1 / 91

2010 TFDN Conference | Ft. Worth, TX

Helping Faculty Learning Learning Outcomes: A Successful Program. Jeff King Romana Hughes. 2010 TFDN Conference | Ft. Worth, TX. Helping Faculty Learning Learning Outcomes: A Successful Program. Jeff King Romana Hughes. 2010 TFDN Conference | Ft. Worth, TX. Why LOM?. 3.7.1

ervin
Télécharger la présentation

2010 TFDN Conference | Ft. Worth, TX

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Helping Faculty Learning Learning Outcomes: A Successful Program Jeff King RomanaHughes 2010 TFDN Conference | Ft. Worth, TX

  2. Helping Faculty Learning Learning Outcomes: A Successful Program Jeff King RomanaHughes 2010 TFDN Conference | Ft. Worth, TX

  3. Why LOM?

  4. 3.7.1 [when speaking about faculty credentials and how they are determined to be appropriate] . . . “or other demonstrated competencies and achievements that contribute to effective teaching and student learning outcomes. . . .” 3.7.3 “The institution provides ongoing professional development of faculty as teachers, scholars, and practitioners.” Why LOM?

  5. 3.7.1 [when speaking about faculty credentials and how they are determined to be appropriate] . . . “or other demonstrated competencies and achievements that contribute to effective teaching and student learning outcomes. . . .” 3.7.3 “The institution provides ongoing professional development of faculty as teachers, scholars, and practitioners.” Why LOM?

  6. 3.7.1 [when speaking about faculty credentials and how they are determined to be appropriate] . . . “or other demonstrated competencies and achievements that contribute to effective teaching and student learning outcomes. . . .” 3.7.3 “The institution provides ongoing professional development of faculty as teachers, scholars, and practitioners.” ? Why LOM?

  7. Faculty asked for help in assessing

  8. From teaching . . .

  9. . . . to learning

  10. From teaching . . . . . . to learning

  11. . . . so you have to

  12. . . . so you have to ASSESS student achievement

  13. But: The QuickFix

  14. But: ALWAYS CREATES PROBLEMS The QuickFix

  15. Problems like:

  16. Problems like:

  17. Problems like: Layering Outcomes on Top of Current Course Content

  18. Problems like: Layering Outcomes on Top of Current Course Content (whether the outcomes were in mind during course design and preparation or not . . .)

  19. This makes the tendency to conflate grading and assessing outcomes even more pronounced . . .

  20. This makes the tendency to conflate grading and assessing outcomes even more pronounced . . . Intro Physics Final Exam: A+

  21. This makes the tendency to conflate grading and assessing outcomes even more pronounced . . . Intro Physics Why? Force Concept Inventory: D- Final Exam: A+

  22. The difference between grading assignments and assessing learning outcomes “For every day the assignment is late, instructor will deduct 10 points from the grade.”

  23. The difference between grading assignments and assessing learning outcomes “For every day the assignment is late, instructor will deduct 10 points from the grade.” “What a shame, Todd – if this had not been late, you would have received an A.”

  24. The difference between grading assignments and assessing learning outcomes Unless designed into the course, the sum of graded parts may not equal the outcome whole Maybe even more important to help faculty understand!

  25. Task 1 + Task 2 + Task 3 + Task 4 + Task 5 80 90 100 80 90

  26. Task 1 + Task 2 + Task 3 + Task 4 + Task 5 80 90 100 80 90 80 90 100 80 90 440 /5 = 88, right? So this must mean the student achieved the learning outcome, right?

  27. Task 1 + Task 2 + Task 3 + Task 4 + Task 5 80 90 100 80 90 80 90 100 SLO Screw-up Zone 80 90 440 /5 = 88, right? So this must mean the student achieved the learning outcome, right?

  28. . . . so we began laying the foundation for learning outcomes awareness and training . . .

  29. . . . so we began laying the foundation for learning outcomes awareness and training . . . . . . starting 22 months ago.

  30. www.cte.tcu.edu

  31. ETC.

  32. ETC. (workshops, new faculty orientation, Advisory Council . . .)

  33. Learning Outcomes Faculty Training, v.01 SLO concept/philosophy, Core outcomes, syllabus Module 1 rubrics, assignment mapping, course pacing Module 2 outcomes in LOM, LOM training Module 3 data extraction from LOM, course/teaching improvement strategies based on data Module 4

  34. Learning Outcomes

  35. Dr. Mark Dennis, Religion

  36. Dr. Mark Dennis, Religion

  37. Dr. Mark Dennis, Religion

  38. Dr. Gina Hill, Nutritional Sciences

  39. Dr. Claire Sanders, History

  40. Dr. Joddy Murray, English

  41. Dr. Darren Middleton, Religion

  42. Lessons learned for LOM training:

  43. Lessons learned for LOM training: MORE rubrics training!

More Related