How Tuning is making a difference (ppt)

What is Tuning?
A collaborative, faculty-driven process that identifies what a
student should know and be able to do in a chosen
discipline at the completion of a degree by:
• Defining areas of competency
• Identifying learning outcomes
• Scaling competencies and outcomes to degree level
Tuning’s Key Premises
• Curricula should not be standardized
• Faculty control the discipline
• Academic autonomy and flexibility are essential
Tuning in the US: 2009-2010
Three pilot states
• Indiana
• Minnesota
• Utah
Six initial disciplines
• History
• Biology
• Chemistry
• Physics
• Elementary Education
• Graphic Design
Tuning in the US: 2010-2011
• 3 rounds of Tuning
• Biology
• Elementary
• Business
• Nursing
• Social Work
Regional Tuning in the US: 2011-2013
Midwestern Higher Education Compact (MHEC)
National Tuning in the US: 2012-2015
American Historical Association (AHA)
Tuning Educational Structures in the US
Lumina Foundation initiated Tuning USA to address the
foundation’s Goal 2025:
Increase the percentage of Americans with
high-quality degrees and credentials
from 39 percent to 60 percent by the year 2025
Tuning’s Culture of Collaboration
• Creates space for innovation—emphasizes that education
is about learning, not credit hours
• Student-centered degree—emphasizes what students must
accomplish over what should be taught
• Makes degree-level expectations explicit for students
• Assures quality for internal (students) & external (transfer
institutions) stakeholders
• Synergizes with other educational priorities
• Underrepresented populations
• Student preparation and success
MHEC Cross-State Tuning project
Three state project (Illinois, Indiana, Missouri)
Why tune across state lines?
• Leverage faculty allegiance to the discipline as primary
• Identify the challenges involved in Tuning outside of a single
state context
• Enable faculty to “compare notes” about policies and practices
in their individual states
Why Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri?
• Utilize pilot state experience (Indiana)
• Desire for contiguous states (along with Kentucky)
• Capture large metropolitan areas with movement of human
capital across state lines (Chicago and St. Louis)
• Coordinating board states
Why is MHEC involved with Tuning?
• Consistent with MHEC mission of “Advancing
Education Through Cooperation” and related
organizational objectives to:
Enhance member states’ ability to maximize higher
education opportunity and outcomes
Promote improved student access, affordability and
Encourage quality programs and services
Facilitate dialogue among higher education stakeholders
to improve higher education policy and practice
MHEC Cross-State Tuning project
• Why psychology and marketing?
• Have not been tuned previously in the U.S.
• Among the most popular majors and degree programs (and
a “default” or “fall back” major for many)
Programs at the two-year, four-year, and graduate levels (or
so we thought)
Multiple, varied career/graduate paths
Broad range of application of knowledge and developed
Psychology – among the disciplines most likely to lead to
hostile questioning from family members as to what kind of
job could possibly be secured with such a major
MHEC Tuning Steps
• “Pre-launch” meetings with SHEEO agency reps and
other key individuals in the three states
Involvement of SHEEO agencies, system personnel,
and independent associations to identify faculty
Identification of project evaluator and evaluative
Opening convening in November 2011
Monthly workgroup meetings January to June 2012
Engage SHEEO agency personnel as supporters and
Presentations (with faculty) during state visits and at
MHEC Tuning Team Structure
Tuning group composition
• Fifteen faculty on each disciplinary team (psychology
and marketing) – 5 from each state
• Tenured or senior faculty engaged in the teaching of
• Sector representation:
o One from a public research university
o One from a public comprehensive university
o Two from a public two-year degree granting college
o One from a private/independent college
Progress To Date
• Workgroups have completed Steps 1 and 2:
• Draft of general/core competencies and learning
outcomes for (each) degree level
• Draft of discipline specific competencies and learning
outcomes for (each) degree level
• Mapping of career pathways
• The workgroups are now focused on gathering
stakeholder feedback on their drafted competencies and
learning outcomes
Observations and Challenges
• Enhanced awareness and heightened respect for
colleagues at other types of institutions
• Personal enjoyment and professional growth of
• Groups need more time to get to know each
other before diving into work
• Role differences in psychology: researchers vs.
clinicians (and APS vs. APA)
Observations and Challenges
• What to do with existing curriculum and
outcomes statements from professional
associations (such as the APA)
• The associate degree problem
• The master’s degree problem!
• General/core vs. specific/disciplinary
• Appropriate role for SHEEO agencies as well as
the project staff (“bottom up” vs. “top down”
Post-Secondary Participation in Texas
Fall 2011
Total Fall 2011
Public Universities
Public Two-Year Colleges
All Health-Related
Independent Col. & Univ.
Career Colleges
What is the Tuning Texas Initiative?
process; faculty
work together
across sectors
Includes input from
graduates, and
Focus is first on the
discipline, then on
Programs Tuned/Being Tuned
• Tuning 2010 (finalized):
• Civil Engineering, Industrial Engineering, Electrical
Engineering, Mechanical Engineering
• Tuning 2011 (final drafts):
• Chemical Engineering, Biomedical Engineering,
Biology, Chemistry
• Tuning 2012 (forthcoming):
• Mathematics, Business, Computer and Information
Sciences, Management Information Systems
Map of Institutions with Faculty on Texas
Tuning Committees
Tuning of Civil Engineering
• The content of the following slides has been
extracted from the May 2011 document,
“Tuning of Civil Engineering.”
• The full document is available online at:
CE Expertise Profile
CE Key Competencies Diagram
CE Employment Profile
Participants to Date in the Voluntary Course Transfer
Agreements Pertaining to Bachelor of Science Degrees in
Civil, Electrical, Industrial, and Mechanical Engineering
For more information, please visit:
Is Tuning Making a Difference in the
Culture of Higher Education?
The Utah Experience
Past and Present
• 2009
- History and Physics (associate and bachelor’s)
• 2012
- History and Physics (masters and secondary
- General Education Mathematics
- Elementary Education
Common Core State Standards
- Degree Qualifications Profile
• Faculty Driven (bureaucrats out of way)
• Muddling (collaboration)
- Time and space for intellectual exploration
• Learning is not linear
• Add depth and coherence
To what students learn
To how students learn
To how they demonstrate learning
To how we teach
Outgrowth of Tuning
• Business Innovation Factory
• American Historical Association
• Convergence with other projects
Quality Collaboratives (AAC&U)
Western Interstate Passport Initiative (WICHE)
Next Steps
• Integrate into department learning outcomes.
• Work more closely with regional, specialized
• Change conversation from seat time and credit
to learning outcomes and competencies.
• Introduce Degree Qualifications Profile:
- Transparency and coherence in discipline
along Essential Learning Outcomes
• Continuity
- Faculty change roles
- Part-time faculty
- Elementary Education
- Time
Learning takes practice
Learning is not linear
Is Tuning making a
difference in the culture
of higher education?
• Nascent
• Too early to make definitive statements
• Have Faith!
For more information…
For more information on Tuning USA, please visit:
For more specific information on the Tuning Texas
Initiative, please visit:
Tuning USA Guide:

similar documents