We know, from decades of research on college impact, what kinds of programs and behaviors influence student learning. This, after all, is what “quality” is all about.

We know that higher levels of student-faculty interaction lead to greater cognitive and affective gains (the latter being gains in such areas as values, attitudes, and self-concept). We know that the sense of belonging on campus influences retention and degree attainment. We know that academic-enrichment activities such as living-learning communities, honors programs, and study abroad all influence learning in college. And there are more.

Colleges that successfully improve how students learn also actively examine how well they foster these opportunities. They use that data to improve access to faculty, increase students’ sense of belonging, and enhance academic-enrichment programs for all types of students.

Yet all too often accreditation focuses less on so-called “indirect measures” and more on “direct measures” of student learning that are based on subjecting small, sometimes nonrepresentative samples of student populations to standardized tests.

Do we need to assess student learning directly? Yes, of course we do, in many ways—using tests, rubrics, and portfolios. But it cannot end there.

Assessing levels of learning does not always tell us much about how to improve what and how students learn. So many resources are consumed in purchasing these standardized-test services (and then in finding students willing to participate in such endeavors) that less money and time are available for the kinds of investigations that would provide usable information on the intermediate factors that lead to gains in learning.

Standardized-test results merely describe student learning. What we need is to direct and inspire change to improve the processes that foster learning in college.

John Pryor is director of the Cooperative Institutional Research Program at the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles.