A systems approach to creating and sustaining an assessment culture.

Collins, Jennifer ; Ashley, Clyde

INTRODUCTION

Regional and specialized accrediting agencies alike are requiring colleges and universities to demonstrate through an ongoing and systematic cycle of continuous improvement that students have in fact learned the skills espoused in degree programs. This demonstration of an ongoing and systematic cycle of continuous improvement in student learning is generally referred to as assessment and/or assurance of student learning. Thus, student learning, rather than teaching, is at the heart of the assessment process. For the most part, this is a relatively foreign concept for most professors, who were inculcated in the old "culture of teaching" paradigm (McCarthy & Anderson, 2000).

In recent years, a paradigm shift has taken place in management education from a teaching-centered culture to a student learning-centered culture. The paradigm shift is a result of the demand for student learning accountability from management education stakeholders, such as regional and specialized accrediting bodies, funding agencies, employers, legislators, governors, parents, administrators, and students. These stakeholders now expect universities and colleges of business to prove that their "products" are worth purchasing by demonstrating that students have indeed learned what the schools espouse have been taught to the students. More specifically, regional and specialized accrediting agencies are requiring institutions of higher learning to demonstrate that they are systematically and continuously assessing or assuring that students are learning (AACSB, 2007).

This requirement has forced the paradigm shift from a teaching-centered culture in which the main emphasis was on what and how the professor taught. The new focus is on assessing that the students are actually learning the information offered by the institutions' programs and that students can demonstrate what they have learned. As a result, it is no longer enough for administrators and faculty members to claim that "we have taught the students," but they must now demonstrate and confirm that the students have learned the materials taught (McCarthy & Anderson, 2000).

For an assessment culture to manifest itself, we propose that the key drivers are visionary leadership of top management; an informed faculty and staff who understand that the ability of students to demonstrate what they know is paramount; and the use of tools to measure how well they know the subject matter. In order to accomplish this change, school and college administrators must first understand the current culture. According to Schein (2004), changes in organizational culture require a review of the current way things are done, so that administrators will know which direction to take the organization.

Once the assessment of the current culture is complete, administrators must envision how they want the organization to look going forward and provide the resources and the environment necessary to make it happen (Schein, 2004). For example, if administrators desire their school or college to look like a learning-centered organization, then it must first be envisioned by the administrators. The administration is vital in the change from a teaching-orientation to a learning-centered environment. They determine the prevailing management style of the organization. In order to make this cultural shift, administrators must change their view of success, which in turn will lead to a change in the espoused values, basic underlying assumptions and observable artifacts of the culture. The espoused values are the explicitly-stated beliefs, philosophies and norms stated by an organization (Colquitt, LePine, & Wesson, 2009). Basic underlying assumptions are the hidden organization beliefs that determine employee behaviors. The observable artifacts are the mechanisms through which culture is expressed to the members of the organization (Higgins & McAllaster, 2004).

This study proposes that to change from a teaching-oriented culture to a learning-centered culture, the organization must ensure that the three components of culture encompass the values and philosophies desired by the organization.

LITERATURE REVIEW

A Systems Model for Creating and Sustaining a Culture of Assessment

The authors of this study present a model based on systems theory and is offered to demonstrate the roles of administrators and faculty members play in creating and sustaining a culture of student learning assessment. Systems theory posits an organization is holistic, dynamic, and composed of interdependent subsystems. According to systems theory, organizations operate within environments and are composed of inputs, throughput processes, outputs, and a continuous improvement loops. This study will identify cycles of inputs, throughput processes and outputs in order to define a system and learn how it behaves. Systems, in this case, institutions of higher learning, tend to be goal seeking and thus need well-defined goals to guide them. Synergy comes about in systems when the total outputs of the systems are greater than the sum of all inputs.

In order for synergy to occur in a system, the subsystems cooperate and sacrifice for the good of the overall system. Gillespie and Dietz (2009) state that systems theory is the conversion of external outputs (e.g., resources, investments, new recruits) into outputs (e.g., products and services) via various throughput processes. From this perspective, a culture of assessment will occur through the transformation of external inputs (e.g., students, administrators' knowledge and support) via organizational processes (e.g., faculty development in student learning concepts) (See Figure 1.).

