Tag: Outcomes

  • Why aren’t we addressing inequity of outcomes for postgraduates?

    Why aren’t we addressing inequity of outcomes for postgraduates?

    One of the major trends in UK higher education is the increasing number of postgraduate students.

    There are now as many postgraduate taught students graduating every year as there are undergraduates.

    However, the equity of postgraduate experience and outcomes is almost completely overlooked.

    Modern postgraduates

    The postgraduate population is large and increasingly diverse. Approximately 450,000 students complete a postgraduate qualification in UK higher education institutions every year. 11 per cent of those students have declared a disability. Some 28 per cent of postgraduate taught students with a permanent UK address identify as Global Majority, while 9 per cent identify as Black and 13 per cent as Asian and those proportions are increasing year-on-year. One in three postgraduate taught students pay international fees.

    Whereas 10 years ago most international students were from the EU or China, the diversity of nationalities in postgraduate cohorts is growing. Data on the socioeconomic demographics of postgraduates is not currently available, but it is likely that the increase in students from socioeconomically deprived areas undertaking undergraduate study population is mirrored at masters level. Half of postgraduate students study their programmes on a part-time basis. Excluding those on visas that prohibit working, we can assume that a significant proportion of postgraduates are combining study with paid employment. The diversity of the postgraduate population is therefore considerable.

    Given how widespread inequity of outcomes is at undergraduate level, it would be extraordinary if the outcome gaps we see on the basis of disability, ethnicity and socioeconomic status were not replicated at postgraduate level. They may even be more acute for postgraduates given the higher costs of tuition fees and the increased academic independence required for postgraduate study. Yet there is almost no awareness or activity around equity or outcomes for this huge cohort of students.

    Lack of activity

    At undergraduate level there has been significant progress made in terms of awareness of student outcomes and inequity. Institutional committees and working groups scrutinise split metric data to assess ‘gaps’ in outcomes between demographic groups. Action plans are in place to address inequity of access, continuation, degree completion, degree class awarded and progression. Senior leadership teams monitor progress against established equity key performance indicators. Providers are even bringing in consultancy companies whose sole business is to help institutions understand the language of Access and Participation Plans. Universities are at least talking the talk around improving equity of outcomes, even if progress lags significantly behind this.

    However, none of this activity is replicated for postgraduate students. There isn’t a data dashboard of split metrics for postgraduate student outcomes. We haven’t even established the equivalent of the undergraduate degree classification awarding gap. Why isn’t there an outcome gap focussed on demographic equity of distinctions awarded for postgraduate taught students? Why aren’t we looking at completion rates for postgraduate students through the lens of disability and socioeconomic status?

    Pragmatically, the answer to this question is that the Office for Students has thus far paid little attention to postgraduate student outcomes, let alone equity of outcomes. The Teaching Excellence Framework included undergraduate courses with a postgraduate component (e.g. an integrated masters), but excluded postgraduate taught and postgraduate research provision. Access and Participation Plans are linked to the ability to charge the higher rate of undergraduate tuition fee, so again exclude postgraduate students.

    League table providers also ignore postgraduates. HESA only publish data on postgraduate qualifications awarded, and the publically available data is not broken down by demographic factors other than gender. In the contemporary higher education landscape, what gets measured gets done. If universities are not prioritising postgraduate outcomes, it is because the regulatory landscape allows them not to.

    Entry and equity

    It is also important to note that many masters programmes will now accept students with a lower second class degree. Those same students who were disadvantaged by the awarding gap at undergraduate level are now likely to be the ones struggling with the increased academic requirements at masters level. If a student never got past the hidden curriculum in three years of undergraduate study, what are their chances of overcoming it in a one year masters course?

    Postgraduate programme leaders need to be aware of these issues, and adopt parallel approaches to those managing transition into undergraduate study. They need to design activities and assessments to address disparities in entry qualifications. They need to build the confidence of students who missed out on higher undergraduate grades.

