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

[Luis Goddyn <goddyn@sfu.ca>]

I agree wholeheartedly.  I will sign on, if appropriate.

Luis Goddyn
Professor, Department of Mathematics
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