╨╧рб▒с>■  35■   2                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ье┴` Ё┐чbjbj╦s╦s .*йй╬      дРРРРРРРд   8@ T дю╢| | | | | WWWmoooooo$дh ZУР/WW//УРР| | █и%%%/мР| Р| m%/m%%РР%| p PS!ЁGI╟ █Ф%m╛0ю%foXf%fР%HWLг6%┘,*WWWУУ╟^WWWю////дддd ддд дддРРРРРР     To: Matthew Judd, Curriculum Liaison Ed Design Committee From: Jemma Blake-Judd, Coordinator, SLOs/AUOs Implementation Team Subject: Reconciling Student Learning Outcomes with the Official Course Outline: Taking a Stand on Accreditation Standards IIA2h and IIA6a July 15, 2005 Reconciling the purpose of student learning outcomes with the purpose of the official course outlineТs measurable objectives has prompted much debate at community colleges around the state. The issue is important because it appears as part of two accreditation standards, and compliance with those standards will not only violate the assessment model the college has chosen, but it will also create an unusual burden on faculty in general and the Educational Design Committee in particular. If we approach this issue by considering the definitions of measurable objectives and student learning outcomes, it becomes clear that the college must opt for non-compliance on the two standards outlined below. Consider this definition: Course objectives, those topics found on the official course outlines that have been approved by curriculum committees, describe the content that teachers will present in the class; they are teacher-centered statements that help us keep the content uniform, Student Learning Outcomes focus upon what the student will know, do, think, feel at the end of a given learning experience (qtd. in Scroggins 36). Brenda Rogers in УSetting and Evaluating Intended Educational Outcomes,Ф elaborates on the above definition: УAs desired states of behavior, Student Learning Outcomes should focus on problem areas where improvements are needed and changes are expected, a continuation of current conditions, although important, is not appropriate in an outcomes statementФ (qtd. in Nichols 157) These definitions align themselves with the Nichols model adopted by Mt. 91╓▒▓е, which states that outcomes are not designed to appear on the official course outlines of record; they do not possess the static qualities of measurable objectives. Outcomes are, by their very nature, fluid, and faculty must be encouraged to modify and replace them as often as needed. As mentioned earlier, if we are to remain consistent with the NicholsТ model, we will have difficulty with the following accreditation standards related to the official course outline: IIA.2.h УThe institution awards credit based on student achievement of the courseТs stated learning outcomes.Ф IIA.6.a УЕIn accepting transfer credit to fulfill degree requirements, the institution certifies that the expected learning outcomes for transferred courses are comparable to the learning outcomes of its own course.Ф It is clear that both of these factors are equally important. Measurable objectives play their part as the standard bearers in curriculum; they insure instructional consistency and enable the college to form articulation agreements with other institutions. SLOs play their part as an assessment/improvement tool for faculty while they strive to improve student learning. They work well in concert and are not designed to replace each other. On a less philosophical note, asking faculty members to move through the course revision process yearly as they create or modify SLOs for the 1,200 + courses we offer would be a terrible burden on the Educational Design committee that already deals with an average of 350 classes per year. At this point, our commitment to the model weТve chosen and our consideration of our faculty and curriculum committee workload should prompt us to focus our energies and our talents on those things that have been clearly and consistently indicated in the rest of Accreditation Standard Two: developing SLOs for courses and programs at a reasonable pace and using the results to improve student learning. As the Coordinator of the SLOs/AUOs Implementation Team, I would like to share the following recommendation with the Educational Design Committee. Please refer any departments or individuals with questions about this issue to me and I will be happy to send them copies of this document. It will be housed in the collegeТs Accreditation Self-Study Warehouse until the next accreditation cycle in 2010. 