The development of new teaching methods in which institutions are being challenged to move from teaching to learning has expanded on a world-wide basis. This has resulted in an increased emphasis upon active learning and student engagement in the learning process (Mulye, Westberg, & Hay, 2009). The rise of new technologies to enhance the teaching/learning process has enhanced institutional capacities to vary instruction and engage students in the learning process (Powell, Jacob, & Chapman, 2011). The focus on learning has also resulted in an increased emphasis on using student outcomes to measure not only student learning, but faculty teaching and institutional success (Hainline et al., 2010; Teichler, 2012).

It is important for those who lead higher education institutions to value student and program assessment and to take a leadership role in ensuring that their universities provide program faculties with opportunities to develop comprehensive and effective means of assessing student-learning outcomes (Huba & Freed, 2001). Poda (2007) stresses that although good student assessment metrics are not easy for educators to develop, they are essential in assuring high quality teaching and learning in higher education graduate programs. She also notes that standards measured need to be objective, reliable and fair.

Some of the most popular assessment tools used in assessing higher education graduate programs are written and oral tests, open book examinations, group assessment, self, peer, and co-assessment, assessment by projects, investigations, and realistic problem-solving tasks (Poda, 2007). Other strategies for enhancing assessment techniques include using rubrics to provide feedback, engaging students in portfolio development, and using student feedback on processes to improve their learning (Huba & Freed, 2001). In recent years, there has been a shift to measure such things as critical thinking skills rather than rote memorization of facts and figures (Brookhart, 2010).

Assessment is influenced not only by faculty, but also by outside entities such as departmental standards, Boards of Trustees, and external mandates from state and national legislatures and accrediting agencies. Professional or accreditation bodies dictate professional requirements for particular learning outcomes (Olds, 2008). This requires that presidents understand assessment processes from a broad perspective and build relationships with those involved at the policy and implementation levels.

Poda (2007) suggests that higher education graduate programs conduct assessments of student learning for two reasons. First, she posits that it “motivates, guides, and reinforces student learning, thus promoting learning” (p. 165). She believes that students tend to adjust their learning style to assessment requirements and based on achievement of mastery of the stated learning outcomes. The second reason she posits is that assessment of student learning helps to validate that the doctoral program maintains strong academic standards, which then helps to verify student achievement.

Most accrediting bodies have become more rigorous in requiring institutions to assess student learning as a means of measuring campus and program success. In recent years, there has been a move in these bodies to place increased emphasis on guaranteeing quality through examining the assessment of students as part of the quality issue (Lubinescu et al., 2001; Teichler, 2012).

Curriculum is generally considered to be the essential content knowledge that is included in the educational program (Bakah, Voogt, & Pieters, 2012). The curriculum should include strategies to prepare students to become critical thinkers and reflective practitioners (Wiessner, Aalsburg, & González, 2007). Additionally, higher education educators should incorporate andragogical approaches which focus on the adult learner and facilitate the development of student learning skills and abilities (Huba & Freed, 2001; Stevens-Long, Schapiro, & McClintock, 2012; Wright, 2007). Curriculum planners must focus on what must be taught and in what order (Beebe, Mottet, & Roach, 2003).

Program planners should encourage faculty to learn how to conclude the class in such a way that adult learners leave remembering the key points addressed in that course. Beebe, Mottet, and Roach (2003) suggest two ways this can be accomplished: (1) summarize what has been discussed, and (2) restate the key points that were covered. Instructors should provide a logical conclusion to what has been learned. Poda (2007) suggests that “higher education doctoral programs promote learning by coaching students in continuously asking themselves questions including what they learn, what more they need to know, and how they can approach specific problems they encounter in the future” (p. 111). Finally, instructors should give the lesson closure by pointing the student to the next phase of the learning.

Many institutions of higher education are adding centers for teaching and learning to enhance faculty skills and abilities in this area. It appears that these will become much more important in the years ahead as teaching becomes more and more focused upon learning (Hainline, et al., 2010). Such centers require resources and presidents will be responsible for making decisions about their presence on their campus. Thus, it will be essential that they possess a deep appreciation for and an understanding of the relationships between teaching, assessment, and student learning.

Student assessment is gaining in importance and universities will need to make major investments in developing comprehensive programs that will measure student learning. Thus, it is important that those who lead these institutions have some understanding of the concepts involved, the types of programs needed and the manner in which the data gathered can be used to improve and enhance teaching and learning in the institution. Yet, there appears to be no research done on the extent to which presidents of these institutions have such knowledge or the degree to which their doctoral programs helped them to gain this understanding. This study was focused on this issue. Uncovering this information will assist university preparation programs in curriculum design as they seek to prepare higher education administrators in the years ahead.