This model posits that: (1) the external inputs for creating and sustaining an assessment culture are administration's knowledge and understanding of student learning assessment, as well as faculty's knowledge and understanding of the assessment of student learning; (2) the throughput processes involved in creating and sustaining an assessment culture include investments and engagements from top management teams (administrators), faculty members, and staff members; (3) the output is a culture of assessment that is truly embedded in all of the organization's activities, geared toward ensuring and enhancing student learning; (4) the final phase of this model is the continuous improvement loop. The continuous improvement loop consists of ongoing evaluation, dynamic feedback, and improvement-related changes when and where necessary (see Figure 1).

Environmental Influences

As previously stated, in the student learning assessment paradigm, regional and specialized accrediting agencies are not concerned with how well the teacher is teaching or imparting knowledge. These accrediting agencies are now concerned with how well the students are learning or acquiring knowledge (SACS, 2008). As a part of requiring schools, colleges, and universities to demonstrate student learning, regional and specialized accrediting agencies are looking for a culture of learning within the institution. We propose that schools, colleges, and universities cannot just focus on just meeting the requirements of accrediting bodies, but that administrators, faculty, and staff must exude a genuine embracement and operationalization of a student-centered learning environment based on continuous improvement.

Inputs

According to systems theory, inputs are acquired from the environment and transformed into outputs. This model proposes that top management, faculty, staff, students and other stakeholders' investments, engagements, and expectations are the inputs acquired by institutions of higher learning that are transformed into student learning and a culture of assessment based on a systems approach.

Faculty Expectations

Faculty members have certain expectations of students and the learning process. Faculty expectations are explicitly expressed through various mediums including: syllabi, course performance evaluations, and learning goals and objectives. Faculty members expect that if they provide students with knowledge, information, guidance, and opportunities to learn; learning will occur. If faculty members do not embrace or have a full understanding of assessment, their inputs may not offer a meaningful contribution to the process of developing students. At the faculty level, the learning goals of the school should be collectively developed by the faculty (AACSB, 2007).

Learning goals are the skills and abilities that faculty want the students to exhibit when they complete the course or graduate from the program (AACSB, 2007). As faculty gain understanding of the assessment process, their expectations as well as their contribution to the assessment process should change. However, this change is dependent upon the culture of the University and their academic unit (i.e., college, school or department). For example, universities where assessment is supported by top management and rewarded by the university and the academic units, faculty tend to be more engaged (Bassett, Daley, & Haefele, 2005). Furthermore, individual faculty expectations of student learning and assessment are driven by faculty members' disciplines, as well as assessment knowledge and experience. Hence, the learning goals established by the collective faculty members include these individual faculty expectations in addition to expectations of other stakeholders. The authors of this study propose the following:

Proposition 1: Program level learning goals should include the collective faculty expectations of students as inputs into the learning-centered culture.

Accrediting Organizations' Expectations

Accreditation standards set by institutions, such as the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International and other accrediting agencies, are also playing a major role in shaping management education. AACSB International and others attempt to insure high quality business education. The accrediting bodies provide legitimacy to business schools through peer-reviews of teaching, curricula, research rigor, and faculty scholarship. In addition, some funding sources, such as state governments are requiring accreditation for business schools. Hence, management education must take into account standards established by these accrediting institutions (e.g., AACSB, 2007). For example, business schools seeking AACSB accreditation must build assessment plans based on the AACSB "Assurance of Learning" standards. Hence, the expectations of an accrediting organization provide guidance and influence the learning environment of the school. Thus, the authors of this study propose the following:

Proposition 2: Accrediting bodies' expectations provide legitimacy to business schools thus serving as input into the learning-centered culture.

