Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education
From the March 1987 AAHE Bulletin
There are neither enough carrots nor enough sticks to improve
undergraduate education without the commitment and action of students and
faculty members. They are the precious resources on whom the improvement
of undergraduate education depends.
But how can students and faculty members improve undergraduate
education? Many campuses around the country are asking this question. To
provide a focus for their work, we offer seven principles based on
research on good teaching and learning in colleges and universities.
Good practice in undergraduate education:
A Focus for Improvement While each practice can stand alone on its
own, when all are present their effects multiply. Together they employ six
powerful forces in education:
But the ways different institutions
implement good practice depend very much on their students and their
circumstances. In what follows, we describe several different approaches
to good practice that have been used in different kinds of settings in the
last few years. In addition, the powerful implications of these principles
for the way states fund and govern higher education and for the way
institutions are run are discussed briefly at the end.
As faculty members, academic
administrators, and student personnel staff, we have spent most of our
working lives trying to understand our students, our colleagues, our
institutions and ourselves. We have conducted research on higher education
with dedicated colleagues in a wide range of schools in this country. We
draw the implications of this research for practice, hoping to help us all
do better.
We address the teacher's how, not
the subject-matter what, of good practice in undergraduate
education. We recognize that content and pedagogy interact in complex
ways. We are also aware that there is much healthy ferment within and
among the disciplines. What is taught, after all, is at least as important
as how it is taught. In contrast to the long history of research in
teaching and learning, there is little research on the college curriculum.
We cannot, therefore, make responsible recommendations about the content
of good undergraduate education. That work is yet to be done.
This much we can say: An undergraduate
education should prepare students to understand and deal intelligently
with modern life. What better place to start but in the classroom and on
our campuses? What better time than now?
Seven Principles of Good
Practice
1. Encourages Contact Between Students and Faculty Some examples: Freshman seminars on
important topics, taught by senior faculty members, establish an early
connection between students and faculty in many colleges and universities. In the Saint Joseph's College core curriculum,
faculty members who lead discussion groups in courses outside their fields of
specialization model for students what it means to be a learner. In the
Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, three out of four undergraduates have jointed three-quarters of the
faculty in recent years a junior research colleagues. At Sinclair Community
College, students in the College Without Walls program have pursued studies
through learning contracts. Each student has created a "resource
group," which includes a faculty member, a student peer, and two
"community resource" faculty members. This group then provides support
and assures quality. 2. Develops Reciprocity and Cooperation Among Students Some Examples: Even
in large lecture classes, students can learn from one another. Learning groups
are a common practice. Students are assigned to a group of five to seven other
students, who meet regularly during class throughout the term to solve problems
set by the instructor. Many colleges use peer tutors for students who need
special help. Learning communities are another popular way of
getting students to work together. Students involved in SUNY at Stony Brook’s
Federated Learning Communities can take several courses together. The courses,
on topics related to a common theme like science, technology, and human values,
are from different disciplines. Faculty teaching the courses coordinate their
activities while another faculty member, called a “master learner,” takes
the courses with the students. Under the direction of the master learner, 3. Encourages Active Learning Some examples: Active learning is encouraged in classes that use structured
exercises, challenging discussions, team projects, and peer critiques. Active learning can also occur outside the classroom. There are thousands of internships, independent study, and cooperative job programs across the country in all kinds of colleges and universities, in all kinds of fields, for all kinds of students. Students also can help design and teach courses or parts of courses. At Brown University, faculty members and students have designed new courses on contemporary issues and universal themes; the students then help the professors as teaching assistants. At the State University of New York at Cortland, beginning students in a general chemistry lab have worked in small groups
to design lab procedures rather than repeat prestructured exercises. At the University of Michigan's Residential College, teams of students periodically work with faculty members on a long-term original research project in the social sciences. 4. Gives Prompt Feedback Some examples: No feedback can occur without assessment. But assessment
without timely feedback contributes little to learning. Colleges assess entering students as they enter to guide them in planning their studies.
