The Inspector General's Office of the U.S. Education Department landed a stinging attack on an accreditor last month, with some potentially far-reaching ramifications, particularly for those trying to develop creative new models for higher education.
In an unusual "alert memorandum," the office lambasted a decision by the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools to accredit the for-profit American InterContinental University—despite qualms over how that institution awards credits for some of its distance-education courses. The alert said the decision "calls into question" the commission's ability to verify quality education.
The alert, which also asked the Education Department to consider limiting, suspending, or terminating the commission's authority as a federally approved accreditor, raised the specter of a long and bureaucratic spat. (Any action would have little immediate effect on the more than 1,000 institutions it accredits in 19 states.)
And to the dismay of many who advocate on behalf of proprietary colleges, the high-profile move may also serve to stir simmering suspicions about the academic rigor of some for-profit universities, despite assurances from a spokesman for the university's parent company that the accelerated five-week, nine-credit courses at issue were "totally consistent with good practice and contemporary learning theory."
Still, many saw the potential for this brouhaha to jump-start a long-overdue debate: In the era of distance education and a growing movement toward the "unbundling" of higher education to allow for study outside traditional classroom formats, has the "credit hour" become a relic?
The credit hour "is the coin of the realm, but it's badly in need of an update," argues Robert W. Mendenhall, president of Western Governors University, the 10-year-old nonprofit institution known for its competency-based system for awarding degrees. "It's time we measured learning rather than time."
Mr. Mendenhall says many of the discussions about higher-education financing, quality, and accountability could be more productive "if we could redefine credit hour as a 'chunk of learning.'" After all, he notes, the issue for governments is whether they are getting their money's worth. "Ultimately they want to pay for learning, not for time. I don't know if they know that yet."
Beyond the Credit Hour
It's also hard to see how the credit-hour mentality fits with efforts like those of a new organization called DGREE. Backed by the Lumina Foundation for Education, the group will be convening 100 top thinkers this week from the world of academe and business (with a heavy presence from Silicon Valley) to begin creating a new college "ecosystem." The idea includes new tools, like a personalized electronic transcript, to help students complete their degrees, from a host of traditional and unconventional providers.
Higher education is moving past the point where "everybody assumes you have to have a lecture, plus a book, and it has to happen in a classroom," says Suzanne Walsh, of Lumina. In this new environment, she asks, do we really need the credit hour as a pricing measure, a financing measure, or even a faculty-workload measure?
Ms. Walsh, for one, says it is outliving its purpose and calls that the "next hot issue" for those seeking creative solutions to the cost of college—and potentially one of the most intractable: "It's almost up there with tenure."
Another group that has been thinking a lot about the credit hour is the National Center for Academic Transformation, a consulting organization that encourages colleges to use distance education and other forms of information technology to develop and deliver courses more effectively and inexpensively. "The concept of a credit hour based on seat time is a relic," says Carol A. Twigg, the group's president. "But you have to have some kind of a currency that can be traded."
The challenge, says Ms Twigg, is to find a way to measure the course content "whether it's delivered at a distance or in an accelerated format."
"We've got hundreds of years of understanding of what a credit hour represents, whether you're going to class or not going to class," says Ms. Twigg. "The fact that it's called 'hour' is a problem."
If the inspector general's actions result in accreditors being pushed to strictly define credit hours. she says, "That would be a big mistake."
New Definitions
Meanwhile, the Education Department may itself take that step. Last month, during negotiations with 16 representatives of colleges and associations over new rules to govern federal student aid, the department proposed its own credit-hour definition, based on the Carnegie Unit (one credit would equal one hour of class time or direct faculty instruction and two hours of out-of-class work per week for approximately 15 weeks; in cases where there was no formal class, the college, with the accord of its accreditor, could establish equivalents). It's uncertain if this proposal will be adopted. Negotiators are expected to vote on the credit-hour definition, along with other proposed rules, in late January.
The scathing report on the North Central commission was not the first time the Office of Inspector General has challenged a regional accreditor over the credit-hour issue. In two separate reviews this fall, the office, an independent arm of the Education Department, raised similar questions about the standards used by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. In both instances, the inspector general asserted that the accreditors' lack of consistent standards on credit hours could result in the inflating of credits and the over-awarding of federal student-aid funds.
In truth, of course, there has always been a bit of a fiction about credit hours as a universal measure of education. Under "a gentlemanly presumption," credit hours were mostly considered to be "equivalent across all kinds of institutions," says Mitchell L. Stevens, an associate professor of education at Stanford University who specializes in the sociology of higher education.
