General Education

I favor the general concept but the iSLOs would have to be modified, which they might have to be anyway. In the Founding Day committee we tried to see if the even-year sports day could be said to serve any of iSLOs. We could not find a good match because gen ed pslo 5.1, "Determine healthy lifestyles by describing the value of physical activity to a healthful lifestyle and participating in regular physical activity for at least one semester.", is not reflected in any way shape or form in the iSLOs. If the nation were at least average in global health metrics, I might be convinced to let this slide. But at number two for diabetes on the planet earth, number two for percent of population with a BMI above 25, and other NCD numbers that are equally dismal, the college must have health and fitness as priorities for our graduates. Thanks for the grid, that is exactly what I meant to put together. My humble opinion is that there needs to be a ninth iSLO which picks up the themes of 5.1 and 5.2.

The chart that Ross sent is very helpful. As we can see, some items do not match up well. It might be helpful to number the ISLOs and then align the GE PLOs with them. Also, the ISLOs should use the verbs found in Bloom's Taxonomy. Because the GE PLOs have these verbs, it might be just a matter of copying those verbs or changing nouns like "development" and "expression" to verbs like "develop" and "express." The GE PLOs, in turn, ought to be integrated with the course SLOs. For example, instead of "a...paper" and "a...presentation," we should have "papers" and "presentations." Finally, as I mentioned in the workshop, we lack ISLOs for art and music. Dana, above, points out a similar gap in "healthy lifestyles."

Dana and Monty are correct. As stated now, the ISLOs are not at all student learning outcomes. To be sure, I like the details in each ISLO, but there is no way to measure student learning and/or achievement/performance. Also, if the CAC is expected to review and implement a plan to modify the GenEd outcomes to "fit" thE ISLOs, my overwhelming concern is "stakeholder" input. Our Palikir administration likes to talk big about participatory governance and shared decision-making, but that's only talk. There is rarely walking the talk. In particular, stakeholders are both internal (such as students) and external. So, I urgently request that CAC not -- I repeat, NOT -- be the first and only "group" to review the ISLO/GenEd dilemma. We should be consulting with SBA councils for student input, faculty/staff senates as well, and then, find a way to get "external" stakeholder input.

Pursuant to this discussion, I would like to suggest that we use Staff Development Day to hold a workshop on this topic. However, instead of the one-workshop-fits-all approach, let's have several workshops going on simultaneously on different things that need to be done, not just this topic alone. Each division could have one person take part in each workshop. As Alton notes above, the more people taking part in the discussion, the better. However, when a group becomes too large, the discussion becomes too diffuse. For this reason, workshops with wide participation from various stakeholders would be an effective starting point at getting broader input. A single workshop could be held in a classroom. If we need a model for how this system works, we can look to the MLA, TESOL, and other educational conferences.

Although not strictly "on topic," I want to expand on the concept of having more than one workshop. With multiple workshops, we could deal with more tasks.

For example, another worthwhile workshop would be to have someone in each division learn how to post information to the college calendar, listing time, place, and agenda or providing links to these. At present, only a couple of people seem to know how to do this. This workshop might be held in the Lang/Lit computer lab. The 20 or so participants could then teach what they learn in their divisions.

Another workshop should be on the new handbook. One member of each division could examine one section and report to the workshop any problems or suggestions. The workshop leader could assemble those and pass them on, and workshop members could inform their respective divisions, as I indicate below.

Before a final closing comment in the practice gym (for instance), workshop participants could reassemble in their divisions and share what they learned. Divisions would have people in each workshop, creating an "information gap" that we would fill or bridge by briefly going over what each workshop covered. Supervisors could then collect and summarize the discussion and pass it up the chain of command. Coupled with reports from workshop leaders, we would have a more complete picture of what was accomplished and perhaps an indication of what needs to be done at a future workshop.

Finally, Alton's point about external input is apt. One thing that seems to be missing from our design of outcomes is reference to what other schools are doing. We need evidence that the orgy of outcomes in which we appear to be indulging in has any other effect than making us feel good about ourselves. In short, we need evidence, for instance, that the huge list of outcomes shown on some Hawaii community college websites produces transfer, degree, or certificate students who can actually do what the proponents of outcomes promise: not that students "should" be able to do A-Z but that they "will" do it. edited 11:58, 19 Jan 2014

thinks its a great idea - simplifies and reduces which makes assessment easier and more manageable. We just have to make sure that the current ISLOs fit and it doesn't create any gaps in any Gen Ed courses........