Phát triển Đổi mới Sáng tạo trong Giáo dục Đại học Hoa Kỳ: Nghiên cứu điển hình về Giáo dục Dựa trên Năng lực

DEVELOPING A DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION IN U. HIGHER EDUCATION: A CASE STUDY OF COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION AT COLLEGE FOR AMERICA by Sarah Elizabeth Wilson Hansen B., Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 2006 B., Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 2006 M., University of Maryland, 2008 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the School of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2016 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF EDUCATION This dissertation was presented by Sarah E. Hansen It was defended on November 17, 2016 and approved by Dr. William Bickel, Associate Professor, Administrative and Policy Studies Dr.

James Jacob, Associate Professor, Administrative and Policy Studies Dr. Kristin Jones, Instructional Design Program Management Director/Academic Excellence, University of Washington Dr. Olson, Professor of Business Administration, Katz Graduate School of Business Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Sutin, Clinical Professor, Administrative and Policy Studies ii Copyright © by Sarah E.

Hansen 2016 iii DEVELOPING A DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION IN U. HIGHER EDUCATION: A CASE STUDY OF COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION AT COLLEGE FOR AMERICA Sarah Hansen, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2016 Direct assessment competency-based education (CBE) is an online, self-directed learning innovation that is disrupting higher education. This study examined the development and early diffusion of direct assessment CBE at a private, nonprofit university. The purpose of this case study was to investigate the presence of organizational factors and the ways in which they affect planning, development, quality assurance, and delivery of the direct assessment CBE learning model.

This study was conducted at Southern New Hampshire University’s College for America (CfA). Ten executive leaders and CfA administrators were interviewed during this study. The interview guide was designed to elicit participants’ perceptions of the mission and vision of CfA, the involvement of external stakeholders in CfA’s development, strategies and challenges considered during CfA’s planning and implementation, the organizational structure and dissemination of resources between CfA and the university, critical success factors affecting CfA’s development, practices to ensure that quality learning and demonstration of learning occur, and how success is measured and evaluated. The researcher found that the missions of SNHU and CfA seem strongly aligned in support of student success and innovative learning models.

CfA’s culture incorporates these iv mission-oriented values as well as an appreciation for emergent, iterative improvement within an ongoing cycle of effort and feedback. This cycle is evident in CfA’s direct assessment learning model and promotes organizational learning across its employees. A strategic vision and implementation process for CfA were evident, following steps from Clayton Christensen’s disruptive innovation theory. Moreover, a balance between employee autonomy, leadership support, organizational decentralization, and dedicated resources (at the university and divisional level) were among the factors respondents consider critical to CfA’s development.

The findings suggest that organizational factors did influence the adoption and development of direct assessment CBE at College for America. Accordingly, leaders who are in the planning stages of an innovative project should contemplate their organization’s culture, how the organization is structured, the resources available to support the project, the extent to which project staff roles will depart from traditional employee roles within the institution, and how much autonomy and leadership support will be given to individuals in these roles. v TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .1 PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY .3 DEFINITION OF TERMS .4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY .5 OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY .0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE .1 DIRECT ASSESSMENT CBE AS DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION .1 History of Competency-Based Education in the United States .2 The Emergence of Direct Assessment CBE .3 Direct Assessment CBE as a Disruptive Innovation.2 DIFFUSION OF CBE RESEARCH MODEL .1 Diffusion of Innovation Theory .2 Developing a Research Model for Direct Assessment CBE .1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY .2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS & PROPOSITIONS .3 UNIT OF ANALYSIS.4 LINKING DATA TO THE PROPOSITIONS .5 CRITERIA FOR INTERPRETING FINDINGS .2 PROCESSES OF IMPLEMENTATION .3 LOCUS OF CONTROL .1 ANSWERING THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS .2 IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH .1 Implications for Practice .2 Implications for the Higher Education Industry .3 Implications for Policy .4 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research. 157 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1.

Task Complexity Factors Affecting the Acceptance of Direct Assessment CBE. Organizational Factors Affecting Perceptions of Direct Assessment CBE. Individual Factors Affecting Perceptions of Direct Assessment CBE. Organic Growth Factors Affecting Perceptions of Direct Assessment CBE.

Perceived Usefulness of Direct Assessment CBE. Perceived User Friendliness of Direct Assessment CBE. Perceived Voluntariness of Direct Assessment CBE. Subject Norms Surrounding Direct Assessment CBE.

Matrix of Study Propositions and Sources of Information. Functional Areas of College for America. Summary of Findings. 134 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.

Organizational Factors Affecting the Diffusion of Direct Assessment CBE. Model of Pattern Matching Process. CfA Curriculum and Assessment Development Process. Competency Areas in CfA Degrees.

CfA Sample Project Instructions for a BA in Healthcare Management. CfA Sample Project Rubric for a BA in Healthcare Management. (De)Centralization of Functions at SNHU. Cloud of Interviewees’ Most Frequently Stated Words.

Interviewees’ Most Commonly Linked Words. 127 x PREFACE Thank you to my family for your love and support, and especially to Sean for always being there no matter what the request or time of day. Sincere thanks to my doctoral committee members, who prompted me to balance solid academic research with the understanding, as Dr. Bickel constantly reminded me, that this is my first big study, not my last! Thanks as well to President Paul LeBlanc and the folks at SNHU and College for America for welcoming me and sharing insightful perspectives.