Employers' Needs and Expectations

Graduate Management Admissions Council's 2007 Corporate Recruiter's Survey provides insight into the competencies that organizations desire from prospective employees. These competencies are broken into four major categories, including: behavioral, skill, knowledge and work style competencies. This research presents information on the expectations of corporations, perceptions of the importance of these competencies, as well as perceptions of employee abilities in these competencies (GMAC, 2010). GMAC's annual employer survey is a tool that can be used by business schools to gain insight on the needs and expectations of employers. This information is important input into the curricula and programs offered by business schools to develop students into potential employees. Therefore, the authors of this study propose:

Proposition 3: Employers' needs and expectations provide input into the curricula and programs in order to develop students with skills and abilities needed and desired by employers.

Student Expectations and Characteristics

Millennial students, those born between 1980 and 2000, are the first generation to be totally immersed in technology. Having their lives shaped by protective parents who structured and scheduled their children's lives, this generation is the busiest generation of children in United States history (Howe & Strauss, 2000). During their adolescence, this generation received messages suggesting that they excel academically, be tolerant of others' differences, and value volunteerism. Other characteristics of this generation include: enjoy teamwork, desire immediate feedback/gratification, need structure, need leadership, guidance, expect to be indulged, desire to see the relevance of subjects to their personal lives, have short attention spans, have experienced uninterrupted economic prosperity, are the most protected by government, and parents, have a "can-do" attitude, are technologically savvy and are multi-taskers (Howe & Strauss, 2000). Student characteristics influence pedagogy, engagement, and curricula development. Therefore, in the development of an assessment culture, student characteristics must be considered. Thus, the authors of this study propose the following:

Proposition 4: Student characteristics are inputs into a learning-centered culture since they influence the pedagogy, student engagement, and curricula development.

Throughput Processes

According to systems theory, inputs are transformed in the throughput process into an output. The model proposed in this research, suggests that in order to transform an organizational culture into an assessment culture, there are several throughput processes that facilitate this transformation. We propose the transformation of inputs at the following levels: 1) at the organization level, compensation and reward system, administration's support, administration's engagement, facilities' maintenance, assessment process, mentoring, advising, and staff support; 2) at the faculty level, teaching, advising, mentoring, faculty training and development, faculty engagement, and research; and 3) at the student level, engagement/motivation and self-assessment. In this study, we propose that throughput processes include: an aligned compensation and reward system, top management investments, staff investments and engagement, systematic assessment process, trust, participative decision making,

Compensation and Reward System

In all organizations, including schools, colleges, and universities, reward systems reinforce the prevailing employee attitudes and behavior (Rynes, Gerhart, & Minette, 2004). Therefore, if institutions of higher learning want to have a student-centered learning environment, then it will have to make sure that the reward system match must the desired student learning outcomes. For example, schools, colleges, and universities will have to reward faculty who participate in activities that lead to student learning. This can be accomplished by monetary rewards as well as non-monetary rewards (Rynes, Gerhart, & Minette, 2004). Schools and colleges can encourage faculty to embrace the student-centered learning approach to management education by compensating faculty who demonstrate a change in their pedagogy to ensure student learning using a variety of measures. Compensation could include: smaller classes, course release time, or actual financial bonuses. Schools, colleges, and universities should make sure faculty members who participate in a learning-centered environment are somehow rewarded for their efforts. In some instances, there may be a need to use negative reinforcement with those who are resistant to moving to a learning-centered culture (Latham & Huber, 1992). This can be accomplished by not offering the same opportunities (e.g., smaller classes or reduced teaching loads) to those faculty members who are unwilling to engage in activities that support the learning-centered culture. If faculty are rewarded based on the old culture it will be very difficult to get faculty to embrace the change in culture. Therefore, faculty compensation and rewards should be aligned with the desired cultural outcomes. Hence, the authors of this study propose:

Proposition 5: A properly aligned compensation and rewards system serves as a throughput by which faculty attitudes and behaviors towards assessment are transformed.

Top Management Team Investment and Engagement

For schools, colleges, and universities to embrace the concept of student learning and adopt it into the curriculum and culture, all parties must buy in at all levels. It must be fully integrated into an overall strategy and approach to the learning process. Top administrators, professors, staff, and students should align and inculcate the mechanisms and the processes associated with this new approach in all activities and throughout the environment (Bassett, Daley, & Haefele, 2005). For the culture to change, the management style, customs, and habits that focus on outcomes must be embedded and practiced on a continuous basis and reviewed for adjustments as necessary (Mourier & Smith, 2001).

