he use of student learning outcomes
(SLOs) is commonplace at regionally accredited colleges and universities in the
United States. I have been working with SLOs in one form or another for the
past decade, even before they became fashionable. Many years ago, while I was
an instructor in the US Navy, SLOs were called Terminal Objectives.
After the service, I taught GED classes and at that time SLOs were referred to
as Learning Goals. Regardless of the latest trendy technical name, SLOs
are clear statements that describe the new skills students should be able to
demonstrate as a result of a learning event such as a college course (Ewell,
2001). Whether teaching online, on-ground, or via a blended environment, the
importance of defining the intended outcomes, before instruction takes place,
cannot be overstated because SLOs identify fundamental and measurable student
skills, help outline needed curricular content, and define appropriate
assessment.
This article, however, is not about
the SLOs we use in our classrooms as we are all very likely already acquainted
with this process; it is instead about employing similar outcomes-based tactics
in the practical development, facilitation, and assessment of faculty
development. As much as our students need effective instruction, faculty
members need high-quality training as well. From federal compliance topics such
as FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) to instructional
strategies related to classroom management, active learning, and technology, to
name just a few, there is no shortage of competencies faculty need to develop
in order to function well in any learning environment.
Driscoll and Wood (2007) defined the
key features of learner-centered, outcomes-based instruction as follows:
- Faculty clearly communicate the intended outcomes of each lesson in advance
- The stated outcomes are accessible and made public
- Students have clear expectations and understand the purpose of the instruction
- Students’ progress is determined by the achievement of learning outcomes
- Assessment results are analyzed and used to improve curricula and align instruction
How far of a conceptual leap would
it be to apply these same features to our own development as faculty members?
As an instructor, I would certainly appreciate it if (a) the intended outcomes
of my own training were communicated in advance; (b) if the outcomes of my
training were accessible; (c) if I had clear expectations and understood the
purpose of my training; (d) if my progress as an instructor was determined by
the achievement of clear training outcomes; and especially (e) if the
assessment results of my own training was analyzed and used to improve future
training. Take a moment to answer the following questions as you reflect on
past training sessions you attended:
- How was the training announced? Were the expected outcomes of the training communicated in advance or was it via an email that read something to the effect of, “let’s get together and chat about FERPA”?
- How was the training presented? Were the training outcomes listed on PowerPoint slides? If not, were they explained verbally? A well-defined outcome for FERPA training would be for example, “By the end of this training you will be able to apply FERPA policy to determine when and when not to disclose student information.” Was the training engaging, relevant, and current? Did you have any input in its content?
- How were the skills you gained during training later assessed? Through classroom observations that focused particular attention on the application of the new skills
he
use of student learning outcomes (SLOs) is commonplace at regionally
accredited colleges and universities in the United States. I have been
working with SLOs in one form or another for the past decade, even
before they became fashionable. Many years ago, while I was an
instructor in the US Navy, SLOs were called Terminal Objectives. After the service, I taught GED classes and at that time SLOs were referred to as Learning Goals.
Regardless of the latest trendy technical name, SLOs are clear
statements that describe the new skills students should be able to
demonstrate as a result of a learning event such as a college course
(Ewell, 2001). Whether teaching online, on-ground, or via a blended
environment, the importance of defining the intended outcomes, before
instruction takes place, cannot be overstated because SLOs identify
fundamental and measurable student skills, help outline needed
curricular content, and define appropriate assessment.
This article, however, is not about the SLOs we use in our classrooms as we are all very likely already acquainted with this process; it is instead about employing similar outcomes-based tactics in the practical development, facilitation, and assessment of faculty development. As much as our students need effective instruction, faculty members need high-quality training as well. From federal compliance topics such as FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) to instructional strategies related to classroom management, active learning, and technology, to name just a few, there is no shortage of competencies faculty need to develop in order to function well in any learning environment.
Driscoll and Wood (2007) defined the key features of learner-centered, outcomes-based instruction as follows:
This article, however, is not about the SLOs we use in our classrooms as we are all very likely already acquainted with this process; it is instead about employing similar outcomes-based tactics in the practical development, facilitation, and assessment of faculty development. As much as our students need effective instruction, faculty members need high-quality training as well. From federal compliance topics such as FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) to instructional strategies related to classroom management, active learning, and technology, to name just a few, there is no shortage of competencies faculty need to develop in order to function well in any learning environment.
Driscoll and Wood (2007) defined the key features of learner-centered, outcomes-based instruction as follows:
- Faculty clearly communicate the intended outcomes of each lesson in advance
- The stated outcomes are accessible and made public
- Students have clear expectations and understand the purpose of the instruction
- Students’ progress is determined by the achievement of learning outcomes
- Assessment results are analyzed and used to improve curricula and align instruction
- How was the training announced? Were the expected outcomes of the training communicated in advance or was it via an email that read something to the effect of, “let’s get together and chat about FERPA”?
- How was the training presented? Were the training outcomes listed on PowerPoint slides? If not, were they explained verbally? A well-defined outcome for FERPA training would be for example, “By the end of this training you will be able to apply FERPA policy to determine when and when not to disclose student information.” Was the training engaging, relevant, and current? Did you have any input in its content?
