CTE View column by Dan Bernstein: Unit work on teaching shows promise for University
What we teach is always an important topic for faculty members, and conversations about the goals of an educational experience or disciplinary program are usually quite animated. Often the discussion is very principled, as we argue that certain topics or skills or ways of thinking are essential to our fields. A curriculum is a visible representation of the structure of a field of study, and that symbolism can help define a program’s identity and audience. We may also have a vision of an educated citizen whose participation in society as a lifelong learner depends on the kind of education we offer.
In several places around the KU campus this conversation has moved to another level, as faculty groups are interested in knowing how well their curricular goals are being met. Given an understanding of what a well educated graduate of their programs could look like, these departments are identifying what existing course assignments and projects would provide learners with an opportunity to demonstrate desired skills, knowledge or understanding. In some cases these demonstrations are outside scheduled class work and take place in individual settings or informal seminars and practica. Once opportunities are identified, faculty members can review work students produce and inquire how well it meets program goals.
For example, the School of Journalism has a clear set of curriculum goals. The faculty held a retreat before the beginning of the fall term to consider how to determine how well the goals are being met. Conversations began on two next steps. For each goal they will ask when students have a chance to do work that is related to the goal, and then what criteria they would use to decide how well the goals have been accomplished. The enterprise includes a modest but reasonable sample of work from a range of courses, with many instructors and different students. The feedback they get from looking at this work is intended to speak to the effort of the entire school, not any particular instructor.
Another example comes from the psychology department (see pages 4-5). Meeting in a retreat last winter, the department began to frame a set of shared goals for undergraduate majors, and the faculty voted to have psychology majors generate and maintain a portfolio that documents their education. The framework of that portfolio is under discussion, and it will likely include both examples of student performance and reflection by each student on the overall coherence and meaning of work done in the major. These student portfolios will be a convenient place to find examples of student understanding that can be compared with the department’s self generated guidelines for judging success in learning.
Once these program-based archives of student performance are assembled, they can also provide additional material for a campus wide conversation about a KU education. Currently, we use a set of informal guidelines to describe the performance of select seniors in an hour long oral interview. These conversations provide some useful feedback, but it would be advantageous to include more intentional and organized work. Faculty members could also look at samples of student work and key projects, asking if these performances demonstrate any of the six large general educational objectives that we have identified as our goals. When faculty members consider the quality of select archives of well framed work by advanced students, we can add to our knowledge of the success of a KU education.
Several units on campus will begin to look at their own work this year, and we can all benefit from their pioneering prototypes. Their interest in asking questions about their teaching is a healthy indication of rich concern for the future and quality of their disciplines and for the contribution their fields make to the general education of Kansans. We can learn from them and discover how all programs can benefit from periodic self examination.
This past summer KU teachers lost a valued colleague and friend when James Vequist died of cancer. Jim was Director of Budig Hall, and created an outstanding support program for teachers using Budig’s large lecture halls. He was also instrumental in the design of the rooms and delivery systems built into them.
Many people knew Jim as a charming, funny and unflappable colleague who could work through any presentation challenge, and he was an extraordinarily knowledgeable participant in conversations about the continuing extension of media-based education at KU. He was uniformly helpful and creative, and the best kind of colleague one could have. Those who teach and work in Budig miss both his casual competence and his warm conversation. KU was extraordinarily well served by this very fine man.
—DB
