Mapping ePortfolio Artifacts to Objectives at Different Levels

Uploaded by MERLOTPlace on 18.09.2009

(Kevin) The next step that we're going to talk about is something
in terms of that common vision that I talked about earlier,
aligning what happens inside the ePortfolios,
which are represented by the artifacts the students themselves
produce, to objectives that they need to perform
at different levels whether they be course level objectives,
department level objectives, college level goals,
institutional student learning outcomes.
In some cases you can see a clear path aligning an artifact all
the way with a national executive learning outcome;
I think they're called, from LEAP, the AACNU Group.
So, and then also some of the other things that are kind
of influential drivers behind some of those things.
So at the program level there's a program review process
and there's also sometimes external forces like employers
on our campus the Health Education Group went through
and interviewed 60 employers that hired the graduates
from their program to make sure that the graduates
that are coming out of that program have the skills
that the employers need, and making sure that it's still in line
with the campus goals as well.
So there's a certain tension there
that people are trying to balance.
So this exercise will be short, and emphasis on the short,
portion of me talking about the process
but then we're gonna engage in having you go through some
of that process with us so you can get some practice
and then we'll have some discussion if there's time.
So when you look at the map being --
the overview of mapping and artifacts to objectives some
of you are probably very familiar with learning objectives
and others may not be.
So I thought it might be appropriate
to at least have one slide talking about the concept
of learning objectives which can happen in a number of domains.
Some people call it knowledge skills and attitudes.
In academic speak it's the cognitive domain,
the psycho motor domain and the affective domain.
And they not only do you have to think about what type
of knowledge or skill or attitude are you asking students
to perform or exhibit but also at what level.
So students coming in at the beginning of a program may be asked
to do things at a more foundation level.
Where in the cognitive domain would be something like knowledge
which a new person who took Bloom's Taxonomy
of Cognitive Objectives.
A woman named Anderson put action verbs instead of nouns,
and so she thinks remember
and understand are lower level thinking skills.
Where as evaluate and create are the highest level thinking
that you can ask students to do.
And it definitely is appropriate to ask students
to perform those higher level thinking tasks.
But if you look at things
like the AACNU Meadow Rubrics a project they call The Value
Project, they've been evaluating rubrics that people use
to evaluate student work and those are often set up so
that if students get a 1 it's not a bad thing it just means
that they're at a foundational level where as a 4 represents
that they have the breadth and depth of skills
that are required whether it be integrative learning
or written communication or some other aspect
of what you're evaluating.
So there's a lot about these domains of objectives on the web
so I won't belabor it.
But it's important to make sure that when you're looking
at objectives to modify them if necessary or create them
if they don't exist so that you can map these artifacts
to the different levels
so that you can use electronic portfolios
that are largely student centered in ways
that can benefit other parts
of the campus whether it be your program for a program review
or accreditation stuff we'll hear from Helen later today.
So the next thing is looking at this as a matter of perspective.
When you're going through the mapping process some people here,
again, mentioned that they're looking
at this just at the course level.
So the simplest is when I create an assignment what objective am
I hoping students can demonstrate they can meet or exhibit?
So to me the program level of this mapping exercise is
like the middle, the fulcrum, the nexus,
whatever word you want to call, the black hole.
But the concept that the folks
that are doing course level mapping are going to try
to get alignment with the program goals.
And the program itself is going to try to align itself
with the campus goals.
Something that you can see in this chart that's in one
of the hand-outs that you have.
And, again, some of the drivers might be
from within the institution
like the program assessment review cycle
or at the campus level some strategic goals.
Our campus does a campus strategic plan every 5 years or so
and they also are redoing graduation requirements this year
so we have different elements of that.
The content objectives for the general education
and the campus student learning outcomes.
So here's one example from my own class because it was easy
to find but the artifact that I asked students to perform,
and this is a graduate level class
in conducting a needs assessment.
So I asked students to create a report based on work
that they do with live clients.
I find non-profits and schools and even some companies
so they get practice of creating a needs assessment to determine
if there's any training needs for that organization.
The objective for the class is that they're going
to perform this needs assessment for a client exhibiting skills
that they've learned from the class.
The department objective
that this helps them reach is the ability
to develop instructional activities using different media
including text and graphics and video
and such that are appropriate
for specific instructional situations.
At the college level the theme or goal at the college level is
to integrate education with community service.
And then at the institutional level is integration
of knowledge and experience.
So you can see that there's a fairly clear alignment
between this artifact all the way
up to the college level outcome our goal.
So, again, using that same metaphor of lighting
up a runway we're gonna look at the case study and so I'll go
over some guidelines around the mapping process.
First is knowing where to find the information.
So for me I had to go to a number of different websites in order
to find the department goals, the college level goals,
the institutional goals from the, again,
the campus strategic plan as well
as the graduation requirements,
so I had to know where to find all that.
So when you're going through the mapping process
on your own campus that may be something that you'll need to do.
And, again, you may find that some of them don't exist
and you may find that some of them don't work.
This last bullet talks about the audience of the objectives.