- How were the skills you gained during training later assessed? Through classroom observations that focused particular attention on the application of the new skills? A quiz a few weeks after the training? By reviewing students’ related comments on end-of-course critiques?
he
use of student learning outcomes (SLOs) is commonplace at regionally
accredited colleges and universities in the United States. I have been
working with SLOs in one form or another for the past decade, even
before they became fashionable. Many years ago, while I was an
instructor in the US Navy, SLOs were called Terminal Objectives. After the service, I taught GED classes and at that time SLOs were referred to as Learning Goals.
Regardless of the latest trendy technical name, SLOs are clear
statements that describe the new skills students should be able to
demonstrate as a result of a learning event such as a college course
(Ewell, 2001). Whether teaching online, on-ground, or via a blended
environment, the importance of defining the intended outcomes, before
instruction takes place, cannot be overstated because SLOs identify
fundamental and measurable student skills, help outline needed
curricular content, and define appropriate assessment.
This article, however, is not about the SLOs we use in our classrooms as we are all very likely already acquainted with this process; it is instead about employing similar outcomes-based tactics in the practical development, facilitation, and assessment of faculty development. As much as our students need effective instruction, faculty members need high-quality training as well. From federal compliance topics such as FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) to instructional strategies related to classroom management, active learning, and technology, to name just a few, there is no shortage of competencies faculty need to develop in order to function well in any learning environment.
Driscoll and Wood (2007) defined the key features of learner-centered, outcomes-based instruction as follows:
This article, however, is not about the SLOs we use in our classrooms as we are all very likely already acquainted with this process; it is instead about employing similar outcomes-based tactics in the practical development, facilitation, and assessment of faculty development. As much as our students need effective instruction, faculty members need high-quality training as well. From federal compliance topics such as FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) to instructional strategies related to classroom management, active learning, and technology, to name just a few, there is no shortage of competencies faculty need to develop in order to function well in any learning environment.
Driscoll and Wood (2007) defined the key features of learner-centered, outcomes-based instruction as follows:
- Faculty clearly communicate the intended outcomes of each lesson in advance
- The stated outcomes are accessible and made public
- Students have clear expectations and understand the purpose of the instruction
- Students’ progress is determined by the achievement of learning outcomes
- Assessment results are analyzed and used to improve curricula and align instruction
- How was the training announced? Were the expected outcomes of the training communicated in advance or was it via an email that read something to the effect of, “let’s get together and chat about FERPA”?
- How was the training presented? Were the training outcomes listed on PowerPoint slides? If not, were they explained verbally? A well-defined outcome for FERPA training would be for example, “By the end of this training you will be able to apply FERPA policy to determine when and when not to disclose student information.” Was the training engaging, relevant, and current? Did you have any input in its content?
- How were the skills you gained during training later assessed? Through classroom observations that focused particular attention on the application of the new skills? A quiz a few weeks after the training? By reviewing students’ related comments on end-of-course critiques?
he use of student learning outcomes
(SLOs) is commonplace at regionally accredited colleges and universities in the
United States. I have been working with SLOs in one form or another for the
past decade, even before they became fashionable. Many years ago, while I was
an instructor in the US Navy, SLOs were called Terminal Objectives.
After the service, I taught GED classes and at that time SLOs were referred to
as Learning Goals. Regardless of the latest trendy technical name, SLOs
are clear statements that describe the new skills students should be able to
demonstrate as a result of a learning event such as a college course (Ewell,
2001). Whether teaching online, on-ground, or via a blended environment, the
importance of defining the intended outcomes, before instruction takes place,
cannot be overstated because SLOs identify fundamental and measurable student
skills, help outline needed curricular content, and define appropriate
assessment.
This article, however, is not about
the SLOs we use in our classrooms as we are all very likely already acquainted
with this process; it is instead about employing similar outcomes-based tactics
in the practical development, facilitation, and assessment of faculty
development. As much as our students need effective instruction, faculty
members need high-quality training as well. From federal compliance topics such
as FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) to instructional
strategies related to classroom management, active learning, and technology, to
name just a few, there is no shortage of competencies faculty need to develop
in order to function well in any learning environment.
Driscoll and Wood (2007) defined the
key features of learner-centered, outcomes-based instruction as follows:
- Faculty clearly communicate the intended outcomes of each lesson in advance
- The stated outcomes are accessible and made public
- Students have clear expectations and understand the purpose of the instruction
- Students’ progress is determined by the achievement of learning outcomes
- Assessment results are analyzed and used to improve curricula and align instruction
How far of a conceptual leap would
it be to apply these same features to our own development as faculty members?
As an instructor, I would certainly appreciate it if (a) the intended outcomes
of my own training were communicated in advance; (b) if the outcomes of my
training were accessible; (c) if I had clear expectations and understood the
purpose of my training; (d) if my progress as an instructor was determined by
the achievement of clear training outcomes; and especially (e) if the
assessment results of my own training was analyzed and used to improve future
training. Take a moment to answer the following questions as you reflect on
past training sessions you attended:
- How was the training announced? Were the expected outcomes of the training communicated in advance or was it via an email that read something to the effect of, “let’s get together and chat about FERPA”?
No comments:
Post a Comment