Course Design

Learning outcomes are statements of what a student is expected to know, 

understand and/or be able to demonstrate after completion of a process of learning.

-Kennedy (2006)

Student learning outcomes (SLOs) clearly define what students should be able to do or know by the end of your class. To see if a student meets the desired learning outcome, the student produces something (e.g., essay, oral presentation, art piece, more creative assignments) that can be assessed. Therefore, SLOs must also be measurable.

The basic formula for writing SLOs is...

Students will [action verb] + [concise description of the measurable disciplinary learning statement]

For example,

“Students will be able to explain the flow of energy in environmental systems.”

Action verbs can be the most difficult part of writing SLOs, so we recommend using Bloom’s Taxonomy to help figuring out what level of learning you want your students to achieve and what verbs are appropriate for SLOs.

Avoid using phrases like, “Students will understand...” or “Students will appreciate...” because these are vague, aren’t really observable, and can be interpreted in many ways. Instead, students should be able to demonstrate their understanding by summarizing, comparing, etc.

For a list of example Bloom’s Taxonomy verbs, see this document: Bloom’s Taxonomy Verbs

Image:  Bloom's Taxonomy - Cognitive Domain (2001), University of Florida

Kennedy, D. (2006) Writing and using learning outcomes: a practical guide, Cork: University College Cork. 

https://cora.ucc.ie/server/api/core/bitstreams/88bdd1f3-4e1c-4cf8-baf4-df28d4f094c5/content

Assessment helps us identify excellence in learning and our teaching.  It also highlights when students are having difficulty learning course material. 

There are two main ways we think about assessment of student learning: Formative Assessment and Summative Assessment. The distinction between the two can be thought of in relation to how/when you evaluate student learning. For example, formative assessments are quizzes and tests that evaluate how someone is learning material throughout a course. Summative assessments are quizzes and tests that evaluate how much someone has learned throughout a course.

Formative Assessment: Enhancing Learning in Real-Time

Formative assessments are integral to the learning process, offering real-time insights into student comprehension. These assessments, which include quizzes and tests, evaluate ongoing student learning throughout a course. The feedback from formative assessments can guide teaching strategies, enhancing their effectiveness to meet students’ needs.

Popular Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs) such as the one-minute paper, muddiest point, and defining features matrix are often employed. These techniques can clarify student misconceptions, explain complex concepts, and advance the learning process.

Summative Assessment: Evaluating Overall Learning Progress

Summative assessments, on the other hand, evaluate the extent of student learning at the conclusion of a course or program. These assessments, which may include final exams or projects, measure student performance against established benchmarks or standards.

The information gathered from summative assessments is crucial for overall course or program enhancement. While the feedback primarily benefits future cohorts of students, it also meets accountability demands, ensuring the course or program’s effectiveness.

In the backward design process, you structure student learning based upon assessments that are intentionally designed to provide evidence that students have achieved the course goals.  One way of thinking about Backward design is like problem-solving.  When we have a problem to solve, we work with the end in mind, why not do this with instruction.

Backward Design is focused on alignment and skills, over content.  Features of this approach include:

• Focus on skills and transferability

• Content serves as context

• Desired SLOS guide instructional methods, activities, and measures,

• SLOs should use behavioral, measurable verbs

I. The first step in backward course design is to clearly articulate the final results of the course.

Begin by asking yourself:

1. What do I want my students to be able to think and to do by the end of this course?

2. How will my students be different by the end of the course?

These constitute your course goals. 

II. After creating your course goals the next step is to determine how you know that students have changed.

What evidence will students provide to you demonstrating that they have achieved the course goals? The answer to this question is often your final assignment or assessment for the course.  Once you have decided upon the final assessment it is now time to identify the things students will need to “think and do” in order to successfully complete it. These are the learning outcomes for the course.  Finally, you are ready to structure the course content, student activities, homework and lectures, all of which are based upon the learning outcomes.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

In the "assignment-centered model," the teacher begins not by asking, "What should I cover in this course? Rather, "What should my students learn to do?" Coverage of content does not disappear under the assignment-centered model: basic facts, concepts, and procedures are still important; lectures may be used as a pedagogical device; textbooks may be assigned and read.

The difference is that course planning begins by focusing on the assignments, tests, and exams that will both teach and test what the teacher most wants students to know: the student learning outcomes (SLOs). The rest of the course is structured around these goals to help students learn what they need to know if they are to do well on the tests and assignments.

See here for some examples of assignment-centered courses. 

Walvoord, B. E., & Breihan, J. R. (1997). Helping Faculty Design Assignment‐Centered Courses. To improve the academy, 16(1), 349-371.