In addition to the feedback they receive from course instructors, students in many
colleges and universities receive counseling periodically on their progress and future plans. At Bronx Community College, students with poor academic preparation have been
carefully tested and given special tutorials to prepare them to take introductory courses. They
are then advised about the introductory courses to take, given the level of their
academic skills. Adults can receive assessment of their work and other life experiences at many
colleges and universities through portfolios of their work or through standardized tests;
these provide the basis for sessions with advisors. Alverno College requires that students develop high levels of performance in
eight general abilities such as analytic and communication skills. Performance is assessed
and then discussed with students at each level for each ability in a variety of ways and by a variety of assessors. In writing courses across the country, students are learning, through detailed
feedback from instructors and fellow students, to revise and rewrite drafts. They learn, in
the process, that feedback is central to learning and improving performance. 5. Emphasizes Time on Task Some examples: Mastery learning, contract learning, and computer-assisted
instruction require that students spend adequate amounts of time on learning. Extended periods
of preparation for college also give students more time on task. Matteo Ricci College
is known for its efforts to guide high school students from the ninth grade to a B.A.
through a curriculum taught jointly by faculty at Seattle Preparatory school and
Seattle University. Providing students with opportunities to integrate their studies into the rest
of their lives helps them use time well. Workshops, intensive residential programs, combinations of televised
instruction, correspondence study, and learning centers are all being used in a variety of
institutions, especially those with many part-time students. Weekend colleges and summer
residential programs, courses offered at work sites and community centers, clusters of courses
on related topics taught in the same time block, and double-credit courses make more
time for learning. At Empire State College, for example, students design degree
programs organized in manageable time blocks; students may take courses at nearby
institutions, pursue independent study, or work with faculty and other students at Empire
State learning centers. 6. Communicates High Expectations Some examples: In many colleges and universities, students with poor past records or
test scores do extraordinary work. Sometimes they outperform students with good
preparation. The University of Wisconsin-Parkside has communicated high
expectations for underprepared high school students by bringing them to the university for
workshops in academic subjects, study skills, test taking, and time management. In order to
reinforce high expectations, the program involves parents and high school
counselors. The University of California, Berkeley introduced an honors program in the sciences
for under-prepared minority students; a growing number of community colleges are establishing general honors programs for minorities. Special programs like these
help. But most important are the day-to-day, week-in and week-out expectations students
and faculty hold for themselves and for each other in all their classes. 7. Respects Diverse Talents and Ways of Learning Some examples: Individualized degree programs recognize different
interests. Personalized systems of instruction and mastery learning let students work at their
own pace. Contract learning helps students define their own objectives, determine
their learning activities, and define the criteria and methods of evaluation. At the College
of Public and Community Service, a college for older working adults at the University
of Massachusetts-Boston, incoming students have taken an orientation course that
encourages them to reflect on their learning styles Rockland Community College
has offered a life-career-educational planning course. At the University of California,
Irvine, introductory physics students may choose between a lecture-and-textbook course,
a computer-based version of the lecture-and-textbook course, or a computer-based
course based on notes developed by the faculty that allow students to program the computer.
In both computer-based courses, students work on their own and must pass mastery exams. Whose Responsibility Is It? What qualities must this environment have?
There is good evidence that such an environment can be created. When
this happens, faculty members and administrators think of themselves as
educators. Adequate resources are put into creating opportunities for
faculty members, administrators, and students to celebrate and reflect on
their shared purposes. Faculty members receive support and release time
for appropriate professional development activities. Criteria for hiring
and promoting faculty members, administrators, and staff support the
institution's purposes. Advising is considered important. Departments,
programs, and classes are small enough to allow faculty members and
students to have a sense of community, to experience the value of their
contributions, and to confront the consequences of their failures.
States, the federal government and accrediting associations affect the
kind of environment that can develop on campuses in a variety of ways. The
most important is through the allocation of financial support. States also
influence good practice by encouraging sound planning, setting priorities,
mandating standards, and reviewing and approving programs. Regional and
professional accrediting associations require self-study and peer review
in making judgments about programs and institutions.
