Open Letter to SFU Senators regarding the Learning Outcomes Initiative

[Elise Chenier <echenier@gmail.com>]

Dear colleagues,
The last SFUFA meeting inspired me to undertake a thorough read of the
report currently circulating and upon which you are invited to
comment. I urge you to do so. Senate has NOT yet approved Learning
Outcomes Assessment. If they do, it will have a significant impact on
all of us who teach. For your information, below is an open letter
that outlines my own concerns with the proposed initiative.
Kind regards,
Elise Chenier
Associate Professor, Department of History

November 30, 2012

An Open Letter to the Members of the Senate at Simon Fraser University

Dear Members of the Senate,

I am writing to urge you to not approve the Learning Outcomes
Assessment (LOA) initiative. I have been teaching at the university
level for more than twenty years and based on my experience I do not
believe that LOA will improve our system of education in any way.
Rather, it will have a negative impact.

Simon Fraser University offers top-notch undergraduate and graduate
education. There is no evidence that we do not already provide
appropriate and useful assessments of student learning. Conversely,
there is considerable evidence to show that implementing LOA has a
detrimental effect on curriculum, and it adds substantively to the
workloads of faculty, instructors and administrators.

Thank you for taking the time to read my response. Below I have quoted
sections of the recent draft report, and provided specific responses
to the issues that arise.

"SFU has identified and articulated institutional goals in its
Strategic Vision, one of which is to “equip its students with the
knowledge, skills, and experiences that prepare them for life in an
ever‐changing and challenging world.” Given the current lack of an LOA
framework at SFU, however, it is difficult to know whether SFU
graduates are achieving that goal. Implementing the development of LOA
frameworks locally within academic units at the course and program
levels is likely to better inform identification of general attributes
that all SFU graduates should possess (3-4)."

 I strongly disagree with this statement. First, the evidence suggests
that SFU does extremely well in preparing students “for life in an
ever‐changing and challenging world.” We are a top-ranked university.
There is no evidence of a problem that needs fixing. Furthermore,
given the diversity of programs offered, I cannot imagine how we could
identify a set of “general attributes that all SFU graduates should
possess,” unless it be so broad and general as to be meaningless.

SFU might prefer that I prepare students to learn to achieve within
the existing socio-economic system. Students' goals might primarily be
to get the credentials they think they need to get jobs in this
system. My goal is to teach them how to think critically about
existing systems. Students in my classes will likely achieve all of
the above goals. This diversity of goals is a positive, not a
negative, attribute.

"Research shows that university students respond favourably when
clearly articulated learning outcomes are built into their programs,
courses and assignments (4)."

Actually, research (and, not to be cheeky, but common sense) shows
that university teachers cannot predict learning outcomes. They can
only set goals. Goals and outcomes are fundamentally different. We all
have students who just want to pass (believe me, the first time I
learned this I was as shocked as you are). I also have students who
want to be challenged, and who read well beyond the syllabus. I can
set the same goal for both types of student, but the learning outcomes
for these students will be dramatically different. Calling “goals”
“outcomes” will not change this fact, and neither will adding a list
of goals to a syllabus.

"Pressure to articulate learning outcomes, says Ascough, is rising not
only from provincial governments which are increasingly basing funding
and resource allocations on market mechanisms and private sector
criteria, but also from 21st‐century students who “want and often
demand a clear idea of the return on investment of a given activity”
(4)."

Talking about education in terms of “returns on investments” is
profoundly out of sync with what education offers. Moreover, as I
indicated above, instructors have no control over how much a student
invests in a course, therefore they cannot predict a “return.”

"The primary purpose of learning outcomes and assessment processes is
to communicate transparently the purposes of all degree, program and
course requirements (5)."

I do not believe that presently there is a lack of transparency. Is
there evidence to suggest this is the case? What problems, if any,
have arisen here at SFU as a result?

"As per its Strategic Vision, SFU is committed to academic and
intellectual freedom. Learning outcomes for courses and programs will
be developed and determined at the local academic unit level and will
reflect local disciplinary cultures. These will be aligned with
enduring institutional goals, values, and principles as articulated in
the SFU Strategic Vision."

Aligning LOs with SFU’s Strategic Vision does undermine academic
freedom. Unlike a corporation, for example, whose employees are hired
to work toward the same set of goals as defined by a Board of
Directors, a university is more of a nesting ground for a great
diversity of ideas, goals, and objectives which do not and should not
fit under a single umbrella. Furthermore, speaking practically, the
Strategic Vision is not an enduring goal. Visions change as presidents
come and go. What endures at SFU are education’s foot soldiers, not
its commanders-in-chief.

Why take a top-down approach to reforming curriculum? Have faculty
expressed concern about lack of transparency? Have they requested
learning outcomes assessment?

"Learning outcomes assessment will enable instructors to improve upon
existing curricula and teaching methodologies"

Currently we use essays, lab work, exams, and so on, throughout and at
the end of courses to measure how well students have understood course
material, and to provide extra support or new materials or approaches
to address any problems that become evident in the evaluation process.
What is wrong with these tools, what new tools will LO bring, and
precisely how will this improve the current mode or measuring
learning?

"It is the responsibility of the University to provide resources
(human, capital, technological) to academic units as required to
enable and support learning outcomes and assessment procedures.
Provision of this support is intended to minimize any addition to the
net workload of instructors, TAs/TMs, and department staff."

Minimize the addition, but still add to the workload. How will
instructors be compensated for the additional workload, which,
according to instructors in Business and Engineering, where LOAs
already exist, is substantial to the point of crippling? Has the
administration considered how adding to instructors' administrative
workload will subtract efforts from other areas of their work? From
which area should we reduce our workload? Teaching? Or research?

I realize this is a long letter, and I regret taking up so much of
your time. I myself actually prefer just to click on an online
petition to express my point of view. However, this issue matters to
me deeply because I believe that, though perhaps well intentioned, the
LOA initiative is misguided. The fact is, instructors are already
doing what is proposed here, with the major difference that we set
goals, not outcomes. We also must consider the impact on workload, but
perhaps most importantly, we must pay attention to the way LOAs
represent a fundamental shift in what we think learning is about, how
it happens, and how we can best support it (and those who deliver it).

It is my view that LOAs undermine rather than strengthen our work in
the classroom, and will have a negative impact on students and faculty
alike, and I urge you not to approve the LOA initiative.

Sincerely,
Elise Chenier
Associate Professor
Department of History