91╓▒▓е is committed to using the Nichols model for establishing institutional effectiveness through the assessment of Student Learning Outcomes and Administrative Unit Objectives. The 2004 Visiting Team commended this commitment in its summary report. According to that model, the flexible and ever-changing nature of Student Learning Outcomes does not make them suitable replacements for Measurable Objectives on the official course outline of record although accreditation standards IIa2h and IIA6a refer to them as such. The college believes it can maintain rigorous curriculum standards and protect its articulation agreements while insuring institutional effectiveness if it continues using these two distinct components in the way in which they were intended. Works Cited Nichols, James O. A PractitionerТs Handbook for Institutional Effectiveness and Student Outcomes Assessment Implementation. 3rd ed. New York: Agathon, 2002. Scroggins, Bill. The Teaching-Learning Cycle: Using SLO Results to Improve Teaching and Learning. 2003.     7-15-05 %█ з ╡ | Г ╢ ╤ ' . ] u Й К Э ╣ ╩ ╒ ╓ ERYpuЙ▄є√8:икп▓~?Yx~жи╡╟ЎьЎьЎ▐Ў╤Ў╤Ў╤Ў╟╜ьЎ│ь│жЎ╤Ў╤Ў╤Ў│╟│ЎьЎьЎьЎьЎЬЎьЬьЎЬьЎТЎЕhHп5БOJQJ\Б^JhЇvOJQJ^Jh┬/ЇOJQJ^JhQ6БOJQJ]Б^Jh ╓OJQJ^Jh*mТOJQJ^JhHпOJQJ^JhQ5БOJQJ\Б^JhQhQ>*OJQJ^Jh╚KOJQJ^JhQOJQJ^J4%9:}~     █ Ў ў М Н  z{45678@¤Ї¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ю¤¤¤¤¤шш¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤Д╨^Д╨ ╞р└!Д╨`Д╨gd╚K╬ц■■@зи░ВГ>?abЎўЙКЫЬЭЮЯежзи┤╡ T¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤√√√√√√√ёёё√ьуД╨`Д╨gdи0╗gdи0╗ Д@ Д╨^Д@ `Д╨╟  035:BSTUfийк╢╬╧╤╥╘╒╫╪┌хцчюрю╙┬╙╡╙иЫО}ЫО}ОuquququqmqОh╚Kh┬▄jh┬▄U!h=?h*mТ5Б>*OJQJ\Б^Jh*mТ5БOJQJ\Б^Jhи0╗5БOJQJ\Б^JhQ5БOJQJ\Б^Jh ╓5БOJQJ\Б^J!hHпhHп5БH*OJQJ\Б^JhHп5БOJQJ\Б^Jhи0╗5Б>*OJQJ\Б^J!h ╓h ╓5Б>*OJQJ\Б^JTUй╬╨╤╙╘╓╫┘┌фхцч¤¤ЇЄЄЄЄЄЄЄЄЁЄЄЇД╨`Д╨gdи0╗,1Рh░╨/ ░р=!░а"░а#РЁ$РЁ%░░╨░╨ Р╨ЖЬ@@ё @ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DAЄ бD Default Paragraph FontViє │V  Table Normal :V Ў4╓4╓ laЎ (kЇ ┴(No List 4B@Є4 Body Text5Б\Б4@4 Header  ╞р└!4 @4 Footer  ╞р└!DP@"D Body Text 26БOJQJ]Б^Jч*    %9:}~   █ЎўМН z{4 5 6 7 8 @ з и ░ В Г > ? a b ЎўЙКЫЬЭЮЯежзи┤╡ TUй╬╨╤╙╘╓╫┘┌фхшШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААI╚0бhЛ0РI╚0бhЛ0РI╚0бhЛ0РI╚0бhЛ0РШ@0ААI╚0аhЛ0иР ╟ч@TчцЁ8Ё@ё   АААўЁТЁЁ0Ё( Ё ЁЁB ЁS Ё┐╦  ?Ё  Д%<}:АД%─я БД%|";ВД%ь╘ ГД%D!;RRV::шUYYBBш=*Аurn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags АPlaceNameА=*Аurn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags АPlaceTypeА9*Аurn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsАplaceА9*Аurn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsАStateА  ┘uxєЎино│╡╝DK╬╬╨╨╤╤╙╘╓╫┘┌хш_cи│168кн╬╬╨╨╤╤╙╘╓╫┘┌хш3333xxИжи═╬╨╤ушин╬╬╨╨╤╤╙╘╓╫┘┌ш х Q=?╚Kj,tЇv*mТ%ХHпи0╗ ╓┬▄┬/Ї @АМЭ*чP@  Unknown            GРЗz А Times New Roman5РАSymbol3&Р Зz А Arial"1ИЁ╨hF*▓&F*▓&^В▒F┤ %┤ %!ЁаЁ┤┤ББ4──a2ГЁ▄HXЁ ?ф                     Q2  To: Matthew Judd ddistante■ рЕЯЄ∙OhлС+'│┘0xРШд░╚╘ш № ( 4 @ LX`hpфTo:Matthew Judd Normal.dot ddistante2Microsoft Office Word@МЖG@\╧ЄУ9╟@╠├шGI╟@╠├шGI╟┤■ ╒═╒Ь.УЧ+,∙о0ь hp|ДМФ Ьдм┤ ╝ ╠ф % ─и To: Title ■    !■   #$%&'()■   +,-./01■   ¤   4■   ■   ■                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Root Entry         └F f4ЁGI╟6А1Table        fWordDocument        .*SummaryInformation(    "DocumentSummaryInformation8            *CompObj            q                        ■                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ■       └FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8Ї9▓q