In my last installment of the “survey of the survey” series I’m working on, I looked at what themes continuously reappear in our surveys. Moving from the top down, this post examines the learning outcomes—and in particular the skills—developed in survey level history courses. I look at this topic as the middle point between the big themes of the survey and the instructional design of our courses and the pedagogical tools we employ to reach these goals. As such, I thought learning outcomes deserved a post of their own.
And be sure to scroll to the ending because I have another sharing activity (yay for crowdsourcing! I can’t get enough). I didn’t include this aspect of the survey on my original poll, so I’m adding it now.
I have explicit learning goals, or learning outcomes, in all my courses, included them on the syllabus, and emphasize them repeatedly in my survey. A caveat: “learning outcomes” can be a bit edspeak buzzword-y. Without relying on language such as value-added classroom synergies to produce strategically frictionless, innovative, gamified knowledge production…I am using the term in a narrow sense, employing the technique of asking or positing outcomes with the phrase, “Students will be able to…” for each class and for the course as a whole. In particular, I emphasize the development of particular skills that will be useful for students in both their college-level learning and future careers.
Why? Let me lay out a case against what I’m doing.
I would argue that deemphasizing the content of our disciplines and putting it in service of marketable skills, though constructed to resist the charge that our content and inquiry are frivolous, actually further undermines the integrity of our discipline and higher education itself, let alone the liberal arts.
Do students who do not excel or grow in particular skill areas gain nothing from sitting in our classrooms and being introduced to ideas, people, places, systems, and questions that they would not have otherwise confronted? Isn’t there a danger in reducing a vast array of experience and outcome to a few deliverable skills that can be measured, rather than to focus on the unknown opportunities, connections, and unforeseen consequences opened up by such introductions? We cannot foresee when or how the content in our classrooms will come into play, or even if the pay will, but we do know that the goal is to enrich, enliven, and create new possibilities for imaginative activity.
Clearly, there are many audiences that need to be served, and that the need to articulate the skills gained and growth measured is real and valuable. But to put out content, our disciplines, and all aspects of our classrooms in service of one market is poisonous to higher education and to the fields of inquiry to which we are committed. If we lose sight of this, we are culpable in our own demise.
Whew. That was heavy. And I fight with myself all the time about these questions.
What I have decided is that it is my job, as an educator, to provide students with an appropriate vocabulary for their learning. Ultimately, they are the ones who have to articulate what they gain from college-level learning, and from their core courses, of which the US survey is often a foundational requirement.
So my learning outcomes, constructed in a technical way, are important for helping students identify what they are learning, why, and how it will help them in whatever path they choose going forward.
In my sophomore-level Methods course, I have directed students to the AHA’s Tuning Core project, which articulates “the skills, knowledge, and habits of mind that students develop in history courses and degree programs.” This is, to my knowledge, the best place to start in defining outcomes for history courses at all levels.
In my survey, I have attempted to reach up to the big themes of the course and emphasize those, the specific skills and content areas developed, and how the course connects to the university’s liberal arts and sciences core curriculum learning goals (in my case, citizenship). The learning goals also inform the day-to-day activities of the class, which could be mapped according to these goals (which I have not done).
• Skills:
✴ Connect primary sources to historical context using reference material and historical arguments
✴ Evaluate historical arguments by reading scholarly work
✴ Identify arguments about and articulate changes over time
✴ Manage time and plan for deadlines efficiently and effectively with minimal supervision
• Content Coverage and Big Questions:
✴ America’s changing role in global affairs
✴ The evolution of politics, the presidency, and the state
✴ Cultural identity and change
✴ Economic growth and crisis and the changing experiences of work, exchange, technology, and consumption
• Citizenship:
✴ Consider how Americans have interacted with laws and government institutions from the local to national levels
✴ Evaluate the connection and contradictions among democracy, citizenship, and cultural pluralism
✴ Consider the relationship between domestic affairs and international relations
✴ Apply historically derived definitions of liberalism and conservatism
You will notice that my Content Coverage and Big Questions section does not meet the format for finishing the statement “Students will be able to…” This is deliberate. I left room in my learning outcomes for students to ponder the big questions themselves, to leave room for them to merely gain acquaintance with these themes without expecting a particular outcome (or deliverable).
I also continue to tweak, revise, and totally overhaul my learning outcomes: I’m always seeking advice and ideas.
And because I love sharing, I’m asking (again) for a huge favor from you all. Let’s share our learning outcomes. Let’s figure out the breadth, depth, and precision to which we define the goals of our surveys. Let’s develop a library of these things so we can spark creativity and inquiry, and broaden our students’ vocabulary about the point of the courses they take. Who’s game? If you are, add yours to this Google Document. I know, I love sharing.