A special thanks to the professors throughout my higher education experience who motivated, challenged, and inspired me, including but not limited to: Barb Blackledge, Lynn Botehlo, Faedra Carpenter, Wendy Carse, Janet Goebel, Barbara Kraszewski, Laurie Frederick Meer, Charles Moseley, and Stu Sutin.0 INTRODUCTION I think we’re at a moment of time where the meaning and quality of a credential is in question. The exclusivity of the institution in having control over credentials is under challenge, if not direct assault. There are a lot of entities that are selling credentials. They are saying that there are all kinds of learning that are not degree-based and not necessarily academic institution-based.

Therefore, the next five to ten years will be about defining what credentials [academic institutions] are best suited for and what we are most credible at certifying. 31) Commonly referred to as the Information Age, the 21st century has been defined largely through the Digital Revolution, in which rapid technological advances have led to a global, knowledge economy. These advances have directly influenced the content, delivery, and value of higher education. Hawkins (2007) argues that a dominant educational paradigm persists in which economic development has become the primary function of higher education.

Moravec (2008) incorporates this economic imperative into his paradigm of knowledge production, asserting that the common mode of exchange in higher education is now the design, customization, and co- construction of goods and services. Moreover, educational stakeholders engaged in this exchange expect value-added features and returns on their investments. Such technological and cultural changes might seem challenging enough for higher education institutions (HEIs), but they are also occurring within an environment of economic crisis. As state and national budgets continue to decrease their educational spending, and students are made to bear more of the tuition costs, stakeholders on all sides of the equation consistently demand that institutions increase access, affordability, and quality (Immerwahr, Johnson, and Gasbarra, 2008).

12 Several scholars (Marshall, 2011; McFarlane 2011; Norris et al., 2013) posit that technology will remain a central driver of organizational change as higher education leadership seeks to address these issues. Indeed, digital technologies have driven disruptive change in higher education—and in organizations throughout the globe—since the turn of the 21st century. In particular, online learning has become a common element of higher education during this time.5% of higher education institutions offer some form of online coursework, online enrollment accounts for one-third of all higher education enrollments, and 70% of chief academic officers agree online education must be incorporated into their long-term institutional strategy (Allen and Seaman, 2013). Moreover, the percentage of institutions offering fully-online degree programs has doubled over the past 10 years (from 34.

In other words, within two decades, online education has evolved from an entirely new learning tool to a common and integral component of higher education. However, some technological changes have been more ephemeral or fad-like, temporarily disrupting higher education practices but then fading to the background. Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs) stand as one such fad. While it surged into the higher education scene with vigor in 2008, it has since dwindled, as Allen and Seaman (2015) report, only 8% of institutions have MOOCs, and an overwhelming 87% are either undecided or unwilling to adopt this model.

Still, technological innovations in higher education abound, and online competency- based education (CBE) marks the latest in this line of disruptive technologies. Unlike MOOCs, CBE is gaining in prominence, most notably visible in the U. Department of Education’s approval—on an experimental basis—of federal financial aid for direct assessment (Bergeron, 2013) and the current funding streams from the U. government and foundations like Lumina and Bill and Melinda Gates specifically earmarked for CBE experimentation in higher education.

13 Cavanaugh (2013) suggests that historic emphasis on credits earned has overshadowed authentic assessment of learning outcomes, perpetuating subjective letter-grading that fails to accurately reflect levels of student learning. In contrast, online CBE—in particular, the direct assessment approach—favors education and assessment that is self-paced, asynchronous, industry-driven, and proficiency-based. To contemporary stakeholders, competency-based education is thus a tantalizing alternative to the traditional, arguably archaic model of higher education. Direct assessment CBE could be a fad that quickly dissipates, or it could be a lasting innovation with serious implications for higher education.

Accordingly, this dissertation investigates the defining features of direct assessment CBE, with focus on direct assessment as a distinct departure from traditional modes of higher education. I review available literature to understand direct assessment’s diffusion into higher education and why it is having such an influence in the field, particularly from the lens of educational access, affordability, and quality. Finally, this dissertation uses a case study to explore the successful implementation of a direct assessment model at an institution of higher education.1 PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY If one accepts that the direct assessment approach to CBE may be a lasting disruptive innovation, then it is important to learn about the organizational factors and change management practices that will aid in its adoption at other institutions. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to identify such factors and attempt to discern the ways in which they affect the planning, development, quality assurance, and delivery of direct assessment in higher education.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS To answer the overarching question of why certain nonprofit institutions of higher education are experiencing success in diffusing online competency-based education, I will consider the following research questions in this study: 1.

When examining the implementation of a direct assessment CBE program at an institution of higher education, what organizational factors are present? 2. How do these organizational factors influence the diffusion of the direct assessment program? These questions constitute the broad scope of this research study, and they are described in further detail with corresponding study propositions in Chapter 3. Largely, I hypothesize that the presence of select organizational factors, such as leadership support, strategic vision, and processes for implementation, positively affect the successful adoption of direct assessment.3 DEFINITION OF TERMS The following terms are defined as they apply to this study. Competency-based Education (CBE): There are many different types of CBE that are being developed and implemented across the United States.

A review of literature suggests most CBE programs share the following common principles: • Competencies defined through multiple stakeholder input (e.