But now, the many models for the delivery of teaching and the diversity among institutions make "the fiction difficult or impossible to sustain," Mr. Stevens says.
The credit hour by itself, he says, "isn't a measure of quality, it's about quantity."
Mr. Stevens says the inspector general's attack on the North Central commission could be a landmark event. At a time when the general public is questioning the cost and value of higher education, this could "force the sector to measure quality in addition to quantity," he says. And for for-profit colleges, because "their quality is suspect" to some, there's an even greater opportunity. "The proprietary sector has a huge incentive to demonstrate quality."
Perhaps he's right. But don't look for American InterContinental's accelerated course format to be the test case. Despite its spirited defense of the approach, the institution says it began developing an alternate structure after initial accreditation by the Higher Learning Commission in May, and now says it may start phasing out the five-week, nine-credit courses as early as February.
But the question of what a credit hour means today, and in the future, isn't going away anytime soon.
Comments
1. 11167997 - January 04, 2010 at 07:53 am
First, this is not a new discussion: the 1984 U.S. Department of Ed sponsored National Study Group on Higher Education recommended serious revisiting and revamping of an abused credit system in "Involvement in Learning."
Second, as my "The Bologna Process for U.S. Eyes" (2009) pointed out in some detail, we have a lot to learn from the European attempts to establish a credit system based on student workload, not faculty contact hours, combined with student learning outcomes. The Euro-system has its obvious imperfections, and only in countries which (a) take the analysis of student workload seriously and (b) couple it with classifying courses by level of challenge does the credit system inspire confidence. We could not reconstruct our credit system based on student workload 'cause that would necessitate reprogramming of at least 50 years of registrars' records, but we could take on the task of learning what levels of challenge means, classifying our courses appropriately (pre-requisites don't do the job), and recalibrating degree requirements so that, e.g. 40 percent of credits must be at (let us say) "Level 6," 65 percent at "Levels 5 and 6," etc. It's a big job, but a promising avenue to accountability that current pronouncements on that topic thoroughly miss.
Cliff Adelman, Institute for Higher Educaton Policy
2. rocketman81601 - January 04, 2010 at 09:00 am
This can be done, and to the benefit of institutions and students alike, but it requires a timeworn formula for success: a framework, training, and willpower. Fifteen years ago I was able to convince the Colorado state higher education agency to allow institutions to use a framework for ensuring that their instructional activities that were off-clock were equivalent to seat-time rules. It wasn't much in the way of additional work for academics or bean counters but it did require someone in the institution's hierarchy to sign off. The framework was widely ignored even at a time when online education was booming, signifying a lack of training and perhaps willpower. Think intractable. All of this is to salute Lumina's efforts to have a breakthrough and to suggest a fresh look at the credit hour is overdue by several decades.
3. rocketman81601 - January 04, 2010 at 09:20 am
Forgot to add my name to the previous comment: Rick Voorhees, Voorhees Group LLC
4. mshebbard - January 04, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Cliff's assertions are correct. The current debate must occur in the framework of developing an accurate method of recording student achievement in terms of competencies and learning outcomes. As a Registrar, I believe that the student transcript is a record of the student's performance and mastery of course/program learning outcomes. To simply do away with the credit system because it is outdated does not seem to be a reasonable justification. The trascript is simply a tool of measurement and technically a "report" of student performance chronologically. The focus is on student learning and how to accurately record each student's performance. Perhaps the current system of transcripting needs to be rethought in terms of what Cliff proposes. Attacking the issue of the credit hour system seems to be the wrong direction in which to take this debate. The issue seems to be how to we better record and track student learning. The issue is not the transcript, but establishing core learning outcomes that can be shared and "traded" between institutions. With our new technologies, we ought to be able to find a way to do the work that Cliff suggests and mold this into a format that will be readable and understandable.
Matt Hebbard
5. 11180037 - January 04, 2010 at 01:17 pm
Such understatement: "In truth, of course, there has always been a bit of a fiction about credit hours as a universal measure of education," as the fiction of the Carnegie Unit is so broad as to more correctly represent an absurd contrivance. This, of course, is a specialty shared by academics and politicians, both of which prefer the wordsmith approach to actual problem solving and the resultant repercussions. WGU's approach needs serious review and consideration if real progress is to be made; and for those interested in retooling the Carnegie Unit, you should be required to definitively state how the two hours out-of-class work per lecture hour would be defended beyond wishful thinking or such Orwellian measures as would be necessary for validation.