In some websites that I've seen the college level goals are
actually for the faculty members, they're not for the students.
And so there's a lack of alignment there.
When the college level goal says,
make sure that you meet your RTP requirements,
there's no way to say that this artifact is helping demonstrate
that because it basically stops.
So that college may need to come up with college level goals
for the students because they only have them for the faculty
at that point and time.
Other things to think about is if you have
to change some objectives
or create some new ones consider the impact
on the rest of the chain.
So if you're changing institutional level goals then
as the programs go through the review cycle they're going
to have to go through that editorive [phonetic] process again
where they're evaluating whether
or not the new campus goals still align
to their program goals and vice versa.
Some methods that might make it easier
to do this mapping is using tags or key words that you see
within the objectives themselves.
So in our case study from CSU Anywhere you can see
that there's an assignment in the mock syllabus
at the second page of the mock syllabus there.
It's calculating your carbon footprint.
It's appropriate for today's age.
And it's for a class called Environmental Studies 10,
Life on a Changing Planet.
And the course level objective is to demonstrate ways
in which science influences and is influenced
by complex societies including political and moral issues.
And then at the department level it's recognizing
and interconnectedness and interdependence
of political economic social complexities.
At the college level developing community service
and research partnerships for student learning.
And at the institution level we have a content objective
for general education requirements as well
as a campus strategic goals to show that there's different ways
that you might end up doing this mapping.
And then going to the national level
with the LEAP executive learning outcomes you can see,
or is it essential learning outcomes,
it's E. We have a couple different ones
that you might choose from.
Taking that concept of mapping using a tag mentality you can see
that I've boxed the word community in a couple places
and shown how you can maybe make a map based on the focus
on doing something towards community where as
in other cases you might just choose a particular word
like political or phrases that have similar meanings
like apply interdisciplinary training to local,
regional and national significance
and then develop community service partnerships,
appreciate and embrace local, regional and global communities.
So you can see that there are similarities and, again,
that might speak to is this learning objective
at the course level in alignment enough with what I see
at the campus level and so on.
So this process is not a quick one
and when Doctor Beers [assumed spelling] came to our campus one
of her first things to do was
to collect all the learning objectives
from all the different departments and now we're in this process
of creating new student learning outcomes for the campus
which is relatively new.
We've had segments of different types of courses
that people take but a focus on having a set
of student learning outcomes for students to achieve
by the time they graduate is new so we're gonna have to go
through the process of helping the departments
when they're doing their program review cycle make sure
that they're objectives
for the department level are helping students reach those campus
goals or else you have all these pockets of activity
that might not be in concert.
So part of this process is external to the ePortfolio process
but the ePortfolio implementation helps drive it and vice versa.
At the community college level they're moving away
from learning objectives which is the desire goal
and then they're moving toward learning outcomes
which has evidence maybe embedded within it.
So some -- there'll be differences in how people --
some people will use those terms interchangeably
and probably not rightfully so but keep in mind the goal
of goals is to make sure that you know where you're heading.
And so if there's an assessment component embedded
in an outcome that's gonna make it easier for you
to determine whether or not that artifact
or that entire portfolio is either 1 point
or multiple points showing that students have particular skills.
And so, again, balancing that tension
between institutional goals and student centered goals is one
that we'll all have to deal with and making sure
that students don't see this as a top down directive in order
to make accreditation processes easier
and stuff like that is something that you have to be aware
of in terms of faculty push-back that's one
of the things that we have heard.
The ground up approach matched with the top down, again,
meeting in the middle at the program level is not a bad way
to go because that means you have support from the people
that are making the biggest decisions and you have activity
that matches that support at the bottom.
So it's an important point to make
that campuses are making decisions
about electronic portfolios primarily for accreditation purposes
but they're still adopting student centered philosophies
and trying to make a nice balance between those two.
And, you know, even at the student level some
of the complaints you might hear is why am I paying
for the annual fee for this electronic portfolio
when the primary purpose is so that the campus can make sure
that it's meeting its institutional goals
or assessing its institutional effectiveness.
So we'll have to make sure that while we have this conversation
around implementation that we discuss that balance.
So now we're gonna do a mapping exercise enough
of me jibber jabbering up here in the front.
We need you guys to jibber jabber amongst yourselves.
And the first part is to take what I did or what we did
as a case study of CSU Anywhere and map a second assignment
which is a multimedia web research project assignment.
And using the different lists of objectives
from the case itself seeing how you would map
that artifact all the way up to the institution
and even the LEAP levels if you want.
So this is a collaborative activity.
Feel free to talk amongst yourselves and your tables.
If you are a table jumper then there are empty seats at some
of the tables and I think it's encouraged to have people
from different walks of life and different parts
of the country engage with each other.
The last 2 pages include a page with blank slots for you
to write in, and then a page
that has an assignment called Multimedia Web Research Project.
And the case study will contain all the objectives
at the different levels.
The class level will be in the syllabus.
The department level will be right above that.
The college level will be above that
and then the university level and LEAP outcomes are
at the beginning of that.
[ Silence ]