To accomplish a new way of thinking and behaving among faculty, administrators should employ tipping point leadership. Tipping point leadership "hinges on the insight that in any organization, fundamental changes can happen quickly when the beliefs and energies of a critical mass of people create an epidemic movement toward an idea (Kim & Mauborgne, 2000, p.151)." Thus, tipping point leadership focusing on the idea that change should be driven by internal cognitive mechanisms of individuals. Tipping point leadership focuses on people, acts, and activities that exercise a disproportionate influence of performance. Therefore, administrators should focus on making a shift to a learning-centered culture by taking the necessary steps to gain faculty buy-in. Administrators demonstrate support for an activity by the allocation of resources to the activity. In addition, administrators must believe and model what they want faculty members to perform. Kouzes and Posner (2007) suggest five practices of leadership that are essential to organizational success. One of the practices involves leaders modeling the behavior they desire. Therefore, the authors of this study propose:

Proposition 6: Leaders must invest in the desired culture as well as model the behavior they desire to see in the faculty. The investment and engagement demonstrated by top management will serve as a throughput process for the development of a learning-centered culture.

Staff Investments and Engagement

The institution's staff must make investments and be engaged to facilitate the development of an assessment culture. For example, at one university, the office of Internships an indirect assessment measure. Often the tasks performed by staff are overlooked or taken for granted in institutions of higher learning. However, in order to create and sustain an assessment culture, all stakeholders' needs should be considered in order for the culture to be institutionalized and sustained (Comstock, 2005). In an assessment culture, staff members are important, because in most instances they are the first point of contact for prospective students, current students, alumni, employers and other stakeholders. Therefore, it is important that staff members are empowered to provide accurate information to the stakeholders. In addition, staff members play an important role in dissemination of assessment information. Hence, staff must understand the assessment of student learning and be a part of the development of the assessment system.

Proposition 7: Staff must make investments and engage in management in order to create a culture of assessment.

Systematic Assessment Process

Institutions need a systematic assessment process that focuses on continuous improvement at the program level, not on the individual faculty members. It is very important for faculty members to understand that assessment of learning is a programmatic assessment and not an assessment of their teaching expressed through the development and use of a systematic assessment process, such as the FAMOUS approach (Ohia, 2007). The FAMOUS approach to assessment encompasses: 1) Formulating the desired outcomes; 2) Ascertaining the criteria for success at the program level; 3) Measuring performance at the program level; 4) Observing and summarizing results; 5) Using the results for continuous improvement at the program level; and 6) Strengthening the program. The FAMOUS assessment system, as well as other program-level assessment systems, is important to the learning-centered culture, because they inform all stakeholders about the performance of the program. Furthermore, the systematic assessment process that focuses on student learning is non-threatening to faculty members who may perceive assessment as an evaluation of their teaching performance. Therefore, faculty members are not threatened by assessment when the focus is shifted from their teaching ability to the evaluation of the program's ability to produce students who have acquired certain relevant skills during their tenure within the school, college, or university. Hence, faculty can evaluate student learning without the threat of their teaching performance being scrutinized in the process. Therefore, the authors of this study propose:

Proposition 7: A systematic assessment process that focuses on student learning not faculty teaching ability contributes to the participation of faculty members in the assessment of student learning.

Trust via Participative Decision Making

The shift from a culture of teaching to a culture of assessment is a major change that may threaten faculty members and other stakeholders. People's natural inclination is to resist change that will impact how they do their jobs (David, 2010). Therefore, it is important that trust be developed among employees as well as administrators (Mayer and Gavin, 2005). We propose that trust can be developed among stakeholders in the learning-centered culture through participative decision-making activities. One way to accomplish this is by engaging faculty in the development of the assessment process. When faculty members are engaged in the development of this process, it allows them to provide input and allow them to gain a better understanding of the assessment process (Martell, 2005). When individuals are involved in the decision-making process of a change, it is a lot easier to get them to accept change and the implementation and adoption of the change (David, 2010). We propose that participative decision making is critical in the change from the traditional approach of a teaching culture to one of a learning-oriented culture. Simply put, faculty members are important if a change is to occur in the learning process. Therefore, it is important that faculty members are included in major decisions, since they will be responsible for implementing the changes in their classrooms. The authors of this study propose the following:

