Year One - Learning Objectives
The theme for the first year or phase of the design and implementation model is developing learning objectives, which are general statements of what students should be able to know or do as a result of engagement in broadly defined programs, departmental services, or institutional experiences (e.g. counseling, residence life, EOP&S, new student orientation, etc.). Remember, the most important question is why, not how.
As you plan your time, I suggest the following:
- Plan for 2-4 hours at a staff retreat to develop learning objectives;
- Set aside 1 hour a month for the first half of the year for refining the learning objectives, mapping learning interventions, and completing the matrix.
- Dedicate 1 hour a month during the second half of the year for conducting an initial baseline self-evaluation using CAS standards.
- Plan 2-4 hours at the end of the year/phase to write up a report.
Page Contents
Developing Learning Objectives
The three approaches to developing learning objectives with which I am most familiar are quite basic: 1.) concept development, 2.) theory adoption, and 3.) the use of professional standards.
Concept Development (Brainstorming)
The idea of concept development is that the professionals working at a given site are firmly grounded in the history and theory of the field, and they have a strong understanding of their unique setting. From this foundation, professionals work through concept development processes (brainstorming) to identify the best learning objectives for their specific environment. While there are many different methods for using brainstorming to develop learning objectives, my favorite is a "know and do" activity. I have written this activity up as a cocurricular lesson plan, and made it available in two formats:
Theory Adoption
In some situations, student affairs professionals can directly apply a student development theory as the structure for developing learning objectives. Two examples from my own experience as dean of students at Concordia University in Irvine, CA are as follows:
- Andre Coleman, then the director of residence life, utilized the six components of the wellness wheel developed by Fred Greenleaf at Madison University as the structure for his learning model -- Andre translated each of the six components of the model into a learning objective for the department of residence life.
- In the department of intercultural relations at Concordia, we used the 7 Cs of the leadership for social change model, as developed by Helen Astin and associates -- each C translated into a learning objective, and we further grouped the objectives into personal development (consciousness, congruence, commitment), affinity group development (collaboration, common purpose, civil conflict), and community development (citizenship).
There are many theories that work especially well as the structure for the learning objectives of an office. These tend to be “dimension” theories (those that address various areas or dimensions of student growth) rather than stage or status theories. In addition to the 7 C model and Greenleaf's wellness wheel, Chickering and Reisser's (1993) seven vectors, D'Augelli's (1994) processes of lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity development, and Wijeyesinghe's (2001) paradigm for the racial identity development of multiracial individuals are good examples of potentially useful dimension theories.
Professional Standards Many professional associations for students affairs or for various functional areas within student affairs have developed professional standards. These draw upon history, theory, and long-term environmental scanning efforts to identify areas of core consideration for professional practice. The CAS Standards discussed in Year Three of this model are an excellent example.
One should note that professional standards typically extend beyond learning to other measures of institutional, division-level, or departmental effectiveness. For our purposes here, one would draw upon those standards that address student learning and development to write learning objectives.
A Contrarian's Note on Learning Objectives
While good learning objectives should be clear and measurable, they should also be flexible. If you develop learning objectives that are too rigid, they will eventually become a barrier to institutional responsiveness.
You may have heard that if you don't know where you're going, you probably won't get there. This may be true, but to quote H.B. Gelatt, "If you always know where you're going, you may never end up somewhere else."* Gelatt's model of positive uncertainty is worth considering at this stage in the process. Or, if you would prefer the work of someone more closely connected to higher education, consider Michael Cohen and James March's classic critique of goals and their advice to "treat goals as hypotheses."**
Mapping and Matrixes
Mapping
Once you have developed a set of learning objectives, the next step is to map student learning interventions and opportunities to the learning objectives. When at our best, we as educators will not limit this mapping to any one department or to learning interventions that happen inside or outside the classroom. For example, an institutional diversity committee might establish a set of learning objectives that aim to increase student participation in social justice related activities. A comprehensive learning map would likely include a number of classes that students take, activities in the residence halls, programs sponsored by student government and various clubs or organizations, and workshops conducted by the multicultural services department.
