Student Learning Issues on Campus

February 1998 Newsletter, Vol. 2, No. 3
Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
Bowling Green State University

Depending on one's perspective, it was either a fortuitous or very unlucky coincidence that the former Physical Education Professional (PEP) Division revised its name, mission, and two majors at approximately the same time that the University began its recent focus on student achievement assessment. The name change to Kinesiology (KNS), literally meaning the "study of motion," with an expanded mission to study the art and science of human movement, necessitated revising the Human Movement Science and Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) programs.

The process of modifying almost 50 course syllabi and two program curricula was daunting in and of itself. When confronted with the additional challenge of detailing "student learning outcomes" [curriculum modification A.3.2] for each course and curriculum [A.7] as well as a "plan for assessing learning outcomes" in each course [A.3.7] and for each curriculum overall [A.7], the Kinesiology faculty found ourselves despairing of ever successfully completing the task!

In the end, however, these oftentimes-unwanted requirements impelled us to use elements of curriculum building that we might otherwise have ignored. The necessity of a "plan to assess student learning outcomes" forced us to consider new ways to assess our students and our own teaching. At the same time, our often-voiced complaint that our students didn't transfer information and skills from one course to the next, provided us a stimulus to explore how to better integrate course content within and across Division curricula.

One way we approached the task of integrating elements across courses throughout a curriculum was through the use of curricular "themes" that reinforced central concepts, skills, and knowledge. For Human Movement Science (HMS) and Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE), we chose themes that included such lofty ideas as "think critically," "strive for personal excellence in communication skills, in gross motor skills, and in physical fitness," "human movement plays a central role in individual well-being," and "teaching is a professional and reflective activity." It turned out that these themes made the identification of course and curricular student learning outcomes easier.

Hence, the HMS curriculum states that as a consequence of successful engagementin the program, a major will "display clear, logical thinking in their writing and speaking" and "personal excellence in gross motor skills and health-related physical fitness." PETE states that a successful graduate of that curriculum will "understand the ways in which human movement plays a central role in human well-being" and will "act professionally" and "with reflection."

A second means for integrating across our four separate curricula (including the Dance and Exercise Specialist programs) was more difficult to resolve. A new course called "Introduction to Kinesiology," that simultaneously would avoid the pitfalls of many introductory courses and hopefully engage first-year students, using the notion of a "spiral curriculum," was proposed but viewed with some skepticism as to its possible success. A unique opportunity to "pilot" the introductory course presented itself in the form of KNS 164, Introduction to Movement Analysis, and the ERIP. Three Kinesiology faculty who had traditionally taught KNS 164 retired unexpectedly, leaving a course slated to be dropped, but still required by all Kinesiology and Dance majors without any experienced instructors. Two faculty spent the past three semesters phasing out the old KNS 164 content while phasing in content proposed for Introduction to Kinesiology.

Is it working? Anecdotal comments from faculty in several classes are reporting higher levels of student engagement, learning, and awareness of curricular themes. We intend to continue to monitor students who have taken the revised KNS 164 qualitatively and quantitatively as part of our plan to assess student learning outcomes. We are hopeful that these first tentative steps in student achievement assessment will bear the desired fruit. We'll keep the BGSU community informed!

Recently, the chemistry faculty at the University of Michigan (UM) instituted a new curriculum in an introductory organic chemistry course taken by chemistry, biology, and pre-med majors. The team members designing the new curriculum explain the motivation behind the change.*

"We want our readers to understand the value of consciously and explicitly linking what we know about chemistry with what we do in the classroom. Although it is possible to adopt the course design or examination practices of someone else, the inconsistencies that arise when philosophy and practice are in conflict result in the very dissonance we are trying to address" (p. 74).

The authors illustrate what they mean by describing how many faculty hype problem-solving and critical-thinking objectives to students on the first day and proceed through the course doing little to promote these higher-order objectives. "...Knowing how to blend knowledge of the content of a course with higher order pedagogical objectives goes beyond simple mastery of the subject matter. It includes insights into how learning the subject matter fosters critical skills and which of many examples or strategies are best suited to develop such skills in students" (p. 74).

In a two-part article --which describes the details of the course design, the instructional strategies used to teach the course, and its assessment and evaluation practices-- the authors begin by outlining their underlying philosophical viewpoint and objectives. Their philosophy should be of interest to all faculty involved in introductory level teaching.

Chemistry is a liberal art and should be taught as such. The fear here is that science education has moved away from the traditional liberal arts skills , like, for example, the ability to see relationships among things that are different, to tolerate ambiguity and bring order out of confusion, to uncover truths in many forms, and to understand that answers should not be thought of as final.

Knowledge is constructed, not recorded by learners. The philosophical underpinning rests on the understanding that "we cannot teach, and students cannot learn, all the content necessary for everyone who will use chemistry professionally. We must concentrate on aspects of chemistry that will give students the tools to recognize problems when they see them and to know where to find data, how to analyze data, and how to use data to solve problems, so that they become confident lifelong learners" (p. 76).

The practical result of such a philosophy is the attention paid to the processes by which content is conveyed and understood by students, "even if this requires cutting back on factual information" (p. 76). The change is not an easy one to implement because of our strong orientations to content. Often the move to attend to process issues is seen as a sacrifice to content coverage. "We find it more useful to put content and process on intersecting axes that create regions where the two interact with each other" (p. 76).

Faculty and students are both learners; faculty are more expert, whereas students are apprentices. Here, the design team defers to an analogy proposed by renowned scientist Robert Oppenheimer in which he describes science as an edifice that continually grows as new workers build interconnected additions. Basedon that foundational philosophy, the role of the teacher changes from that of authority to that of coach and mentor--the "expert learner" who guides the processes whereby students learn chemistry and learn about learning.

The detailed description of the development of this curriculum offers an outstanding model to those considering or involved in the process. Even if introductory curricula are not currently being revised in your institution, I would recommend your acquiring them as first-rate resources.

*-Note: Article summary written by Maryellen Weimer (summary not reprinted in its entirety). *Reference: Ege, Seyan N., Coppola, Brian P., and Lawton, Richard G. (1996). The University of Michigan undergraduate chemistry curriculum; 1. Philosophy, curriculum and the nature of change. Journal of Chemical Education, 74 (1 and 2), 74-91. Excerpts reprinted from The Teaching Professor (March 1997) by permission from Magna Publications (800-433-0499).

Articles and excerpts published in The Student Learner in Focus are occasionally reproduced from The Teaching Professor by permission from Magna Publications. A copy of The Teaching Professor is available in each academic unit for use by all faculty, graduate students, staff, and administrators. The Teaching Professor is published monthly, except July and August by Magna Publications, Inc., 2718 Dryden Dr., Madison, WI 53704-3086.

The Student Learner in Focus is a newsletter published by the Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. The newsletter serves to inform the academic community at Bowling Green State University of new and innovative learning strategies at the programmatic and classroom levels. The Student Learner in Focus also summarizes ongoing assessment programs on campus.
Comments, suggestions, and questions are welcome and may be directed to Dr. Steven Russell, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, College of Education and Human Development at 372-7401

Editor : Steven C. Russell
Associate Editor : Leigh M. Hayes

Return to other issues of The Student Learner in Focus

Return to BGSU Assessment Central Homepage