    To really focus on equity at postgraduate level, we also need to address inequity for international students. The regulatory link between APP and the home undergraduate tuition fee means students with any other fee status are excluded. This has the inevitable result that the sector barely considers inequity for international students, but is more than happy to take their fees. This is deeply uncomfortable at undergraduate level, but even more concerning at postgraduate level, where one in three students is international.

    To make change, senior institutional leaders need to see postgraduate outcomes as a priority. In the current landscape, this strategic direction needs to come from the Office for Students. The equivalent data infrastructure developed for undergraduate outcomes needs to be built for postgraduates. Future iterations of the TEF need to go beyond undergraduates and include all students.

    We cannot justify ignoring postgraduates any more. The sector has an ethical responsibility to ensure equity of outcomes for all students, not just those paying the home undergraduate tuition fee.

    Source link

  • Rurality Matters in Evaluating Transfer Outcomes (opinion)

    Rurality Matters in Evaluating Transfer Outcomes (opinion)

    Transfer enrollment rose by 4.4 percent this year, according to recent data from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. In total, transfers have grown by 8 percent since 2020, signaling a steady rebound from the sharp declines seen during the pandemic. That’s encouraging news for students seeking affordable, flexible pathways to a degree, as well as for institutions focused on expanding access and supporting completion.

    Less noticed, however, is just how much progress rural students are making. In fall 2023, rural community colleges experienced a 12.1 percent increase in students transferring to four-year institutions. This progress is even more impressive given the historic underinvestment in rural institutions and the well-documented barriers their students face on their path to a four-year degree.

    Many of the country’s small, rural institutions remain on the margins of transfer conversations, partnerships and policy priorities. Here in California, for instance 60 percent of the community colleges with the lowest transfer rates are rural. From low-income students in Appalachia to Latino learners in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley, rural colleges are lifelines for students facing barriers such as poverty, food and housing insecurity, and limited access to transportation and technology. Yet these institutions tend to lack the support, visibility and resources of larger community college systems. They often remain excluded from the design and implementation of transfer initiatives.

    Rural students bring tremendous talent, drive and potential to higher education. Many are the first in their families to attend college. They are often deeply rooted in their communities and, in many cases, seek to use their education to give back and contribute to their local economies.

    Transferring to a four-year institution can dramatically increase the lifetime earnings of these learners, expand their career paths and help meet the growing demand for a highly skilled workforce. Individuals with a bachelor’s degree earn, on average, nearly 35 percent more per year than those with only an associate degree. Four-year degrees open doors to career advancement, civic engagement and personal growth.

    Yet the systemic challenges rural community college students face—from more limited course offerings and degree options to long travel times to campuses to unreliable internet connections—require tailored support and intentional partnership. A one-size-fits-all approach to transfer doesn’t work when rural students are starting from a fundamentally different place than many of their peers.

    For example, rural colleges may not have the staff capacity to manage complex articulation agreements or advocate for their students in statewide transfer initiatives. Their advisers may juggle many roles, serving as counselors, career coaches and transfer liaisons all at once. Meanwhile, students themselves may be unaware of transfer opportunities or discouraged by long distances to four-year campuses, especially when those pathways demand sacrifices they can’t afford to make.

    The health of both our higher education ecosystem and our economy depends on ensuring that all students, regardless of ZIP code, can move easily between two-year and four-year institutions. If efforts to improve transfer overlook rural colleges, they risk deepening existing educational inequities and missing out on a significant segment of our nation’s talent pool.

    Organizations such as the Rural Community College Alliance shine a needed spotlight on how to best collaborate with rural institutions across the country to improve transfer outcomes and better support rural students’ success. Progress starts with listening and taking the time to understand the unique strengths and challenges of rural communities rather than imposing outside solutions.

    The policy landscape will need to evolve to support these efforts. This means increasing investment in rural higher education infrastructure, expanding funding for rural-serving institutions, and creating more flexible transfer frameworks that reflect the realities of rural learners, many of whom are working adults, members of the military, parents, or all of the above. Federal, state and higher education leaders should recognize rurality as a key lens through which to view improving student outcomes, on par with class or race.

