Assessing Civic Competency and Engagement in Higher Education: Research Background, Frameworks, and Directions for Next‐Generation Assessment

Abstract

Civic learning is increasingly recognized as important by the higher education and workforce communities. The development of high‐quality assessments that can be used to evaluate students' civic learning during the college years has become a priority. This paper presents a comprehensive review of existing frameworks, definitions, and assessments of civic‐related constructs from approximately 30 projects relevant to higher education, and includes a discussion of the challenges related to assessment design and implementation. Synthesizing information from the review, we propose an assessment framework to guide the design of a next‐generation assessment of individuals' civic learning that takes advantage of recent advances in assessment methods. The definition identifies 2 key domains within civic learning: civic competency and civic engagement. Civic competency encompasses 3 areas (civic knowledge; analytic skills; and participatory and involvement skills), and civic engagement also captures 3 areas (motivations, attitudes, and efficacy; democratic norms and values; and participation and activities). We discuss item formats and task types that would ensure fair and reliable scoring for the assessment. The review of definitions of civic learning and its components developed by organizations, the proposed assessment framework, and assessment considerations presented here have potential benefits for a range of higher education institutions. This includes institutions that currently have students engaged in relevant curricular or cocurricular activities and also institutions that would find assessments of civic competency and engagement helpful in program development or in evaluating students' accomplishments.

Assessing Civic and Intercultural Competency in Higher Education: The ETS HEIghten® Approach

“…One issue is that, given the multidimensionality of the civic and intercultural competency, many assessments report subscores. Although the reliability for the overall instrument is typically satisfactory, some assessments had subscale reliabilities lower than conventionally accepted values (Griffith et al, ; Torney‐Purta et al, ). Another pitfall is the lack of information of the interrelations among the subscales.…”

“…The reviews by Torney-Purta, Cabrera, Roohr, Liu, and Rios (2015) and Griffith, Wolfeld, Armon, Rios, and Liu (2016) identified many terms that have been used to describe these two competencies, respectively, without a clear understanding of the similarities and differences among such terms. For example, for civic-related concepts, common terms include civic learning, civic capacity, civic education, civic skills, and civic inclinations (e.g., Markle, Brenneman, Jackson, Burrus, & Robbins, 2013).…”

“…Similarly, a number of prior definitions and frameworks for intercultural competency were also consulted (Arasaratnam, 2008;Deardorff, 2006;Griffith & Harvey, 2001;King & Baxter Magolda, 2005). For more details of the framework papers, refer to Torney-Purta et al (2015) for civic competency and engagement and to Griffith et al (2016) for intercultural competency.…”

Ten Years After the Spellings Commission: From Accountability to Internal Improvement

“…During HEIghten's development, ETS reached out to over 200 institutions, including 2‐ and 4‐year, public and private, for‐profit and nonprofit instructions, to understand the learning outcomes expected of their students and the institutions’ assessment priorities and preferences. The team took a fundamental, research‐driven approach in assessment design in that each module has its associated framework paper which includes four core components: (1) a comprehensive review of the frameworks available in both higher education and workforce, (2) an overview of existing assessments and analysis of their strengths and weaknesses to inform design decisions, (3) an operational definition that clearly defines the construct of interest, and (4) a wide range of assessment considerations that are typically missing from other frameworks (Griffith, Wolfeld, Armon, Rios, & Liu, Liu, Frankel, & Roohr, ; Roohr, Graf, & Liu, ; Sparks, Song, Brantley, & Liu, ; Torney‐Purta, Cabrera, Roohr, Liu, & Rios ). The frameworks aim to provide both theoretical and practical information to institutions when they design their own assessments or consider adopting external measures.…”

Continuing a Culture of Evidence: Expanding Skills in Higher Education

“…Promising assessment examples based on ECD models directed to the assessment of the expanded set of skills are the HEIghten ® outcomes assessment suite. Among other skills, they assess critical thinking (Liu, Frankel, & Roohr, 2014), quantitative literacy (Roohr, Graf, & Liu, 2014), written communication (Sparks, Song, Brantley, & Liu, 2014), and civic competency and engagement (Torney-Purta, Cabrera, Crotts Roohr, Liu, & Rios, 2015). These are computer-delivered, modular, next-generation assessments that can support HEIs' goals by identifying areas for program and/or curricular improvement, identifying gaps in student SLOs, and gauging institutional performance.…”