Meeting Quality Principle II requires that the faculty members make subsidiary claims about the validity of their interpretations of the evidence they use to substantiate their claims of student learning (Quality Principle I). Thus, each measure that the faculty employs entails a subsidiary claim that the measure is truly about what the students learned. Each claim of validity always carries with it the prior claim that the measure is reliable and dependable.

To meet Quality Principle III, the program faculty must also investigate the claim that its quality control system (QCS) is comprehensive, functions as it was designed, and that it improves the program’s quality by enhancing student learning. The faculty makes its case for this claim in the internal audit report, described in Appendix A of the Brief.

Finally, to address TEAC’s standard for capacity for quality, the program faculty members must make a claim that the program meets the seven components of the standard: curriculum, faculty, resources, facilities, accurate publications, student support services, and student feedback.

Claims and causes

The faculty’s case for Quality Principle I requires only evidence about the status of graduates, not how well they perform in comparison to some other group, or in comparison to how much less they knew at some earlier points in the program. The claims associated with Quality Principle I, in other words, need not be claims about the source of the graduates’ competence or how much it changed over the course of the program.

Claims about cause and growth are encouraged and expected in connection with Quality Principle III, however, as a way of demonstrating the ongoing inquiry of the program faculty. TEAC’s Quality Principle III requires the program faculty to be curious and conduct research into the factors associated with the effectiveness of its program.

Return to Claims and Rationale