These sources of support and influence can encourage environments for
good practice in undergraduate education by:
Selected References Adelman, C. (1984). Starting with students: Promising approaches in American higher
education. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. Astin, A.W. (1977). Four critical years: Effects of college on beliefs, attitudes, and
knowledge. Astin, A.W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bayer, A.E. (1975). Faculty composition, institutional structure, and students' college environment. Journal of Higher Education, 46(5), 549-555. Beal, P.E., & Noel, L. (1980). What works in student retention. American College Testing Program. Bouton, C., & Garth, R.Y. (1983). Learning in groups. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
14. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bowen, H.R. (1977). Investment in learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Boyer, C.M., & Ahlgren, A. (1987, July/August). Assessing undergraduates' patterns of credit distribution: Amount and specialization. Journal of Higher Education, 58(4), forthcoming. Boyer, C.M., Ewell, P.T., Finney, J.E., & Mingle, J.R. (1987). Assessment and outcomes measurement A view from the states: Highlights of a new ECS survey. AAHE Bulletin, 39:7, 8-12. Chickering, A.W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chickering, A.W., & McCormick, J. (1973). Personality development and the college experience. Research in Higher Education, 1, 43-70. Chickering, A.W. (1974). Commuting versus resident students: Overcoming the educational inequities of living off
campus. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chickering, A.W., & Associates (1981). The Modern American College: Responding to the New Realities of Diverse Students and a Changing
Society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Claxton, C.S., & Ralston, Y. (1978). Learning styles: Their impacts on teaching and administration. AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education, Research Report No. 10. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Cohen, E.G. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Cross, K.P. (1986, March). Taking teaching seriously. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Higher Education. Eble, K. (1976). Craft of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Feldman, K.A., & Newcomb, T.M. (1969). The impact of college on
students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gamson, Z.F., & Associates. (1984). Liberating education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: A theory of multiple intelligence. New York: Basic Books. Heath, D. (1968). Growing up in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Jacob, P.E. (1957). Changing values in college. New York: Harper. Katz, J., & Associates. (1968). No time for youth. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Katz, J. & Associates. (1968). No time for youth. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass. Keeton, M.T. (Ed.) (1976). Experiential learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kolb, D. (9184). Experiential learning. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kulik, J.A. (1982). Individualized systems of instruction. In Harold E. Mitzel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 2. New York: The Free Press. Lowman, J. (1984). Mastering the techniques of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McKeachie, W.J. (1985). Improving undergraduate education through faculty
development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Messick, S., & Associates, (Ed.) (1976). Individuality in learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Newcomb, T.M. (1943). Personality and social change. New York: Dryden Press. Newcomb, T.M., and others. Persistence and change: A college and its students after twenty-five
years. Huntington, NY: Krieger. Pace, C.R. (1943). Measuring outcomes of college: Fifty years of finding and recommending for future
assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pascarella, E.T. (1980). Student-faculty informal contact and college outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 50, Winter, 545- 595. Pascarella, E.T., Terenzini, P.T., & Wolfe, L.M. (1986). Orientation to college and freshman year persistence/withdrawal decisions. Journal of Higher Education, 57, 155-175. Perry, W.G., Jr. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A
scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Peterson, M.W., Jedamus, P., & Associates. (1981). Improving academic
management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Richardson, R.C., Jr., Fisk, E.C., & Okun, M.A. (1983). Literacy in the open access
college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sanford, N. (Ed.) (1962). The American college. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Wallace, W.L. (1966). Student culture. Chicago: Aldine. Wilson, R.C., Gaff, J.G., Dienst, E.R., Wood, L., & Bavry, J.L. (1975). College professors and their impact upon
students. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Winter, D.G., McClelland, D.C., & Stewart, A.J. (1981). A new case for the liberal arts. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. |