Proposition 8: Participative decision making in the assessment process allows for the transformation of a teaching-oriented culture to a culture of learning and assessment. Faculty Investments and Engagement

In addition to program level assessment, there is a need to enhance the knowledge base of faculty; help to improve their skill set; develop a variety of teaching methodologies; and train faculty members to be professional in everything that they do (Martell, 2005). All of these activities are designed to helped students to better understand the materials being taught, digest, analyze, and process information more effectively. Faculty development opportunities, such as assessment-related conferences and seminars may serve as a form of reward for those faculty members who participate in the learning-oriented culture development. As faculty become more familiar with assessment, the process is less intimidated and more willing to participate in assessment. Furthermore, internal learning-oriented development opportunities that are supported by administrators visibly demonstrate to faculty members that administrators value a learning-oriented culture (Bassett et al., 2005). For example, when faculty members are rewarded for their participation in internal student learning activities, administrators are sending a message that such activities are valuable. Therefore, we propose:

Proposition 9: Investments in faculty development assist in the transformation of a teaching-oriented culture into a learning culture.

Mentoring and Inclusive Leadership

Organizations desiring to change to their culture can use mentoring to aid in the culture transformation. Mentoring has been shown to provide consistent information, social knowledge, and psychological support to proteges (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004). According to Luna and Cullen (1995), "mentoring is useful and powerful in understanding and advancing organizational culture, providing access to informal and formal networks of communication, and offering professional stimulation to both junior and senior faculty members (p.2)." In order to move to a learning-oriented culture, universities can use mentoring to develop both new faculty and students. Mentoring can be used by administrators to provide support to faculty participating in the assessment of student learning process.

Faculty leaders in the learning-oriented culture provide support by mentoring and nurturing their followers. For example, faculty members who are supportive of the learning-oriented culture can provide support and serve as role models for new faculty and those less inclined to accept the learning-oriented culture. Faculty who are concerned about the development of their students and employ student-learning oriented activities in the classroom can provide group mentoring to their students. In the learning-oriented culture, mentoring can be used by faculty members to engage students in the learning process. Group mentoring has proven successful in the socialization of newcomers in organizations (Tahmincioglu, 2004). Group mentoring requires faculty mentors to provide consistent information, social knowledge, and training to student proteges. Therefore, mentoring can assist faculty and students in developing the skills and abilities necessary to be successful. Therefore, we propose:

Proposition 10: Mentoring of faculty and students can assist in the transformation from a teaching-oriented culture to a learning-oriented culture.

Consultative leadership allows for leaders to gain input and insight from stakeholders (Vroom, 2000). In the shift to a culture of learning, consultative leadership can help engage faculty and students. Some faculty and students may not fully grasp the benefits of a student-centered learning culture. Therefore, it is important that they are included in the development of the assessment process via consultative leadership opportunities. Hence, we propose:

Proposition 11: Consultative leadership provides support and builds trust in order to transform a teaching-oriented culture to a learning-oriented culture.

Faculty Collaboration

Unnecessary competition among faculty for resources, power, or affiliation will hinder collaborative efforts necessary for a learning-oriented culture. Kim and Mauborgne (2000) coined the term Blue Ocean Strategy in their seminal book with the same title. Blue Ocean Strategy in organizational science terms is the simultaneous pursuit of differentiation and low cost (Kim & Mauborgne, 2000). Organizations that pursue a Blue Ocean Strategy aim not to outperform the competition in their industry, but to create new market space or a 'blue ocean.' This pursuit in turn makes the competition irrelevant. Within the hallowed halls of higher learning, faculty members must embrace this notion of a blue ocean. That is, faculty must focus on their areas of expertise and eliminate competition with colleagues; instead they must realize that each person plays an important role in student learning. For example, faculty members can collaborate on assessment research across the various disciplines within the school of business. This collaboration allows faculty members to also appreciate the skills and abilities of colleagues while building an assessment of culture through assessment-related research projects. Therefore, the authors of this study propose the following:

Proposition 12: Collaboration where faculty use their unique skills and abilities to cooperate with each other on assessment-related research rather than competing against each other for resources and rewards helps transform the culture into a culture of assessment.