    Transfer rates are rising, and more students are finding affordable on-ramps to bachelor’s degrees. But this progress is incomplete unless it reaches every corner of the country, including the small towns and rural communities that are home to millions of students. In a moment when more students are finally moving forward, we can’t afford to leave these learners behind. When rural students succeed, our entire nation benefits.

    Gerardo de los Santos is vice president for community college relations at National University.

    Source link

  • Launch of the Commission on Students in Higher Education: Unpicking the connections between teaching, funding and student outcomes

    Launch of the Commission on Students in Higher Education: Unpicking the connections between teaching, funding and student outcomes

    • The APPG for Students has launched the Commission on Students in Higher Education as a means of feeding into the Department for Education’s HE Review through a student-centred lens. A call for evidence has now opened, until May 1st, where colleagues from across the sector are encouraged to input.
    • Alex Stanley is Vice President Higher Education of the National Union of Students (NUS).
    • Saranya Thambirajah is Vice President Liberation and Equality of the NUS.

    The debates over the financial sustainability of the higher education sector, effective interventions in access and participation, and the quality of teaching will not be new to HEPI readers. Amongst the column inches and radio waves, however, students and the academic community are living these tensions every single day.

    It’s no secret that students are working long hours during term time, living pay cheque to pay cheque to cover their rent and bills – plugging the gap created by real-terms cuts to maintenance support. The NUS’s own research shows that of those who work during their studies, over 60% are working over 20 hours per week. While we feel from the stories that students tell us that there must be a link between inadequate maintenance funding, working long hours and students’ eventual attainment and outcomes, we lack an evidence base on the impact of working hours or lack of financial support on students’ attainment.

    Similarly, we are all aware that teaching standards and the concept of good degrees have spent the past fourteen years under the microscope, with innovative practice sometimes denounced as dumbing down in the press – and students told their course choice is leaving them with ‘low value degrees’, or that their hard work leading to higher grades is down to grade inflation.

    At NUS, we firmly believe the way to cut through the noise is by focusing on the real-life, current experience of students – and that the best way to do that is to bring them into the rooms where decisions are made. We are proud to hold the APPG on Students, for which NUS UK serves as Secretariat, as a space which connects student leaders to Westminster decision makers. We’ve been using this to bring student voice to the Houses of Parliament for over a decade, from launching the landmark research on the Black Attainment Gap, providing space for students to grill Sir Philip Augar immediately after his report launched, to most recently shaping the Renters’ Reform and then Renters’ Rights Bills, with interventions from current students the genesis of now-passed amendments on limiting rent up front and controlling the student lettings cycle. There is no question that bringing students and young people into the room on issues that impact them makes policy decisions better and enriches the debate.

    In this vein, we are proud to launch the Commission on Students in Higher Education, designed to place students at the heart of the current debates on funding, teaching and attainment.

    The Commission will tackle the big issues of the current funding debate: teaching standards, maintenance funding and student outcomes, drawing on the expertise of a cross-party group of Commissioners and higher education specialists, all working to provide meaningful recommendations which should influence and complement the Department for Education’s HE Review and the Comprehensive Spending Review.

    We will begin with an in-person event on Maintenance Funding tomorrow, Wednesday 23 April, when we will hear from proposers of four different ways of funding a more generous student maintenance offer, who will then be questioned by students and Parliamentarians.

    We will take in written evidence on the core areas of the Commission: maintenance funding, students and work, widening participation & student outcomes and teaching quality.

    We welcome submissions from colleagues across students’ unions, the academic community and sector practitioners who, like us, are keen to see the HE Review and Spending Review succeed in solving some of the existential problems we are facing across the sector.

    If you have any questions, please email APPGStudents@nus.org.uk

    Source link

  • For Parenting Students, Campus Support Bolsters Outcomes

    For Parenting Students, Campus Support Bolsters Outcomes

    Title: Pillars of Support: Results from an Evaluation of the Parenting Students Project at Austin Community College

    Authors: May Helena Plumb and Paige-Erin Wheeler

    Source: Trellis Strategies

    A new report from Trellis Strategies evaluates the impact of the Parenting Students Project (PSP) at Austin Community College (ACC), highlighting the challenges student parents face and the program’s efforts to support them. Data show that students who are parents have high rates of financial and basic needs insecurity. In addition to the demands of being a student with parental responsibilities, these students are more likely to be working.

