[curriclulum] Agenda item for meeting: goal one rewrite and iSLOs
I recently presented the Student Learning
Outcomes Assessment Plan (SLOAP) to the assessment committee. The plan
calls for either a rewriting of goal one as approved by the board last
September, or, alternately, keeping that goal and adding the rewritten
goal one as an additional goal. The plan also calls for the adoption
of institutional student learning outcomes that connect the goal to the
program student learning outcomes. The assessment committee cleared
the presentation of the plan at the system-wide conference next week,
and the president is working on a tentative schedule that might see the
plan presented on Tuesday morning.
I would like the curriculum committee to have a look at the proposed
rewrite of goal one and the institutional student learning outcomes,
comment on both, and indicate whether the curriculum committee would
also endorse these items:
Promote learning and teaching for knowledge, skills, creativity,
intellect, and the abilities to analyze new information and communicate
Institutional student learning outcomes:
||Students will be able to...
||define, describe, demonstrate, and
explain knowledge within a field of study.
||apply, use, perform, exhibit, and
demonstrate skills required of a particular career or field of endeavor.
||plan, design, develop, seek, find,
synthesize, and create solutions, strategies, documents, and products.
||exhibit the capacity for independent
thought and critical thinking.
||communicate effectively through writing,
speaking, performing, exhibiting, or other forms of expression.
||acquire, interpret, analyze, assess, and
I would note that the SLOAP centers on and addresses only learning and
aims to put learning at the core of instructional affairs. This does
not mean that there is not a need to develop teaching objectives to
serve the "teaching" in "promote learning and teaching for..."
Any one goal can be served by a variety of objectives. Certainly there
is a need, in order to "promote teaching" to provide faculty and staff
development, facilities, and other teaching support services. The
SLOAP does not intend to directly address anything beyond learning.
Due to Barr
and Tagg 1995, I feel I should note that conceptually I do differ
from those who feel that an institution can be defined solely by
learning. While Barr and Tagg note that "payroll clerks...will...
empower student learning", my own hope is that payroll clerks will
produce the payroll on time.1 Thus I personally allow for
the existence of objectives beyond learning, including objective in a
"teaching paradigm" and not solely in a "learning paradigm." That
said, SLOAP is wholly in the learning paradigm.
The presentation on SLOAP can be viewed at:
Explanation of the development of SLOAP and details "underneath the
hood" of the plan are available at:
1 I have other differences with the learning
paradigm. I conceive of education as a learning opportunity,
the learning paradigm in its purist form sees learning as a mandatory
and necessary outcome. The learning paradigm seems to hold the
tenet that education should be like unto a visit to an auto mechanic:
If you bring your car in, your car will be fixed. The learning paradigm
appears to hold to the theory that if you bring your body, you will
learn or the learning institution will keep adjusting things until the
institution can guarantee learning. The catch is that the learning
paradigm neglects the impact of free will - cars exert no choice.
Students are not objects. Learning can never be guaranteed. In
adopting a view that sees an institution as more than a learning
organization, one develops a broader view of the roles an institution
plays. In the post-learning paradigm era learning and its assessment
will be at the core of an institution, but it will not be the sum total
of everything that is the institution.