Please don’t teach to the test

I would love to see one person teaching and a different one grading. Better yet, a panel of credentialed faculty grading assignments to ensure the student learning outcomes are met. This way, the same person teaching does not rate their own student’s learning success. Is the better teacher the one with all the A’s in class or the one with well-distributed grades? We can’t tell by just this information. Then, there is after the course. 

How do the students do after your class in another course? That’s more telling than grades. I have students in my quantitative analysis classes that sometimes cannot convert decimals to percentages. I mean, I am stopped in the middle of class when I say there is a 6% probability of xyz (wait, Dr. C. where did the 6% come from?).  So, I start with another problem and work it out and I get the same question. Eventually, I realize that I omitted the automatic step of .06 = 6% because to me that is common knowledge. 

Does that mean that their algebra teacher failed? What about their elementary school teacher? Well, probably not. These may be students that did not do well in these sorts of subjects to begin with. Maybe, they were barely passed with a C, which means they potentially do not understand 30% of the material (or even more).

The bottom line is that there should be a better system to ensure that all of the required objectives are met by the student and not just 70% of them. 

Mapping Demonstrated Competencies to Credit Hours

How about we create competency-based training that can be mapped to credit hours (although credit hours were created as a faculty load measuring tool and turned into a student learning number, so I don't think we ought to be bound to these hours, but that is the world we are in; therefore, fitting a new model into the current structure - like a the children's toy with the shapes to go into the cube).

We would have to break down each course and determine the concepts learned in each course and the contact hours required in each concept in order to map it back. Then, we will be able to have students learn what they need to learn. I am thinking of the retired military sergeant who is being required to take a management intro class or even a speech course. I understand that there is theory to test, but maybe s/he can focus his/her attention on the necessary items.

Many others can fit the made-up person above and figuring out what is in each course down to the concept can come in handy in better serving this student to maximize the learning experience. 

Setting pre-requisites based on concepts; not courses

I wish we would revise all of our courses to identify the competencies that are being taught/learned in each course in order to pin-point the pre-requisite for the next course. Therefore, when testing a student that falls into DEVmath for different concepts than those needed for accounting we can determine that s/he can take accounting because they meet the competencies needed for accounting even though they have not mastered all of the ones needed to be above DEVmath. OR just teach them the competencies that they are lacking.

Breaking SLO's into 3 areas: Delivery, Assessment, and Support

More of my thoughts on this idea of competency based learning: break the student learning outcomes (SLO’s) into 3 distinct sections:

(1)       Delivery of Material – This can be done in (a) the form of online resources within and outside of Blackboard (videos, lecture recordings, etc.) and (b) the form of lecture series (learning sessions) focusing on specific SLO content – there are some SLO’s that cross courses, so why “teach” them to each different group. For example, courses that all deal with MS Office Software. If they share a common SLO, then they can share the material delivery as well. These learning sessions do not have to be 50 minutes or 1:15; they are as long as it takes to deliver the material. A schedule, of course, would have to be provided in advance.

(2)       Assessment of Student – This does not have to be done by the same person who delivered the material. In fact, why not have the checks and balance? The assignments are assessed by faculty credentialed for the SLO of each of the courses. Using the same example above, the student would attend a learning session where they learned to create tables. Then s/he would create the tables in MS Word (or the appropriate word processor) and submit them to the appropriate faculty member for assessment.

(3)       Student Support – Here’s where lab space and tutors come in. We need to have the ability to provide support for students in two ways: (a) tutoring and content assistance in order to help students better understand the material in order to successfully complete the assessment. (b) General student support – someone the student can go to for anything. This person would also contact the student if they are not attending (participating) and/or not submitting assignments (assignments that are submitted and need help improving are taken care of in 3a).

It is certainly a different view.

Do we want a surgeon, construction worker, etc. to do (know) only 70% of the work?

Students are shooting for a passing grade regardless of how many competencies they fail to demonstrate. Competency based learning is definitely a great idea for assessment of student learning outcomes (SLO) and ensuring students are capable to perform ALL of the objectives to a minimum. I think I’ve shared with some of you the idea that a 70% C does no longer mean that the student completed each of the assignments with a 70% proficiency. It can mean that the student only did 70% of the work and left off those remaining 30% for whatever reason without completion.

The only way to ensure the complete assessment of all SLO’s for a course is to require a level of success for each SLO. Some of them may be set at 70%; others that are more important can be higher and even up to 100% proficiency. We should ensure the assessment of student proficiency of each and every SLO.