of interest in teaching" within American higher education, McPherson suggests. Think how much effort (and money) colleges and universities (and rankings organizations!) pay to figuring out what qualifies as good research. Nothing remotely similar has happened on the learning side.
Why is that? McPherson largely agrees with a theory I posit: throughout higher education's history (arguably until now), the agenda has been set by the most highly selective public and private colleges and universities. The Ivy League universities, and the Stanfords and UVAs and Williamses of the world, have been assumed by the public to offer the highest-quality education because the "best" students go there.
Do we know that the most learning happens at those places? No, but they are "winning" under the current setup in which we don't really know, and they have little incentive in a system in which understanding how and how much students learn was a priority. If it was important to Princeton and Yale to know whether their students were learning more than their counterparts at Mercer County Community College or the University of New Haven, we can be pretty sure they would have developed (or paid ETS to develop) a way to measure college-level learning.
"If we're going to develop new ways of measuring learning, it's not going to develop at the elites -- they have no incentive to do that," McPherson says.
To the extent there is a "learning problem" in the United States right now -- whether that be defined as too little learning going on, or learning that isn't aligned with what people need to succeed in work and life and society -- the stakes are highest for students at the vast majority of colleges and universities that are not highly selective.
"The job you have to do at a place like Williams [where McPherson taught for 22 years] or Macalester [where he was president] or Stanford [where he is a visiting professor this year] is so different, because you have carefully selected people who are exquisitely prepared and selected to do what people do in college. That's not true for kids at Cal State Fresno, but we leave them without the resources, the attention, the care that they get at those other places, and they're not nearly as likely to succeed."
. . .