6. 11128103 - January 04, 2010 at 02:21 pm
For thirty-five years I have worked both as administrator and faculty member in an accredited non-course-based distance learning format (with an online option for the last five years) and, while I share the critique so well articulated above, I do not see even a hint of an awareness of two key components of learning: 1) sustained reflection over a sufficient amount of time on one's new learning; and 2) extensive in-depth written dialogue between individual learner and faculty member on the issues raised by the new learning. Undergraduate learning is as much about process as it is about content. The evolution of a thoughtful mental experience along with a systematic increase in critical thinking and academic and/or creative writing skills cannot be gained in short intensive chunks of time regardless of the "amount" of newly learned content. Thus, quantity of "time in" as well as quality must continue to be a concern as we all agree the old "seat time" measurement needs to be updated. Victor P. Ehly, Liberal Studies faculty, Union Institute & University
7. ccnorm - January 04, 2010 at 02:29 pm
Hear, hear 11128103! A little reflective thought is required before deconstructing something that works, please! Credit hours protect students who need the time to digest and understand the material presented. Talking about student workload is highly relevant for most students, not the few most talented or those who are looking for a quick way through the curriculum at any cost, whether to themselves or their ultimate employers.
8. dowlohnes - January 04, 2010 at 04:00 pm
I must say this article has elicited some of the most well-conceived (and civilized) responses as one might hope for on a frequently uncivilized medium.
Having toiled in these vineyards for upwards of 40 years, I likewise commend 11128103 for inserting the caveat that "time on task" (to use an industrial-era term) has meaning. However, what that meaning is varies greatly: learning creative writing skills is akin to the old saw about the pedestrian asking another "How do I get to Carnegie Hall." The response, of course, is "Practice, practice, practice." There are other areas where engagement can appropriately be more intense, and intensive. The whole point here is that while every course (or module or whatever the term de jour may be) must afford the learning the right amount of time to in fact master the subject and the skills (very broadly defined), that has nothing to do with "seat time" or some multiple of it as representing "study time." We debase the learning process by trying to apply a temporal formula when what we need to do is properly define the desired outcomes, attach the appropriate learning strategy, and then perhaps define the temporal expectations. The Carnegie Unit has been a very useful surrogate for measuring teaching-learning. It might even have worked, somewhat, when all there was was butts-in-seats. But that time is long gone, and with it the utility of such rigid quantitative measures.
This is an exceptionally important debate, and odd as it may seem today we may well end up thanking the Inspector General for bringing it to the fore, although I would not expect the outcome to be what the bureaucracy might prefer. Numbers are s-o-o-o much easier...
9. dowlohnes - January 04, 2010 at 04:09 pm
ooops. Like Rocketman, I forgot to add my name: Mike Goldstein.
10. tabeles - January 04, 2010 at 04:37 pm
The reluctance to tackle the "credit hour" lies with the realization that it calls into question a college degree in 3-credit "chunks" like merit badges collected for a rank in scouting or the familiar green stamps to fill a coupon book. As several have noted, the units are a convenient fiction as long as no one call the question, the king has no clothes! competency based portfolios are messes and require "work" on the part of students, faculty and administrations. The rise of service-learning, experiential learning, problem/project based education in the K-12 schools says it can be done. Unfortunately it, also, creates an inconvenience for faculty whose promotion and tenure is only partially based on providing an educational experience. It challenges the "Idea of the University" as historically constructed. The many alternative paths question the old production line model, age-defined, lock-step, cohorts. And it becomes frustrating to government bureaucrats who want a simple measure to validate the distribution of public money. It is not just recasting 50 years of registrar records, it charges the academic institutions preK->gray to rethink. It is not just the for profits, its the community colleges now offering bachelor degrees and students cramming 24 credits in a semester because the quantity above a base is free.
