This is a re-post of the comment I made immediately after the Hello message. As I have not received any responses I assume there has been an extinction event. I find the lack of community over this topic somewhat disconcerting. I have had many private conversations on the topic of SLOs.
However, I am sure Arend does read the responses. So Travis and Kathy . . What say ye?
re-post follows:
Please if your are present in mind, what do we mean by outcomes. No error here, I am literate and need not be instructed in the definition provided via the ‘about’ page.
My training leaves no doubt of the meaning when indicating ‘effect’ as in cause and effect. I am also very familiar with the precise usage of the term in grant applications submitted to NIMH, NIDA, and NIH where interventions must be distinguished by analysis that clearly demonstrates moderation and/or mediation (as in Baron and Kenny: see http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm).
However, the sophistication of research methods and expert workers in science demanded by such studies conveys the high degree of training in multivariate and multilevel analysis required. In support of such expertise, a formal level of earned specialty in systematic procedural methodology that has been accepted and established by peer review in scientific journals as well as consensus among experts in the area is also evident.
The rigor needed to tackle an assessment of ‘outcomes’ reflects the seriousness of the knowledge construction attempted. Under such circumstances, outcomes are not associated with any agenda but aspire as evidence contributing to an interpretation of phenomena.
Importantly I think, one of my areas of expertise is in Learning. Indeed workers in my field must be able to routinely demonstrate that learning is a phenomena understood using science: that is with due regard given the Ceteris Paribus.
I am asking as I would like to know what level those contractually obligated to construct knowledge about RCC’s instantiation of student learning objectives is empirically derived. At what level are those so employed working? Under what constraints of necessary AND sufficient components do they function. Where is the scientific modeling in support of a codified perspective on outcomes available and how is it valid? How reliable is the measurement and what index of reliability is being used?
That is to say pragmatics aside, you folks will be constructing social knowledge affecting my students’ lives. Such a task ethically demands a clear statement of assumptions, occasions, methods, as well as consensus. I believe Ted and Dariush would support me in commenting that the potential for constraints that may be present as components of doctrine in pursuit of goods falling outside of academic considerations must permit a discussion on Measurement in its own right.
It is clear that such a discussion is preliminary to concluding that something has indeed been measured.
Jon Mettrick
