Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article suggests research projects that would extend the knowledge base about the use of CAS standards and guidelines in useful ways. Included are five research questions and specific research methodologies to guide researchers. The Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS), a consortium of professional associations in higher education, was founded in 1979 and published its first book of standards for practice in 1986 (Bryan, Winston, & Miller, 1991; Miller, 2001). CAS was founded on the belief that self-assessment and self-regulation were a legitimate alternative to traditional accreditation practices that depend for their completion on external reviews. Founders also believed that consensual standards, appropriately applied, would contribute significantly to quality assurance in higher education. The CAS approach allows professionals in the field to promulgate CAS standards and guidelines for use by other practitioners in a flexible manner that most ideally fits a particular institutional culture and needs of a particular educational program or service. Evidence suggests that CAS standards and guidelines increasingly are used in educational programs and services in higher education. CAS sells hundreds of copies of The Book of Professional Standards for Higher Education and Self-Assessment Guides each year (P. Mable, personal communication, November 25, 2002). Studies by Arminio (2002) reveal impressive use of standards and guidelines in disparate educational programs and services throughout higher education in the U.S. and Canada. Annual reports of CAS activities (Creamer & Mable, 2002) show many association-related activities using CAS materials each year. This evidence and informal communication of CAS leaders at professional meetings and conferences and in the conduct of their routine CAS-related duties collectively suggest wide-spread use of CAS standards and guidelines by thousands of professionals each year. Scant evidence is available, however, that shows the effects of the use of such standards and guidelines on student learning and development or on educational programs and services. Furthermore, users of CAS standards and guidelines seem increasingly satisfied with the materials published by CAS in the context of the purposes for which they were created. This evidence mostly is anecdotal, but consistently suggests that CAS standards and guidelines have heuristic value to practitioners and that they use them to establish new programs, to evaluate program effectiveness, to conduct assessment activities, to complete self-studies for accreditation, to carry out in-service education programs, to structure planning activities, and other similar functions. Likewise, many, if not all, master's level preparation programs use the CAS standards in their teaching of young professionals that leads them to expect the routine use of CAS standards and guidelines in their careers. Student Learning and Developmental Outcomes One of the hallmarks of CAS standards and guidelines is their insistence that each functional area be grounded in the purpose of promoting student learning and development. Every standard published by CAS includes a list of relevant and desirable outcomes, mostly developmental outcomes that must be a focus for each functional area. This list of outcomes forms a template for all CAS standards and is a centerpiece of CAS General Standards and includes: * intellectual growth, * ability to communicate effectively, * realistic self-appraisal, * enhanced self-esteem, * clarification of values, * clarification of career choices, * leadership development, * healthy behaviors, * meaningful interpersonal relationships, * ability to work independently and collaboratively, * social responsibility, * satisfying and productive lifestyles, * appreciation of diversity, * spiritual awareness, and * achievement of personal and educational goals. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.166 | 0.342 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".