    As part of the United Way for Greater Austin’s PSP initiative, parenting students met monthly with each other, attended seminars about financial wellness and mental health, and received a $500 monthly stipend. Additionally, PSP participants received services in coordination with ACC, such as case managers and childcare scholarships.

    The report highlights the positive impact on participants’ academic progress, including a 95 percent term-to-term retention rate and an increased likelihood of taking nine credit hours per semester. A second area of impact was financial wellness, as increased financial stability lowered borrowing and alleviated transportation insecurity through a more flexible schedule. Third, PSP empowered parenting students to be better parents, as well as provided them with scholarships for childcare. Finally, PSP bolstered mental health through an increased sense of community and belonging.

    The report also identifies areas for growth and offers the following recommendations:

    1. Refine program requirements so that they best support student success. While credit requirements are helpful in moving students forward, parenting students still need some flexibility in enrollment intensity. A participant suggested scaling the number of credits taken to correspond to the stipend so that PSP support is not all or nothing. Participants also expressed a desire to choose some of the seminar topics.
    2. Consider areas of need. PSP participants indicated a desire for more flexible childcare options. Some also discussed other forms of support, such as housing resources, cooking classes, and diapers and toys for children. The needs will vary based on the group, so it is important to evaluate what students need.
    3. Address different needs for fathers. There was a large disparity between the share of fathers who participated in PSP and the percentage of student parents at ACC who are fathers. While student fathers are more likely to be married and have access to childcare, they are also more likely to have specific mental health challenges and to stop out of college.

    Click here for the full report.

    —Kara Seidel

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • HVAC improvements shown to improve student outcomes

    HVAC improvements shown to improve student outcomes

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Facility managers that lead an effort to upgrade their school’s HVAC system can help students miss less school, get into less trouble and perform better on standardized math tests, researchers at the State University of New York at Albany suggest. 

    Attendance improved by 2% and suspension rates dropped by 7% in K-12 schools after they improved their heating and ventilation systems, researchers say in a paper, “The Effects of School Building HVAC System Conditions on Student Academic and Behavioral Outcomes.” 

    Math outcomes improved, too — by 4% after the heating system was replaced and by 3% after the cooling system was replaced. There was a similar improvement in math scores when the heating system was improved.    

    “We conclude that investments made now to improve school HVAC systems can benefit not only student comfort and well-being, but also enhance educational opportunity,” say the researchers, Lucy Sorensen, Moontae Hwang and Marzuka Ahmad Radia of the State University of New York at Albany. 

    The researchers say the improvement in absentee levels likely stems from cleaner air flowing through the system. “Improvements in school ventilation system conditions could reduce the spread of infectious diseases … thereby decreasing missed days of school due to sickness,” they said.  

    The improvement in math performance likely stems from more comfortable room temperatures, which helps aid focus, but it also likely plays a role in fewer suspensions. The authors cite other research beyond K-12 that finds criminal behavior goes down as temperatures improve. 

    “More comfortable temperatures could help to prevent student misbehavior, given the well-known link between, for instance, heat and criminal behavior,” they said. 

    For their findings, the researchers looked at data over multiple years from a building condition survey conducted by the New York State Education Department. The percentage changes in performance are to a standard deviation. The findings were published in November and are available from Brown University’s Annenberg Institute. 

    Source link

  • AI tools deepening divides in graduate outcomes (opinion)

    AI tools deepening divides in graduate outcomes (opinion)

    Since OpenAI first released ChatGPT in November 2022, early adopters have been informing the public that artificial intelligence will shake up the world of work, with everything from recruitment to retirement left unrecognizable. Ever more cautious than the private sector, higher ed has been slow to respond to AI technologies. Such caution has opened a divide within the academy, with the debate often positioned as AI optimism versus pessimism—a narrow aperture that leaves little room for realistic discussion about how AI is shaping student experience.