Student Motivation and Engagement

Faculty members can no longer assume that students in the class are genuinely interested learning the content taught in the class, thus creating a student motivation issue that faculty members must address in order to facilitate learning. Therefore, faculty members will have to retool themselves with a different set of skills and philosophies to be able to determine the needs, strengths, weaknesses, and learning styles of their students. This means that faculty members have to move to a more active and collaborative learning environment. For example, the use of case methodology and experiential learning activities engage the students in learning and require their active participation in the learning process (Peterson & Liu, 2003). This type of learning environment requires students to become more involved in the learning process and allows students the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to apply the knowledge that they should be acquiring in the classroom (Peterson & Liu, 2003).

In the student-centered learning environment, the students are given some responsibility for their learning. While faculty must motivate the students to learn, participate, and think critically, students are held accountable for their motivation to learning and their engagement in the learning process (Petersen & Liu, 2003). Thus, students need to assess their needs, strengths, weaknesses, and learning styles. The authors of this study propose the following:

Proposition 13: Student motivation and engagement are accomplished through active teaching methods and self-assessment leading to the transformation from a teaching-centered culture to a learning-centered culture.

Output

In systems theory, the output is the desired product that has been developed by means of transforming the inputs in a throughput process. This model proposes the development of an assessment culture.

A Culture and Institutionalized System of Student Learning Assessment

Culture is defined as "the pattern of basic assumptions which a group has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, which have worked well enough to be considered valid, and therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel (Akdere, 2007, p.235)." Assessment or assurance of learning is the mechanism through which schools are required to demonstrate to the outside world that their students have in fact learned what they espouse to have taught and to use a cycle of continuous improvement to enhance student learning (AACSB, 2008; SACS, 2008). Thus, a culture of assessment can be characterized as an institutionalized, documented practice and system of continuous improvement in curriculum development and put into operation by the school's administrators, faculty members, and staff members.

Therefore, to change or embed and institutionalize a culture within an organization, the philosophy and values must shape what members perceive to be acceptable attitudes and behaviors of members that align with the desired expectations. To create and sustain a culture of assessment, all members of a school need to know and understand what assessment of student learning is and continuously apply the tenets of student learning assessment. This will require 1) a change in the basic underlying assumptions from a teaching-centered environment to a student learning-environment, 2) a change the espoused values of the student, and 3) a change in the artifacts collected and examined.

Culture change is hard (Welsh, Petrosko, & Metcalf, 2003), which is why many schools are still navigating this paradigm shift that started nearly twenty years ago. If administrators, faculty, and staff can see that they informally assess student learning to aid them in continuously improving curriculum delivery activities, courses from semester to semester, and internal operating processes and procedures, then maybe it will be easier to help them make the transition to formally assess all of the activities in their school that contribute to students' learning throughout their matriculation. Administrator, faculty, and staff teamwork, commitment, and training and development using a systems theory approach are the ingredients necessary to transition to a culture of student learning assessment.

Continuous Improvement Loop

The continuous improvement loop is the final phase of this systems theory model of creating and sustaining an assessment culture. The continuous improvement loop consists of ongoing evaluation, dynamic feedback, and improvement-related changes when and where necessary. Schools need to institutionalize a formal evaluation process that can show documented evidence that students are being assessed to determine if they are acquiring the learning outcomes espoused. From a feedback perspective, the school should use relevant stakeholders for direct and indirect assessment of students' attainment of learning goals. Relevant stakeholders include, but are not limited to, faculty members, employers, alumni, and students. Based on the feedback acquired in the evaluation process, faculty and administrators need to determine and implement the improvement-related changes necessary.

