February 11, 2006: Student Learning

• Session Outline (5")
• Taking Stock: coherence -- with thanks to Jeff Weiss (Josh, 10")
• Aligning outcomes and expectations:
  • pairs: evidence of extent to which students are meeting learning goals. Compare written goals to student work. (30")
    Donald-Richard, Brad-Ravi, Laurie-Phyllis, Jeff-Michael, Janet-John.
  • plenary: what is your data telling you about this? (20")
• Meta-questions about aligning: (plenary, 20")
  • Are you getting the kind of information that will inform these questions?
  • Would something else tell you "learning" or "not learning" more clearly? More inexpensively? More quickly?
• Break, file upload (15")
• PNW Higher Ed T & L Conference (discussion, 10")
• Coherence: for one learning goal, can you trace connection between goal, philosophy that informs it, the method that you expect to achieve it, and evidence of achievement? Time permitting, trace additional goals. (pairs, 30")
• Taking stock: workshop goal achievement (plenary, 20")
• Looking to the next session: (20")
  • We need to choose our shared grading artifacts. Nominate your student work, provide rationale. We want a wide range of tasks and conceptual material over which the assignments and work span. If you provide work, make sure it is anonymized. When you receive work, make sure to keep it confidential.
  • At the least, analyze the assessments you do of the 3 shared artifacts. Your "values map" can be a simple list, or a more complex representation of "what you value" in the work of introductory programmers. If you can, analyze all of the graded assessments you have done in your class on two or three assignments. At the most, include your students as Broad suggests. Broad's instructions for Dynamic Criteria Mapping.
  • The portfolio deliverable .
  • Reading: Broad, "What we really value"
  • Host and location