    In relation to graduate outcomes (simply put, where students end up after completing their degrees, with a general focus on careers and employability), universities are about to grapple with the initial wave of graduates seriously impacted by AI. The Class of 2025 will be the first to have widespread access to large language models (LLMs) for the majority of their student lives. If, as we have been repeatedly told, we believe that AI will be the “great leveler” for students by transforming their access to learning, then it follows that graduate outcomes will be significantly impacted. Most importantly, we should expect to see more students entering careers that meaningfully engage with their studies.

    The reality on the ground presents a stark difference. Many professionals working in career advice and guidance are struggling with the opposite effect: Rather than acting as the great leveler, AI tools are only deepening existing divides.

    1. Trust Issues: Student Overreliance on AI Tools

    Much has been said about educators’ ability to trust student work in a post-LLM landscape. Yet, when it comes to student outcomes, a more pressing concern is students’ trust in AI tools. As international studies show, a broad range of sectors is already placing too much faith in AI, failing to put proper checks and balances in place. If businesses beholden to regulatory bodies and investors are left vulnerable, then time-poor students seeking out quick-fix solutions are faring worse.

    This is reflected in what we are seeing on the ground. We were both schoolteachers when ChatGPT launched and both now work in student employability. As is common, the issues we first witnessed in the school system are now being borne out in higher ed: Students often implicitly trust that AI will perform tasks better than they are able to. This means graduates are using AI to write CVs, cover letters and other digital documentation without first understanding why such documentation is needed. Although we are seeing a generally higher (albeit more generic) caliber of writing, when students are pressed to expand upon their answers, they struggle to do so. Overreliance on AI tools is deskilling students by preventing them from understanding the purpose of their writing, thereby creating a split between what a candidate looks like on paper and how they present in real life. Students can only mask a lack of skills for so long.

    1. The Post-Pandemic Social Skills Deficit

    The generation of students now arriving at university were in their early teens when the pandemic hit. This long-term disruption to schooling had a profound impact on social and emotional skills, and, crucially, learning loss also impacted students from disadvantaged backgrounds at a much higher rate. With these students now moving into college, many are turning to AI to try and ameliorate feelings of being underprepared.

    Such a skills gap is tangible when working with students. Those who already present high levels of critical thinking and independence can use AI tools in an agile manner, writing more effective prompts before tailoring and enhancing answers. Conversely, those who struggle with literacy are often unable to properly evaluate how appropriate the answers provided by AI are.

    What we are seeing is high-performing students using AI to generate more effective results, outpacing their peers and further entrenching the divide. Without intervention, the schoolchildren who couldn’t answer comprehensions questions such as “What does this word mean?” about their own AI-generated homework are set to become the graduates left marooned at interview where they can no longer hide behind writing. The pandemic has already drawn economic battle lines for students in terms of learning loss, attainment and the very awarding of student grades—if we are not vigilant, inequitable AI use is set to become a further barrier to entry for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

    1. Business Pivots, Higher Ed Deliberates

    Current graduates are entering a tough job market. Reports have shown both that graduate-level job postings are down and that employers are fatigued by high volumes of AI-written job applications. At the same time, employers are increasingly turning to AI to transform hiring processes. Students are keenly attuned to this, with many reporting low morale that their “dream role” is now one that AI will fulfill or one that they can see becoming replaced by AI in the near future.

    Across many institutions, higher education career advice and guidance is poorly equipped to deal with such changes, still often rooted in an outdated model that is focused on traditional job markets and the presumption that students will follow a “one degree, one career” trajectory, when the reality is most students do not follow linear career progression. Without swift and effective changes that respond to how AI is disrupting students’ career journeys, we are unable to make targeted interventions that reflect the job market and therefore make a meaningful impact.

    Nonetheless, such changes are where higher education career advice and guidance services can make the greatest impact. If we hope to continue leveling the playing field for students who face barriers to entry, we must tackle AI head-on by teaching students to use tools responsibly and critically, not in a general sense, but specifically to improve their career readiness.

