Discipline specific knowledge and abilities

The undergraduate curriculum is largely structured around general education courses (GECs) and coursework toward the academic major. The general education curriculum is intended to support acquisition of broad abilities and skills. During coursework in the academic major students hone these skills through a specialized focus in terms of subject matter, methods, and types of academic work. Discipline-specific learning outcomes are of interest to employers seeking a skilled and informed workforce appropriate to their domain of business, to graduate schools seeking new students, and to individuals seeking a path toward a career or continued schooling. This section of the review uses the undergraduate history curriculum to introduce methods for defining and setting expectations for student learning in the disciplines.

28 2.1.5.1 About History

The discipline of history is broadly defined as the study of the past (Gonzales & Wagenaar, 2005, p. 98) and is a popular major for undergraduates in Europe and the United States. As Michael J. Galgano writes, history entails the “systematic reconstruction of human actions and events, ordered chronologically or topically and firmly rooted in the evidence” (2007). The study of history is not about reporting the past as a series of events but involves examining and interpreting evidence to explain both how and why certain events transpired (Katz and Grossman, 2008).

Historians derive much of their evidence from primary sources and documents produced by actors in the historical events and time periods under study. Stanley Katz and James

Grossman note that students are taught the methods of history so as to gain “the capacity to sift through masses of information and determine what matters, and a capacity for closely reading various texts” (Katz and Grossman, 2008 p. 2). In recent years, internet technologies and mass digitization has ‘democratized’ access to primary sources for historians and students alike

(Galgano, 2007). Historians also use artifacts, oral histories, recordings, and images as sources of evidence.

According to Galgano, Katz, and Grossman, the typical undergraduate history curriculum begins with foundation courses in which students are instructed in the basic methods of the discipline including locating information in print and online resources, using standard reference collections, and gaining familiarity with the secondary literature. In research methods courses students build on this foundation to acquire competencies in analyzing and interpreting secondary and primary literature, using discipline appropriate citation formats, and framing historical questions based on evidence. The history major typically culminates in upper-level seminars and capstone courses in which students demonstrate the skills and abilities acquired during their undergraduate career. Katz and Grossman conducted a survey of history departments at U.S. universities and colleges and found 96% of the institutions in their sample required research

29

methods courses, upper level seminars, or theses (p. 27). While the history ‘research paper’ and an ‘oral report or defense’ remain staples of the history curriculum, students are also encouraged to present their findings using alternate means such as posters, exhibits, or multimedia

presentations (Galgano, 2007).

2.1.5.2 Qualifications frameworks and setting expectations for discipline-specific learning In 1999, education ministers from 29 European countries convened in Bologna, Italy to sign a declaration of commitment to align European higher education systems on several levels. The initial meeting identified several areas of action including the “creation of comparable degrees,” the creation of two cycles of higher education (undergraduate and graduate), creating a system of credits to manage credentials, encouraging educational mobility, and developing a common methodology of quality assurance (Gaston, 2010, p. 3). Cliff Adelman describes the Bologna Process as an ambitious reform of higher education in Europe intended to “define common reference points and operating procedures to create a European Higher Education Area” (Adelman, 2009, p. viii). The purpose of this initiative is to “bring down educational borders” to create a “’zone of mutual trust’ that permits recognition of credentials across borders and

significant international mobility for their students” (p. viii).

In 2003, European education ministers created three levels of ‘qualifications frameworks’ to govern European Higher Education. The ‘transnational’ Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area (QFEHEA) essentially defines expectations of student preparedness for a first cycle degree (bachelor’s degree), a second cycle degree (a master’s degree), and a doctoral degree. Cliff Adelman notes that at the QFEHEA level learning outcomes constructs are defined for each cycle in five areas. The performance expectations at each cycle are ‘ratcheted up’ in complexity.

30

Table 2.4 QFEHEA performance expectations at each degree cycle The reference points of “knowledge and understanding”;

The contexts and modes of application of knowledge and understanding; Fluency in the use of increasingly complex data and information;

Breadth and depth of topics communicated, along with range of audience for that communication; and

Degree of autonomy gained for subsequent learning. Source: Adelman, 2009, p. 27.