While a comprehensive approach is the ideal, it is not always realistic, especially during the early stages of designing and implementing an assessment program. That said, a surprising number of academic departments have not established learning objectives for their programs, so there may be a great opportunity to collaborate from the ground up. For more information, see the following:
Note: Mapping presents a great opportunity for student affairs professionals to develop collaborative efforts with faculty. All too often, student affairs professionals first design their programs and then go to faculty to ask for their support or participation. This almost never works. However, once a solid learning map is in place, student affairs professionals can first approach faculty and ask them what they want students to learn in their classes, and then offer to develop cocurricular programs that will compliment this classroom learning (and that will fit with the learning map). When approached in this manner, faculty are much more likely to collaborate, participate, or at least encourage their students to participate in these cocurricular programs.
Matrixes
Once the map is in place, the next step is to set up a system to track student learning. I suggest that student affairs professionals develop a matrix for this purpose - an MS Excel spreadsheet will work just fine. List the learning objectives across the top of the matrix; along the left-hand column, list those programs that you mapped to those learning objectives. Finish by checking the boxes that connect learning interventions to learning objectives (see the examples below). For beginning programs, you may choose to simply list all the major programs offered by a given department along the left-hand column and connect these to your learning objectives. Because the visual is helpful, I suggest you review the following examples:
- University of Maryland Leadership Development Program (MLDP), 2004-2005 - In chapter four of Learning Reconsidered 2, Susan Komives presented a copy of the matrix developed by the MLDP program. This matrix includes six broad learning objectives (called categories) and 22 core learning outcomes. While this is a slightly different use of terminology, it is a great visual presentation of how to use the matrix.
Baseline CAS Self-Evaluation
This is not a comprehensive CAS self-evaluation involving either faculty, students, staff, and other key stakeholders or more extensive reviews of data -- you will do that in the third year of the model. At this point, a small team of 2-3 people will work best, and you will use only easily accessible data. There are four reasons why this initial self-evaluation is important:
- First, the CAS standards for student learning are extensive. It is reasonable to assume that you may have missed something as you developed your learning objectives. By reviewing the CAS standards early in the process, you help to ensure that there are no glaring holes in your assessment effort.
- Second, an initial self-evaluation will give you a point of comparison when you enter the third year of implementation. By the time you conduct a more comprehensive self-evaluation in three years, you will have used your assessment results to improve your programs. Rough comparisons between baseline data from this evaluation and the comprehensive self-evaluation will help to demonstrate that the time and energy invested in assessment processes did translate into meaningful and measurable results.
- Third, this process should help you to begin to see where you have evidence to support claims about the quality of your program or program needs; it will also help you to identify gaps in the evidence that you will need to address during your second year.
- Finally, this effort goes beyond assessment to evaluation. While the core of your efforts in the first two years of implementation will focus primarily on student learning, at some point you will need to broaden your attention to an evaluation of program effectiveness. Thus, this baseline self-evaluation will help to keep other important issues (retention, satisfaction, ratios, budgets, etc.) in the back of your mind.
The Initial Assessment Report
I suggested up front that you spend 2-4 hours on this report, and two is better than four. In terms of length, target 2-3 pages. If the culture of your institution demands more, then include a one page executive summary. I suggest a brief introduction with five supporting sections or paragraphs as follows:
- Program strengths
- Areas for growth
- Current gaps in your assessment evidence
- Recommendations for improvement in year two
- Recommendations for next steps in your assessment process
You will also want to include supporting materials including the following:
- Learning objectives for the program
- The completed matrix
- A copy of your baseline CAS self-evaluation
- Any other supporting materials that you believe are relevant
Be sure to share your report with staff, students, supervisors, and faculty. If your department makes regular reports to the board of trustees, use this. And be sure to use your results and recommendations to improve your professional practice in the coming year. Remember that the goal of the assessment process is not to collect data for the sake of collecting data, but to promote and improve student learning.
* Gelatt, 1980, p. 254
** Cohen & March, 1986, p. 226 |
|
Contents
|