Re: Open Letter to SFU Senators regarding the Learning Outcomes Initiative

[Marjorie Griffin Cohen <mcohen@sfu.ca>]

Elsie, this is an excellent letter and you have so clearly articulated what is wrong about this approach to higher education.  

If you are collecting signatures, I'll sign on.  

Marjorie


Marjorie Griffin Cohen
Professor, Political Science/GSWS
Simon Fraser University

On 2012-12-01, at 3:27 PM, Elise Chenier wrote:

> 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