National qualifications frameworks are intended to be local adaptations of the QFEHEA guidelines. National frameworks are in various stages of implementation and nations have taken a variety of approaches to implement them (Adelman, 2009, p. 26). The third level includes discipline-specific qualifications frameworks intended to “help the disciplines articulate outlines and benchmarks for subject specific knowledge and generic skills and competencies expected at the summative moment of each level of study” (p. 26). The qualifications frameworks, when complete, will support authentic credentialing throughout participating nations so that a first cycle degree from one country is ‘understandable’ in another. Individual students stand to benefit as public “posting of degree requirements in terms of content and performance thresholds phrased as learning outcomes” become a warranty of sorts for graduates (p. 47). Agreement on what

students are expected to learn, supports an improved understanding of how the cycles are related to one another and for comparing institutions (p. 47).

2.1.5.3 Tuning the disciplines

Discipline-specific frameworks are created through faculty-led exercises called Tuning. Paul Gaston writes that the Tuning process is a means to “translate the expectations of the three- cycle program structure into disciplinary terms … and secure agreement on those terms,

discipline by discipline” (Gaston, 2010, p. 154). The Tuning Process is a consultative methodology in which faculty, graduates, and employers work together to identify common frameworks for the disciplines. The Tuning Process in Europe was completed for nine disciplines in 2005. Adelman notes that there are two levels of learning outcomes identified in a Tuning process: competences and ‘subject-dependent’ general learning outcomes. The four competences

31

are cognitive, methodological, technological, and linguistic and would be construed as broad abilities and assessed as general education outcomes in the U.S. The subject-dependent outcomes follow the performance expectations at the QFEHEA level, yet are written in the context of the discipline (Table 2.5). National and institutional autonomy are respected so the products of a Tuning process describe the learning outcomes expected of graduates but do not prescribe content or teaching methods.

Table 2.5 Subject-specific learning expectations for second cycle graduates

Within a specialized field in the discipline, demonstrates knowledge of current and leading theories, interpretations, methods, and techniques;

Can follow critically and interpret the latest developments in theory and practice in the field; Demonstrates competence in the techniques of independent research, and interprets research results at an advanced level;

Makes an original, though limited, contribution within the canons and appropriate to the practice of a discipline, e.g. thesis, project, performance, composition, exhibit, etc.; and evidences creativity within the various contexts of the discipline.

Source: Adelman, 2009, p. 52. 2.1.5.4 Tuning for History

The Bologna Tuning process for History completed in 2005, included consultations with graduates, employers, and academics (Tuning, 2004). Subject-specific learning outcomes are defined at the course level for non-majors and for graduates at the first and second cycles and fourteen competences were defined in three clusters. The competences for history (see Table 2.6) are expressed as abilities, capacities, or awareness, such as ‘ability to identify historical problems’ or ‘capacity to find new ways of using sources’ (p. 102).

Table 2.6 Learning outcome expectations for first-cycle graduates in History

Possess general knowledge and orientation with respect to the methodologies, tools, and issues of all the broad chronological divisions in which history is normally divided, from ancient to recent times

Have specific knowledge of at least one of the above periods or of a diachronic theme Be aware of how historical interests, categories, and problems change with time and how historiographical debate is linked to political and cultural concern of each epoch.

Have shown his/her ability to complete and present in oral and written form – according to the statute of the discipline – a medium length piece of research which demonstrates the ability to retrieve bibliographical information and primary sources and use them to address a

historiographical problem. Source: Tuning, 2005, p. 102.

32 2.1.5.5 Tuning USA

In 2009, the Lumina Foundation funded three Tuning USA pilot projects in Utah, Indiana, and Minnesota (Lumina, 2009) to evaluate the process in the United States. These three states formed teams to conduct tuning projects in a variety of disciplines including chemistry, education, biology, graphic design, and history. Each project produced general educational outcomes and discipline-specific learning outcomes to be expected of holders of bachelor’s degrees and master’s degrees within each discipline. For instance, the Indiana team defined subject-specific outcomes which they labeled ‘awareness’ and defined broad competencies in four categories: thinking and analytical competencies, personal motivation and initiation competencies, communication competencies, and external awareness competencies. Each of these learning objectives is expressed as an action such as ‘place new data and interpretations into context’ and ‘demonstrate acquired knowledge, understanding, and skills in an extended (final) research paper, including the critical use of primary sources’ (Indiana Commission for Higher Education, 2010, p. 42-44; Wokeck, 2010). Competencies identified by the Indiana project are reproduced in Appendix B. The Utah State University History department used and applied the results from the Utah Tuning project to generate a rubric for evaluating capstone history coursework (Utah State University History Department, 2009). The faculty-driven process served as a catalyst for articulating evaluative standards within the department for all courses in the curriculum (McInerney, 2011).