It is this phase that ensures that the culture of student learning assessment is truly an institutionalized process within a school. It is this phase that will also enable administrators, faculty, and staff to be confident that they can and will exude that they genuinely embrace and operationalize a student-centered learning environment based on continuous improvement in student learning during an accreditation visit. If a school can do this, they will be determined to have met the accrediting agency's standard on assessment or assurance of learning.

IMPLICATIONS

There are several implications from the model and propositions presented in this study. First, the model presentation demonstrates the array of input variables that universities must consider in the transformation to a culture of learning. The nature of these inputs will vary dependent upon the mission, vision and values of the university. In addition, this model highlights the importance of focusing on student learning as an important output variable from the culture of learning. Hence, universities must ascertain the quality of the student inputs and what throughputs are necessary for the development student inputs into the desired output. This also requires examining current pedagogy and faculty expectations and engagement in the learning process. The administration must take care to engage faculty via various forms of support for student learning, rewards for the engagement in assessment activities, and involving faculty in the change process. Furthermore, the proposed model suggests that stakeholder expectations are an important input in the culture of learning. Administrators will need to engage their corporate relationships in the process of determining relevant learning goals that meet their talent needs. Finally, this model demonstrates the importance of a continuous improvement process to develop and sustain a culture of learning. Universities will need to insure that there is a systematic approach to assessing learning that involves a continuous improvement loop. This continuous improvement loop is the key to sustaining the culture of learning and meeting the needs of all of the stakeholders.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This research puts forth a model of culture change based on systems theory; however, there are several areas for future research based on this model. First, there needs to be a series of empirical studies based on this model to validate that the proposed variables contribute to the shift to a culture of learning. Furthermore, research should be conducted to compare colleges and universities with a teaching-oriented focus versus those with a learning-oriented focus to examine if there are differences in the level of learning between the two approaches. In addition, there should be a survey of stakeholder groups to determine their needs from the institution. Also, this body of literature would benefit from the evaluation of interdependent subsystems to determine how their interactions influence the development of a culture of learning. Since continuous improvement has been deemed to play an important role in the culture of learning, there needs to be future research examining the various methods of continuous improvement to determine if there are significant differences among the various approaches. Finally, to understand the relationship of synergies within systems, future research should examine the factors to deem their contribution to learning process and the culture of learning.

CONCLUSION

Due to accrediting bodies thrust towards assessment of student learning, it is inevitable that most institutions will end adopt some form of assurance of learning processes. For universities to be able to demonstrate that their students are learning the knowledge, skills and abilities purported to be gained during the students' matriculation at the university, they must measure student learning. This model proposes that using a systems approach can be used by higher education to develop and institutionalize a culture of learning and assessment.

This approach to learning will require the involvement and buy-in of all constituent groups. Faculty members, students, staff members, administrators, and other stakeholders must participate fully in the development of this new approach. External stakeholders, such as regional and international accrediting bodies now expect universities and colleges of business to prove that their "products" are worth purchasing by demonstrating that students have indeed learned what the schools espouse have been taught to the students. This is accomplished by systematically and continuously assessing or assuring that students are learning. While external factors precipitated this change from a teaching-centered culture to a student-learning culture, other internal stakeholders have begun to examine this proposed change. The new focus on assessing that the students are actually learning the information offered by the institutions' programs and that students can demonstrate what they have learned is a benefit to all stakeholders. As a result, it is no longer enough for administrators and faculty members to claim that "we have taught the students," but they must now demonstrate and confirm that the students have learned the materials taught; hence, promoting the development of a culture of assessment.

The study puts forth a model that demonstrates how systems theory can be applied to the development and institutionalization of an assessment culture.

REFERENCES

AACSB International (2007). AACSB assurance of learning standards: An interpretation. http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/papers/AOLPaper-final-11-20-07.pdf.

AACSB International (2008). Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation. http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/process/documents/ AACSB_STANDARDS_Revised_Jan08.pdf.

Akdere, M. (2007). Quality management focused human resources practices: Implications for organizational performance improvement. Human Resource Management Association of Southeastern Wisconsin Spring Conference Proceedings. Milwaukee, WI.

Allen, T.D., Eby, L.T., Poteet, M.L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Outcomes associated with mentoring proteges: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 27-136.