The initial research phase involved analyzing quantitative data from a 50-question survey on the presidency, provided by the American Council of Education’s (ACE) study published as The American College President: 2007 Edition (ACE, 2007). The study gathered data from presidents to identify the degree to which these presidents perceived that they were prepared for their role prior to assuming it. In the ACE study, the population included presidents with terminal degrees in a variety of fields, both from within and outside of education. There were 2,148 presidents who participated in this study. Of these, 891 identified themselves as having earned a terminal degree in education or higher education. The study did not differentiate between those who had earned doctorates in education with specializations in higher education and those who simply earned doctoral degrees in education. Therefore, there was no way to distinguish between the responses of those who were graduates of higher education programs and those who were not.

The ACE study included the question, “In which of the following areas did you feel insufficiently prepared for your first presidency?” The question included 17 variables: (1) Academic issues (e.g., curriculum changes), (2) Accountability/assessment of student learning, (3) Athletics, (4) Budget/financial management, (5) Capital improvement projects, (6) Community relations, (7) Crisis management, (8) Enrollment management, (9) Entrepreneurial ventures, (10) Faculty issues, (11) Fund raising, (12) Governing board relations, (13) Government relations, (14) Media/public relations, (15) Personnel issues (excluding faculty), (16) Risk management/legal issues, and (17) Strategic planning. These competencies have been identified, developed, and refined over 20 years through interviews and feedback from college and university presidents (ACE, 2007; J. King, personal communication, September 4, 2010). The presidents were able to check all areas that applied.

Access to the data source was requested from the American Council of Education and consent was received to use the data to examine the perceptions of presidents with education degrees. A chi-square analysis was conducted to determine if there were differences in the perceptions of presidents with education degrees and those presidents who had earned their degrees in different fields.

A one-sample t-test was used to determine the mean difference between the sample (presidents with a doctorate in education or higher education) and the known value of the population mean (presidents with a doctorate other than education or higher education). The number of items measuring the dependent variable was 17. In this analysis, presidents with doctorates in education or higher education felt more prepared than presidents with doctoral backgrounds in other disciplines in the areas of accountability/assessment of student learning.

The findings are depicted in Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the internal consistency of each dependent variable for the independent variable, categorized as College Presidents with the major field of study in education or higher education. The reliability results for the 17 dependent variables were .82. All the variables met the predetermined Cronbach’s alpha (.50) criterion for internal consistency.

Findings indicated that presidents with a terminal degree in education/higher education felt statistically significantly more prepared for enrollment management duties (Question 35H) versus presidents who held a terminal degree outside of education (X²_{(1, N = 891)} = 14.704, p < .001). However, these presidents believed they statistically significantly less prepared for fundraising (ACPS Question 35K) than presidents who held a terminal degree outside of education (X²_{(1, N = 891)} = 9.274, p = .002). These findings are displayed in Table 1.

While not statistically significant, presidents with a terminal degree in education/higher education felt more prepared to assess student-learning duties (Question 35B) versus presidents who held a terminal degree outside of education (no chi-square results). Therefore this study focused on this question to expand our understanding of how presidents gained knowledge in the area of assessment. This information was used to develop the interview script. They were also used in developing initial “a priori” questions as part of the process used in the case study conducted to address the research question posed. Questions such “To what extent did your doctoral program prepare you to deal with issues of accountability and assessment?” were asked to gain greater insight into this phenomenon.

The second phase of the study involved qualitative data collection. The researcher incorporated the Life History Case Studies (LHCS) approach to collect the data. LHCS is a qualitative methodology specifically designed to assist researchers in obtaining in-depth and comprehensive meanings in people’s lives and helps them to gather background information about the study participants (Campbell, 1999). This method allowed an exploration of the participants’ perceptions of their graduate training in higher education administration and its role in preparing them for their current position. This approach was also used to explore what knowledge and competencies they perceived as having learned while in their doctoral program.

The population was derived from the 1,647 college and university presidents who are members of the American Council of Education, as identified on their organizational website (American Council of Education, 2010, para. 1). Of this group, 150 presidents who had earned a degree with a specialization in higher education administration and were leading institutions using the term “university” in their nomenclature.

After being solicited via email or phone to participate in this study, thirteen of the 150 presidents agreed to participate. These presidents included three females and ten males. Three African American presidents who were serving as leaders of Historically Black Universities participated in the study. The ten other presidents where Caucasian, and led Predominantly White Universities. Five presidents led private religious institutions and eight remaining served public universities. The presidents led institutions whose student enrollment ranged from less than 2,000 to more than 50,000 students. Pseudonyms are used in this manuscript instead of the presidents’ names to keep their responses anonymous.

The study incorporated a process that included reviewing of the presidents’ curriculum vitas and biographical sketches, a process advocated by Gasman and Anderson-Thompson (2003). Although these documents were used as part of the analysis when appropriate, the primary data source of this study was interviews. Prior to beginning the interview process, permission was gained from the University Institutional Review Board to conduct the research and to audio and video record the interviews. Two guided interviews of 30–60 minutes were conducted with each president and university presidents were asked key questions about their doctoral training. This process provided rich data, which assisted in interpreting the responses and developing the information into a meaningful narrative.

Multiple data sources were used to confirm the study’s results (Yin, 2003). Field notes written during participant interviews, ideas developed during the research process, audiotaping and videotaping the interviews served as the sources for analysis. Both what the presidents said (i.e., their words and language) and what was unsaid (i.e., body language and long pauses) were considered when logging notes.

