In my teaching career I worked at two colleges in Wisconsin. One public and one private. Both have Learning outcomes for each course, program/major outcomes for each major, and Institutional outcomes for the college (aka Employable skills, Career essentials, or Abilities).
Recently a friend of mine started teaching an online class at the University in a different state, and she kept asking them to give her learning outcomes for the course. After some back and forth emails it turned out that this other state university doesn’t have them.
It blew my mind , how do they know what the scope and depth of teaching should be in that course? How do they get their accreditation?
I am curious to know if it is just in Wisconsin or selected states/countries that it is a common practice to have outcomes? Also how do you teach without them?
Usually the instructor is required to create the outcomes for the class, but they are usually based on meta-outcomes from the department. That’s how it has been at all institutions I have worked at. With that said, I have worked with colleagues, full professors with Ph.D.s that didn’t understand the principle of learning outcomes, and unless forced to put them in the syllabus, they either would not do it on their own or when having them, would not follow them. And forgot about triangulation of LO to activities and assessments.
++++++++++++
Accreditors look for program LOs but not at course level. (We learned this after a faculty member was fired for pushing back on LOs on the syllabus, and when the Uni said “SACS requirements”, SACS responded w/“um no, not really…”) Since then, we’ve collected data as part of our assessment plan & can say w/confidence that students don’t read them…
Session Title: Measuring Learning Outcomes of New Library Initiatives Coordinator: Professor Plamen Miltenoff, Ph.D., MLIS, St. Cloud State University, USA Contact: pmiltenoff@stcloudstate.edu Scope & rationale: The advent of new technologies, such as virtual/augmented/mixed reality, and new pedagogical concepts, such as gaming and gamification, steers academic libraries in uncharted territories. There is not yet sufficiently compiled research and, respectively, proof to justify financial and workforce investment in such endeavors. On the other hand, dwindling resources for education presses administration to demand justification for new endeavors. As it has been established already, technology does not teach; teachers do; a growing body of literature questions the impact of educational technology on educational outcomes. This session seeks to bring together presentations and discussion, both qualitative and quantitative research, related to new pedagogical and technological endeavors in academic libraries as part of education on campus. By experimenting with new technologies such as Video 360 degrees and new pedagogical approaches such as gaming and gamification, does the library improve learning? By experimenting with new technologies and pedagogical approaches, does the library help campus faculty to adopt these methods and improve their teaching? How can results be measured, demonstrated?
Chad, K., & Anderson, H. (2017). The new role of the library in teaching and learning outcomes (p. ). Higher Education Library Technology. https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.14688.89606/1
p. 4 “Modern university libraries require remote access for large numbers of concurrent users, with fewer authentication steps and more flexible digital rights management (DRM) to satisfy student demand”. They found the most frequent problem was that core reading list titles were not available to libraries as e-books.
p. 5 Overcoming the “textbook taboo”
In the US, academic software firm bepress notes that, in response to increased student textbook costs: “Educators, institutions, and even state legislators are turning their attention toward Open Educational Resources (OER)” in order to save students money while increasing engagement and retention. As a result bepress has developed its infrastructure to host and share OER within and across institutions.21 The UMass Library Open Education Initiative estimates it has saved the institution over $1.3 million since its inception in 2011. 22 Other textbook initiatives include SUNY Open Textbooks, developed by the State University of New York Libraries, which has already published 18 textbooks, and OpenStax, developed by Rice University.
p.5. sceptics about OER rapid progress still see potential in working with publishers.
Knowledge Unlatched 23 is an example of this kind of collaboration: “We believe that by working together libraries and publishers can create a sustainable route to Open Access for scholarly books.” Groups of libraries contribute to fund publication though a crowdfunding platform. The consortium pays a fixed upfront fee for the publisher to publish the book online under a Creative Commons license.
p.6.Technology: from library systems to educational technology.The rise of the library centric reading list system
big increase in the number of universities in the UK, Australia and New Zealand deploying library reading lists solutions.The online reading list can be seen as a sort of course catalogue that gives the user a (sometimes week-by-week) course/module view on core resources and provides a link to print holdings information or the electronic full text. It differs significantly from the integrated library system (ILS) ‘course reserve’ module, notably by providing access to materials beyond the items in the library catalogue. Titles can be characterised, for example as ‘recommended’ or ‘essential’ reading and citations annotated.