The Bolgna Process tweaks the credit idea and falls into the same trap. In the age of innovation and change in knowledge and knowledge access, there is a danger in seeking uniformity in time and across institutions rather than seeking competencies-demonstrated in other than boxes checked on a transcript.
tom abeles, editor
On the Horizon
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/oth.htm
11. ckunert - January 04, 2010 at 07:47 pm
What seems apparent in all the comments made to this point is that there are no perfect systems for evaluating the outcomes of education. I believe the danger the Education Department is addressing must remain central in the discussion. In a world where there are no perfect systems, how do we protect against abuses of the educational process? While the traditional credit hours certainly are not the ideal, I've never seen anyone offer a realistic alternative. Therefore, until that happens (and I'm very open to it) I suggest that we use what we have intelligently, knowing that it is, like any other learning assessment tool, fundamentally limited. We simply should not condone a situation in which schools award inflated amounts of credit for very little participation unless they can demonstrate somehow that the learning that occurs is, in fact, equal to that of who hold to requirements for greater time involved in the learning process. Say what you will but time is an important factor in the learning equation.
Chuck Kunert
Dean of Theology, Arts, & Sciences
Concordia University
Portland, OR
12. dowlohnes - January 04, 2010 at 08:27 pm
Dean Kunert suggests the challenge for those who would replace the temporally-based credit hour lies in the difficulty to "demonstrate somehow that the learning that occurs is, in fact, equal to that of who hold to requirements for greater time involved in the learning process."
I suggest that a key weakness of that argument lies in the fact that scheduled classroom time does not necessarily correlate with time "involved in the learning process." Many if not most institutions no longer require classroom attendance, and even if a student is seated in class what he or she does on an open laptop may have precious little to do with what is happening up front; the law school model is instructive (if not necessarily admirable) -- whether or not one attends class is essentially irrelevant; one's grade is based on an anonymous written exam that purports to test what one has learned over the three months or so that constitute a semester. (I know, I know. At small distinguished liberal arts colleges like that of Dean Kunert student engagement in the classroom is the norm. Sadly, that is the (decreasingly) small exception in American higher education.)
The Carnegie Unit-based credit hour has been a very convenient substitute for direct measurement of learning. And it has probably been sufficient for the purpose in the context of the traditional classroom-based model. (Parenthetically, I hesitate to use the term "traditional" and "classroom-based" as necessarily related: what we still refer to, perhaps patronizingly, as "non-traditional" learning has been around in significant quantity for a half-century. Recall the Union of Experimenting Colleges and Universities of the 1960s, progenitor of many remarkable institutions. But I digress.)
Learning that is not classroom-based is forcing a reassessment of how learning actually should be measured. It certainly will not be the Carnegie Unit that prevails.
Mike Goldstein
Practice Leader, Higher Education
Dow Lohnes
mgoldstein@dowlohnes.com
13. educationfrontlines - January 07, 2010 at 04:11 pm
You cannot sit for the medical boards unless you have been through medical school. And you cannot sit for the bar exam until you have finished law school. Why? It is not your ability to study for an exam that gives you the skills to conduct surgery or prepare a case, but the coursework you have gone through. The exam is but a severely limited dipstick to approximately assess if you have achieved some of the knowledge and skills that are amenable to testing.
K-12 education went down this seat-time-doesn't-count fad under "outcomes based education" over a decade ago, and we are seeing weaker students in college who passed a narrow test rather than sat through and participated in rich class experiences. It is also an insult to characterize coursework as mere seat time since instructors do administer quizzes and tests to assess students knowledge and skills. And students who have put in "seat time" but learned nothing flunk and have to "sit again." And it is the function of faculty peer evaluation of new faculty, as well as the departmental chair, to ensure that the teacher is effective in maintaining rigor of the course.
It is not surprising that this push to abandon the Carnegie Unit (which incidently is a K-12 unit developed in 1906, with 120 hours = one high school credit) mostly comes from non-face-to-face or online sources. The university credit system with a 3 credit hour lecture course meeting three hours a week for a semester (labs or practica requiring 2-3 times more time) is often equated with the Carnegie unit, but technically is not. And it is the cyberspace courses that have difficulty demonstrating they require the time needed for full learning.
But under new tuition-driven business models, there are already many tech school and community college outreach courses that are violating the credit definitions and offering a 3 credit hour general ed course in two weekends. And many online programs are already sliding down a slippery slope into diploma mills because they focus only on a test, and teach-to-the-test. And where is the data that show that you can learn faster online? From the little valid research available, online learning is slower and communication is less efficient and more tedious.
The value of the U.S. degree, as well as the quality of future physicians and lawyers, will be lost if education is simplified to a test. We know that it takes time to listen, learn, discuss, contemplate, and practice. The credit hour is our defense against the cheapening of the U.S. degree.
Over a thousand years ago, the Chinese philosopher Chu Hsi stated: "A scholar should be able to distinguish between the examinations and an education."
John Richard Schrock