[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Open letter regarding learning outcomes
Hi Lisa,
That is very clearly articulated.
I think aim 1 has clear benefits for students and for faculty (to ensure consistency of expectations when teaching of the course rotates among many faculty). It may be challenging to come to an agreement on this for some courses and programs, but it is a useful discussion to have and should not add excessively to our on-going workloads (being a one-time discussion, revisited periodically to ensure that the stated learning outcomes are still those desired.)
Aim 2 is far more fraught with challenges (how to "achieve" assessment as you state so clearly below) and with the potential to add to on-going workloads of all faculty. Initially, I thought that, if we could not assess whether learning outcomes were being met, then it seemed ridiculous to expend the effort to articulate them. However, I do believe that they are worthwhile to articulate (aim 1) for the benefits to students and faculty, and that striving to address these through our teaching and assessment will improve our teaching and hopefully the learning experience for our students.
Just my two cents,
Nancy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lisa Shapiro" <lshapiro@sfu.ca>
To: "Bernhard Riecke" <ber1@sfu.ca>
Cc: "Christopher Pavsek" <cpavsek@sfu.ca>, academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Sent: Tuesday, 4 December, 2012 19:05:21
Subject: Re: Open letter regarding learning outcomes
There seem to me to be two distinct issues around Learning Outcomes and Assessment:
1. Making explicit what we as faculty expect students to accomplish (i.e. articulating learning outcomes) in a course, in degree programmes, in graduation requirements, etc.
2. Devising ways of measuring or assessing these expectations and whether they were achieved.
It strikes me that (2) is far more problematic than (1), in a number of ways. First, it is not clear how to measure what is supposedly being measured. Second, it seems that devising and implementing any such measures is where the risk of added workload lies. Third, the need for measurement if improperly understood can put pressure to homogenize pedagogical methods. I am sure there are other potential issues that are not occurring to me right now.
As the process of LOA goes forward, it is important to be clear about this distinction and the various burdens that may or may not be imposed.
Cheers,
Lisa Shapiro
Philosophy
On 2012-12-03, at 10:54 PM, Bernhard Riecke wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
to make this discussion a bit more diverse and interesting, I'd like to contribute my 2 cents and recent experience here:
I'm currently re-designing a course, and was trying to determine what exactly students from the per-requisite courses were actually (supposed to be) able to do when the coming into my course. So I looked at the course syllabi of those prior courses - alas, there was no clear indication what students were really supposed to learn (as they had no clear learning outcomes listed). First of all, I think this is not fair to the students if we do not share what we have in mind (we do have something in mind I suppose ;-). Also, this lack of clear LO resulted in me having to ask a number of instructors to get a better picture of what they really do in their course. While I don't mind asking them, it's simply inefficient and I honestly do not see any good argument why we should not communicate what we, the instructors, hope students will learn and get out of our courses.
While I can imagine certain political reasons and process-related issues that might argue against the current implementation plans, I find that in general, clear learning outcomes can be an invaluable tool in designing good courses: They help us to design aligned teaching/learning activities, they communicate to the students some of the things they might learn in this course, and help us all to reduce unnecessary redundancies and thus layer courses better, so we can teach at an appropriate level.
The main potential issue I see with providing explicit desired learning outcomes would be if they were written in stone and couldn't be adjusted as necessary/appropriate without much administrative effort. If this is part of the current plan (no sure on this - I honestly didn't manage to dig through all the documents), than I would suggest that the ongoing discussion might want to address this issue directly, instead of in general arguing against LOs (which imho can be quite useful and improve both teaching and learning). I do believe that there is potential (and sometimes a need) to improve our teaching.
My 2 cents
Bernhard
On 2012-12-03 20:46, Christopher Pavsek wrote:
Dear Colleagues: Apologies for any cross posting.
Below please find the text of an open letter to the VPA, Jon Driver, and the President, Andrew Petter, in response to the recent report of the Learning Outcomes and Assessment Working Group (aka the LOAWG) that Carolyn Lesjak and I, Christopher Pavsek, have drafted in collaboration with several other faculty at SFU. We have kept it short and to the point.
We are hoping that others at SFU who are opposed to the implementation of a Learning Outcomes and Assessment framework will join us in signing this letter.
If you wish to sign this letter, please reply to Christopher Pavsek at cpavsek@sfu.ca ; please indicate your name, title, and departmental/school or other affiliation at SFU and your name will be added to the signature list.
The letter will be submitted electronically and in hard copy to the VPA and President on Friday, in time for the deadline for replying to the LOAWG report.
Please note: we feel that it is urgent to submit individual replies to the report as well. We do not think that this letter should replace individual or other collective responses to the report. To see the report, please go to this link: http://www.sfu.ca/vpacademic/committees_taskforces/LOAWG/reportloa.html
Responses to the report should be sent to the following email address not later than this Friday, December 7, as per recent instructions from the VPA's office: ucilsec@sfu.ca
TEXT OF THE LETTER:
An open letter to Andrew Petter, President, and Jon Driver, Vice President Academic.
Dear President Petter and Vice President Driver:
We the undersigned oppose the initiative to create a learning outcomes and assessment (LOA) framework at Simon Fraser University.
Based on the report of the Learning Outcomes and Assessment Working Group of October 29, 2012, we see no compelling evidence that such a framework is needed. We also see no compelling evidence that such a framework would be beneficial to the students at SFU.
In fact, there is much to convince us that an LOA framework will be detrimental to our curricula and that the implemention and administration of LOAs will be an unnecessary and heavy burden for faculty. Furthermore, we believe that the basic principles of learning outcomes is contrary to the development of the sort of rich and diverse pedagogies that should be the basis of an excellent university education.
Signed,
END OF LETTER.
Thank you very much for your time.
Christopher Pavsek
Associate Professor of Film
SFU Contemporary Arts
Simon Fraser University
149 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, BC V6B 1H4
Canada
778 782 4672
cpavsek@sfu.ca
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dr. Bernhard E. Riecke, Assistant Professor
School of Interactive Arts & Technology (SIAT)
Simon Fraser University Surrey
250 - 13450 102 Avenue, Surrey, BC V3T 0A3, Canada
web: iSpaceLab.com/Riecke www.siat.sfu.ca/faculty/Bernhard-Riecke office: 2830 (2nd floor) E-mail: ber1@sfu.ca phone:+1 778.782.8432 fax: 778.782.9422
--
Nancy Forde
Associate Professor
Department of Physics
Simon Fraser University
8888 University Dr.
Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6
--
nforde@sfu.ca
778-782-3161; 778-782-3592 (fax)
http://www.sfu.ca/fordelab
"Emergence & Complexity of Life" colloquium: http://www.sfu.ca/dean-gradstudies/events/dreamcolloquium/FallColloquium.html