    Equally, career plans could be forward-thinking and linked to the careers created by AI, using market data to focus on which industries will grow. By evaluating student need on our campuses and responding to the movements of the current job market, we can create tailored training that allows students to successfully transition from higher education into a graduate-level career.

    If we fail to achieve this and blindly accept platitudes around AI improving equity, we risk deepening structural imbalances among students that uphold long-standing issues in graduate outcomes.

    Sean Richardson is a former educator and now the employability resources manager at London South Bank University.

    Paul Redford is a former teacher, now working to equip young people with employability skills in television and media.

    Source link

  • Designing Effective Intended Learning Outcomes – Sijen

    Designing Effective Intended Learning Outcomes – Sijen

    I am delighted to release a version of the DEILO: Designing Effective Intended Learning Outcomes on the SenseiLMS platform for individuals self-study, self-paced, learning at USD139.00. The course takes between 3 and 10 hours depending on the depth of engagement. You also have the opportunity, entirely optional, to engage with me virtually by submtting draft ILOs for my review and feedback. The course also allows for a certificate (again totally optional) to be triggered on succesfull completion of the course and a final assessement.

    Please note that individual registration requires an individual’s email rather than a shared email. If you want to review the course with a view to programme, departmental or institutional licensing just drop me an email at courses@sijen.com. Course overview is available here.


    Source link

  • What Are Student Learning Outcomes?

    What Are Student Learning Outcomes?

    Learning outcomes are descriptions of the abilities, skills and knowledge that are used for assessing student learning. Learning outcomes should outline what students possess and can demonstrate upon completion of a learning experience or set of experiences. When developing a list of student learning outcomes for educators to set as curriculum objectives to improve student learning, consider the following recommendations:

    How to Build Student Learning Outcomes

    Choose between 3-5 learning outcomes: You should choose a sufficient amount of learning outcomes to ensure student progress can be measured without becoming overly complicated for educators to assess. It is also worthwhile to point out that not all educational activities will assess all learning outcomes. Each educational activity can assess students’ development and comprehension focusing on 1-2 student learning objectives for each class. Less than 3 objectives likely mean that student learning objectives are not robust enough for an entire course.

    Learning outcomes should be straightforward: The outcomes identified and described in your plan should be concise and simple. They should avoid complex phrasing or compound statements that mesh more than one statement together to communicate effectively. Each learning outcome should focus on the development of one skill or the meeting of one goal in order to be straightforward and ensure effective learning.

    Learning outcomes should be expressed in the future tense: It is very important for the proper implementation of student learning outcomes that they are expressed in the future tense. The statement should express what an individual student should be able to do as the result of specific instruction or educational activity. Outcomes should involve active learning, and be observable so they can be quantified for examining key student success metrics through learning assessment. They should create and make use of information literacy skills.

    Learning outcomes should be realistic: In order to ensure student learning outcomes are successful, they must be attainable for the students for whom they are designated. Outcomes need to be designed with students’ ability, their initial skill sets, cognitive development and the length of the institutional time frame (a week, a semester, etc) designated to attain these skill sets in mind. Further, they should also align with the material for teaching to students.

    Learning outcomes should align with the curriculum: The learning outcomes developed should be consistent with the curriculum objectives within the program and discipline in which they are taught. This is especially important when interpreting assessment results to analyze where changes in instruction should be made. Curriculum mapping is one example of an effective way to ensure that chosen learning outcomes correspond to the designated curriculum. A curriculum map is a diagram that explains which learning outcomes are plotted against specific program courses. This helps ensure that learning goals are reached in a timely manner.

    Methods of Constructing Learning Outcomes

    Implementing taxonomies: Taxonomies of learning experiences and student outcomes can be useful outlines for developing thorough and insightful lists of student outcomes. Taxonomies classify and compartmentalize the different types of student learning. Taxonomies usually follow a structure that divides learning into three categories. The first is the cognitive domain, which has six levels, ranging from the simple recall or recognition of facts, as the lowest level, up to increasingly more complex and abstract mental levels, followed by the highest order which is classified as evaluation. The second domain is the affective domain involves our feelings, emotions, and attitudes. This domain includes the ways in which humans deal with things emotionally, such as feelings, values, appreciation, enthusiasm, motivations, and attitudes. The final domain is the psychomotor domain, which focuses refers to the motor skills learners are expected to have acquired and mastered at each stage of development.

    Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (1956) is one traditional framework for structuring learning outcomes. Levels of performance for Bloom’s cognitive domain include knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. These categories are arranged in ascending order of cognitive complexity where evaluation represents the highest level. There are six steps within Bloom’s Taxonomy to achieve learning outcomes. The first step is knowledge, which focuses on knowing and remembering important facts, concepts, terms, principles or theories. The second step is comprehension, which focuses on the understanding of specific learning concepts or curriculum objectives. The third step is application, which focuses on skills and knowledge applications to solve problems. The fourth step is analysis, which focuses on identifying different structures and organizations of specific concepts or subjects, identifying relationships and different moving elements within an organization. The fifth step is synthesis, which focuses on the creation and integration of new ideas into a solution, in order to propose an action plan and potentially formulate a new classification scheme by using critical thinking. The sixth and final step in Bloom’s Taxonomy is evaluation, which judges the quality of knowledge more broadly or a specific learning concept based on its adequacy, use, value or logic.

    Using power verbs: When constructing learning outcomes, it is important to make use of concrete action words that are able to describe and quantify specific action that is observable and measurable.

    Using a Curriculum Map: Once learning outcomes have been developed and approved, making use of a curriculum map can help in viewing how the outcomes developed are being met in each course at an institution. A curriculum map is a straightforward way to visualize the ways in which an educator or institution can list learning outcomes in the rows and the program courses in the columns to demonstrate which courses contribute to each learning outcome. In each cell, letters can be placed to indicate how the course relates to the learning outcome. Use the letters “I,” “R,’ and “E” to identify which courses in the program “introduce”, “reinforce,” or “emphasize” the corresponding learning outcomes. By putting the curriculum maps into place, educators can watch for unnecessary redundancies, inconsistencies, misalignments, weaknesses, and gaps in their learning outcomes in order to optimize them for student success in their program review.

    Measuring Student Learning Outcomes

    Assessment of student learning outcomes: Assessment is a systematic and on-going way of collecting and interpreting information in order to analyze its effectiveness. The academic assessment process can also provide greater insight into how well learning outcomes relate and correspond to the goals and outcomes developed to support the institution’s mission and purpose. An ideal learning outcomes assessment process aims to answer the questions of what an institution is doing and how well it is doing it. Assessments begins with the expression of learning outcomes and course learning. The key to writing measurable outcomes involves describing the first three components: firstly analyzing the outcome, secondly, determining the method of assessment, Third, involves recognizing the criteria for success, as part of the student-centered assessment cycle.

    Program and Performance outcomes: program and performance outcomes describe the goals of a program rather than focusing on what students should know, do or value at the end of a given time period. Program outcomes can be as one-dimensional and simple as a completion of a task or activity, although this is not as meaningful as it could be and does not provide the educator with enough information for improvement. To accomplish the latter, educators and department heads should try to assess the effectiveness of what a given program has set out to accomplish. Performance outcomes usually have quantitative targets and specific timelines.

    Tagged as:

    Source link

  • Book on Writing Good Learning Outcomes – Sijen

    Book on Writing Good Learning Outcomes – Sijen

    Introducing a short guide entitled: “Writing Good Learning Outcomes and Objectives”, aimed at enhancing the learner experience through effective course design. Available at https://amazon.com/dp/0473657929

    The book has sections on the function and purpose of intended learning outcomes as well as guidance on how to write them with validation in mind. Sections explore the use of different educational taxonomies as well as some things to avoid, and the importance of context. There is also a section on ensuring your intended learning outcomes are assessable. The final section deals with how you might go about designing an entire course structure based on well-structured outcomes, breaking these outcomes down into session-level objectives that are not going to be assessed.

    #ad #education #highereducation #learningdesign #coursedesign #learningoutcomes #instructionaldesign


    Source link