Reading list software brings librarians and academics together into a system where they must cooperate to be effective. Indeed some librarians claim that the reading list system is a key library tool for transforming student learning.
Higher education institutions, particularly those in Australia, New Zealand and some other parts of Europe (including the UK) are more likely to operate a reading list model, supplying students with a (sometimes long) list of recommended titles.
p.8. E-book platforms (discusses only UK)
p.9. Data: library management information to learning analytics
p.10. Leadership “Strong digital leadership is a key feature of effective educational organisations and its absence can be a significant barrier to progress. The digital agenda is therefore a leadership issue”. 48 (Rebooting learning for the digital age: What next for technology-enhanced higher education? Sarah Davies, Joel Mullan, Paul Feldman. Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) Report 93. February 2017. )
A merging of LibTech and EdTech
The LITA discussion is under RE: [lita-l] Anyone Running Multiple Discovery Layers?
Students will … students will … students will … students will. (Meantime the students’ will becomes defined for them, or ignored, or crushed.) Each of the above statements assume a linear, non-paradoxical, cleanly defined world.
For it turns out that two of the words we must never, ever use are “understand” and “appreciate.” These are vague words, we are told. Instead, we must use specific words like “describe,” “formulate,” “evaluate,” “identify,” and so forth.
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013, Patrice Torcivia Prusko wrote:
Sloan defines blended as anywhere between 30-79% online, so there is a pretty wide range. (I attached a document with the reference). The following are from a Blended Workshop I attended by Dr. Norman Vaughan
Teachers used to be the gatekeepers to information, to knowledge. The successive inventions of writing and reading, print, the library, and then the World Wide Web, mean that we teachers are no longer the gatekeepers.
Schools, universities and teachers to some extent remain the gatekeepers to knowledge, the definers of what comprises valid knowledge. We do this, of course, through holding the ultimate educational power – the power to assess.
But it is not clear how long we teachers will, or should, hold this power. Increasingly, students, and employers, nations, cultures, many groups in our societies, rightly want a say in defining what is valid knowledge, a valid curriculum.
Knowledge isn’t enough
Each year, vast amounts of new knowledge are produced. Also, each year, vast amounts of current knowledge become wrong, or redundant, or both. Knowledge dies. In some subjects, a significant proportion of what was taught in the first year will have died by the time the students who learned it graduate. So, what is education for?
Machines are doing more and more of the work
The bad news is, we are getting squeezed out of work. The good news is, we are getting squeezed up, into ever more interesting work. We will be able to stay ahead for a long time; because there are always still more difficult and important and exciting things for us to do, increasingly with the support of our increasingly capable machines.
Employers want graduates to be job-ready. They also want graduates to be fluent in the five Cs: Creativity, Communication, Collaboration and Criticality as well as Competence. Not all university education currently develops the first four Cs. Very little university education currently gives high priority to their development. Rarely are they formally assessed.
Changing outcomes, changing pedagogies
The architecture of a university expresses its views about pedagogy. This remains true with the great leap online. The old pedagogic architecture – of teaching as (mainly) telling, of learning as (mainly) listening and reading, of access in and through the library to specified stored knowledge, and of assessment as (mainly) recalling, repeating back what has been learned, perhaps with some application or interpretation – has for the most part been recreated in digital form, with varying degrees of success
Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147, 103778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778
p. 3
2.2. Learning paradigms
An understanding of the existing learning paradigms is essential for performing an analysis of the current state of VR applications in higher education. Thus, we introduce the main ideas behind the existing learning paradigms. Literature distinguishes between behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism (Schunk, 2012). Other scholars also include experiential learning (Kolb & Kolb, 2012) to this list and, recently, connectivism has been introduced as a new learning paradigm (Kathleen Dunaway, 2011; Siemens, 2014). Each learning paradigm has developed various theories about educational goals and outcomes (Schunk, 2012). Each of these theories also offers a different perspective on the learning goals, motivational process, learning performance, transfer of knowledge process, the role of emotions, and implications for the teaching methods.