A start list of “a priori” codes was derived from related literature on higher education programs and presidential leadership (American Council for Education, 2008; Hammons & Miller, 2006; Herdlein, 2004). Developing an “a priori” code list is consistent and reflective of the recommendations of researchers such as Kvale and Brinkmann (2009) and Bogdan and Biklen (2003). Themes not derived from the start list, that were identified in the data, were coded as emerging codes. The “coding incident to incident” approach advocated by Charmaz (2006) was used throughout the analysis process. This enabled the opportunity to compare similar incidents experienced by various participants. Similar emergent codes were combined with one another to limit the amount of redundant codes.

In order to heighten content validity, three senior academic administrators and faculty reviewed pilot questions (Ross & Shannon, 2008). Revisions were made based on this expert panel’s feedback. Pilot field interviews were then conducted with six academic administrators. After concluding the interviews with the presidential participants, follow-up email interviews were conducted for purposes of member checking and data validation. Wolfe (2010) defines member checking as, “a term used to determine the trustworthiness of the data analysis”(p. 69). Member checking allowed the presidents the opportunity to review the information from the previous interview to ensure that it accurately reflected the presidents’ feelings and responses (Creswell, 1998; Wolfe, 2010). The second interview enabled the researcher to conduct additional questioning related to the responses from the initial interview and clarify any issues that were unclear.

As previously noted, the ACE (2007) study indicated that presidents who had earned a doctoral degree with a specialization in education felt more prepared to deal with assessment and accountability of student learning than presidents who earned doctorates in other disciplines. All of the presidents shared their belief that the issue of accountability and assessment of student learning was important. Several mentioned that external constituencies such as lawmakers and regional accreditation agencies are holding presidents responsible for student outcomes. A typical comment was

Although 11 of presidents in the study indicated their programs had prepared them in the area of student assessment, two participants expressed concerns about this area.

Speaking about the strength of this area, President Elijah Alexander said,

Dr. William James response concurred with President Alexander when he said:

Most of the presidents coupled their understanding of student assessment issues with their doctoral training and statistics and assessment. President Levi Carter’s comments best represent this connection when he shared:

President Ryan Wyatt from Micah-Henry University was one the two presidents that felt that in his program not enough time was spent on these issues. He shared:

The other president Gavin Benjamin simply said “I don’t believe it was, No I don’t think it [assessment and accountability of student learning] was addressed.”

Although all presidents did not feel that their program prepared them as well as it should in the area of assessment of student learning, all believed that the issue of accountability and assessment of student learning was important. Several mentioned that external constituencies such as lawmakers and regional accreditation agencies are holding presidents responsible for student outcomes.

While the presidents believed that higher education doctoral programs should address the twin issues of assessment and accountability, several felt that their preparation could have been stronger if this had been more prominent in the program. President Emila Lily extended that concept further by suggesting that it was important to establish those areas as a central learning goal. This is in alignment with the recommendations of Poda (2007) and Huba and Freed (2001). President Lily expressed how doctoral programs could use the dissertation process to help students develop the skill of assessment. She shares:

This statement is profound in that it underscores the notion that assessment can be viewed as a form of leadership. This suggests that it is important that those aspiring to serve in senior leadership in higher education embrace and expect the challenge of accountability. President Lily also alludes to the idea that doctoral students that aspire to the presidency should see the dissertation as not only as a final project to complete before concluding their doctorate. These doctoral students could view their dissertation process along with internship projects as a way of refining their assessment skills.

In the second interview, presidents were asked to share various assessment techniques they would use to assess student learning within higher education doctoral programs. Six of the 13 participants had served as program faculty in higher education doctoral programs. Therefore they were able to provide informed comments regarding curricular enhancements. Each president suggested different areas to emphasize regarding assessment, such as how to best assess student mastery in the area of time management. Presidents were asked the areas that students should be assessed upon based on their previous responses to the question, “Please provide examples of skills or competencies you would advise students to develop while in their higher education programs.” President Ian Flynn chose the issue of time management as an area that students should master prior to completing their programs. He shared

President William James emphasized students that aspire to serve as a university president need to have skills in developing a vision and seeing it through. He believed this skill could be enhanced within a higher education doctoral program. Below he describes the way he would suggest that higher education faculty assess the growth of this skill in their students.

The assessment technique of simulations suggested to gauge the mastery of various skills was not the only approach suggested. Presidents such as Evelyn Aurora believed that higher education faculty could utilize “new media” to help them assess whether students understood concepts being taught.

President Jessica Elliott suggested somewhat more traditional assessment techniques including examinations, student-generated test questions and peer review.

Another President, Joshua Dillan, believed that students needed to be thoughtful about their career trajectory and that faculty could help in this process by assessing the quality of their career plan. Below he provides an example of the process he used when serving as a director of a higher education program.

President Emelia Lily responded to the question by giving several examples of ways to assess knowledge and skill development in these programs.