Bassett, W.E., Daley, J.M., & Haelfele, W.F. (2005). University support for business school assessment activity, in Martell, Kathryn and Calderon, Thomas, (eds) Assessment of Student Learning in Business Schools: Best Practices Each Step of the Way, Vol. 1: No. 2, Tallahassee: The Association for Institutional Research and AACSB International, pp. 184-197.

Colquitt, J.A., LePine, J.A., & Wesson, M.J. (2009). Organizational behavior: Improving performance and commitment in the workplace. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Comstock, S.M. (2005). Defining assessment as a shared faculty responsibility: a balanced scorecard approach. In Martell, Kathryn and Calderon, Thomas, (Eds) Assessment of Student Learning in Business Schools: Best Practices Each Step of the Way, Vol. 1: No. 2, Tallahassee: The Association for Institutional Research and AACSB International, pp. 154-166.

David, F.N. (2010). Strategic management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Eder, D. J. (2007). A culture of assessment. In Martell, Kathryn and Calderon, Thomas, (Eds) Assessment of Student Learning in Business Schools: Best Practices Each Step of the Way, Vol. 1: No. 1, Tallahassee: The Association for Institutional Research and AACSB International, pp. 51--65.

Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. (2009). Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Academy of Management Review, 34 (1): 127-145.

GMAC (2010). Corporate Recruiters Survey. http://www.gmac.com/NR/rdonlyres/57F459C7 48E1-4C77-8A15-B003E04FF8D8/0/CorporateRecruiters2010SR.pdf.

Higgins, J.M., & McAllaster, C. (2004). If you want strategic change, don't forget to change your cultural artifacts. Journal of Change Management, 4, 63-74.

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York: Vintage Books.

Huber, M.T. (September 1999). Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching: Reflections on the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of teaching and learning. Paper presented at the 7th International Improving Student Learning Symposium. UK: University of York.

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (2007). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Luna, G. , & Cullen, D. L. (1995). Empowering the faculty: Mentoring redirected and renewed. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report no. 3. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

Mayer, R.C., & Gavin, R.B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 874888.

McCarthy, J.P., & Anderson, L. (2000). Active learning techniques versus traditional teaching styles: Two experiments from history and political science. Innovative Higher Education, 24(4): 279-294.

Mourier, P. , & Smith, M. (2001). Conquering organizational change: How to succeed where most companies fail. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

Ohia, U. (2007). F.A.M.O.U.S. Assessment Approach. http://www.ncci cu.org/resourcelibrary/index.cfm?event=action.download.item&itemid=85.

Peterson, S., & Liu, M. (2003). Teachers' beliefs about issues in the implementation of a student-centered learning environment. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 51 (2): 57-76.

Rynes, S.L., Gerhart, B., & Minette, K.A. (2004). The importance of pay in employee motivation: Discrepancies between what people say and what they do." Human Resource Management, 43, 381-394.

SACS (2008). Principles of Accreditation: Quality Enhancement. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools--Commission on Colleges.

Schein, E.H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tahmincioglu, E. (2007). Group mentoring: A cost effective option. Workforce Management Online.

Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.

Welsh, J.F., Petrosko, J., & Metcalf, J. (2003). A culture of accountability. The Community College Enterprise, 9 (1): 21-37.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Jennifer Collins

Shawnta Friday-Stroud

Clyde Ashley

Florida A & M University

About the Authors:

Jennifer Collins is an Assistant Professor in the School of Business and Industry at Florida A & M University in the area of Management. Her research interests include: employee creativity, mentoring, and assurance of learning.

Shawnta Friday-Stroud is the Dean at Florida A&M University's School of Business and Industry. Prior to her appointment she served as Professor of Management. Her research interests include: issues pertaining to domestic and international diversity, organizational behavior, inter-group relations, sales force management, mentoring, and assessment and educational enhancements.

Clyde Ashley is an Associate Professor in the School of Business and Industry at Florida A&M University in the areas of Professional Leadership Development and Economics. Research areas: Assurance of Learning, Economics, Professional Leadership Development, Case Study Analysis.