Behaviorism assumes that knowledge is a repertoire of behavioral responses to environmental stimuli (Shuell, 1986; Skinner, 1989). Thus, learning is considered to be a passive absorption of a predefined body of knowledge by the learner. According to this paradigm, learning requires repetition and learning motivation is extrinsic, involving positive and negative reinforcement. The teacher serves as a role model who transfers the correct behavioral response.
Cognitivism understands the acquisition of knowledge systems as actively constructed by learners based on pre-existing prior knowledge structures. Hence, the proponents of cognitivism view learning as an active, constructive, and goal-oriented process, which involves active assimilation and accommodation of new information to an existing body of knowledge. The learning motivation is intrinsic and learners should be capable of defining their own goals and motivating themselves to learn. Learning is supported by providing an environment that encourages discovery and assimilation or accommodation of knowledge (Shuell, 1986),RN23. Cognitivism views learning as more complex cognitive processes such as thinking, problem-solving, verbal information, concept formation, and information processing. It addresses the issues of how information is received, organized, stored, and retrieved by the mind. Knowledge acquisition is a mental activity consisting of internal coding and structuring by the learner. Digital media, including VR-based learning can strengthen cognitivist learning design (Dede, 2008). Cognitive strategies such as schematic organization, analogical reasoning, and algorithmic problem solving will fit learning tasks requiring an increased level of processing, e.g. classifications, rule or procedural executions (Ertmer & Newby, 1993) and be supported by digital media (Dede, 2008).
Constructivism posits that learning is an active, constructive process. Learners serve as information constructors who actively construct their subjective representations and comprehensions of reality. New information is linked to the prior knowledge of each learner and, thus, mental representations are subjective (Fosnot, 2013; Fosnot & Perry, 1996). Therefore, constructivists argue that the instructional learning design has to provide macro and micro support to assist the learners in constructing their knowledge and engaging them for meaningful learning. The macro support tools include related cases, information resources, cognitive tools, conversation, and collaboration tools, and social or contextual support. A micro strategy makes use of multimedia and principles such as the spatial contiguity principle, coherence principle, modality principle, and redundancy principle to strengthen the learning process. VR-based learning fits the constructivist learning design (Lee & Wong, 2008; Sharma, Agada, & Ruffin, 2013). Constructivist strategies such as situated learning, cognitive apprenticeships, and social negotiation are appropriate for learning tasks demanding high levels of processing, for instance, heuristic problem solving, personal selection, and monitoring of cognitive strategies (Ertmer & Newby, 1993).
Experientialism describes learning as following a cycle of experiential stages, from concrete experience, observation and reflection, and abstract conceptualization to testing concepts in new situations. Experientialism adopts the constructivist’s point of view to some extent—e.g., that learning should be drawn from a learner’s personal experience. The teacher takes on the role of a facilitator to motivate learners to address the various stages of the learning cycle (Kolb & Kolb, 2012).
Connectivism takes into account the digital-age by assuming that people process information by forming connections. This newly introduced paradigm suggests that people do not stop learning after completing their formal education. They continue to search for and gain knowledge outside of traditional education channels, such as job skills, networking, experience, and access to information, by making use of new technology tools (Siemens, 2014).
“Students miss opportunities for enriched and flexible learning opportunities when they are confined to a binary learning modality. I envision a future where we retire the idea of online vs. classroom learning, replacing these dueling models with a unified format that prioritizes outcomes. Instead of approaching education from a “this or that” approach, we’d serve students much better with a “this and that” approach.” My note: That higher ed industry executive seems oblivious about the #hyflex discussions
Even before COVID-19, in-person learning was being challenged by innovation.
Finally, no matter which hybrid approach schools take to learning, they need to work with businesses to align curriculum to in-demand job skills. It doesn’t matter how perfectly designed a course or program is if it doesn’t provide outcomes that ultimately enable employment opportunities.
, how do they know what the scope and depth of teaching should be in that course? How do they get their accreditation?