Group items tagged

"Based on current estimates, to reach the 60 percent level by 2025, the U.S. higher education system must produce 23 million more college graduates than are expected at present rates of production. The actual size of the gap will shift annually, as we make progress and new data become available. Obviously, we can't close this gap overnight. But, for example, if we can start to increase the rate of attainment each year and produce 150,000 more graduates than the year before - an annual increase of about 5 percent - we will reach the big goal by 2025."

adding 150,000 more college graduates/year each year from now to 2025 is a significant scaling up. Spread over 5000 institutions its only 30/institution on average, which many could manage. Or perhaps Western Governors could absorb many of them.

Read it and weep.

I think this reader comment captures it: Right--it's not about the students learning anything--it's about YOUR learning, and you let them come along for the ride. How could you fit that into learning objectives? Please. This is why people think all of us are navel-gazing, self-indulgent mopes.

Doesn't it depend on the nature of the learning objectives? I mean, you could list a set of facts and skills levels students should have attained. You could specify a number of discrete facts and skills to be attained within certain areas of the course curriculum. Or, you could do something more creative such as measure the number of claims with evidence in student writing that is within the subject matter of the course to demonstrate a level of articulation.

At CTLT, I never did become fully settled on certain subject types though, like mathematics and natural sciences. Depending on the subject matter, specific facts like natural laws and methods must be discretely learned and learned perfectly. And, indeed in some subjects, there is such a thing as perfect understanding where anything even slightly less is failure to learn. This is rigid, yes.. But I do not see the alternative in some subjects and teachers of those subjects certainly don't either. I do think that sometimes there can be more flexibility in the order of learning of discrete fundamentals. Learning out of order often convinced me of the importance of things skipped, causing me to go back and study more comprehensively on my own, in my own time, and according to my own interest.

This is an interesting article about a new study that shows what the title says it does. What concerns me is that some instructors who predominately use an approach to teaching that promotes passive learning will use this as a rationale for not changing how they teach. There is plenty of brain-based research that shows that active learning for a purpose acheives greater attainment of student learning outcomes, no matter one's learning style. And while I've certainly not read tons on learning styles, that that I have read never asserted the need to match teaching to individual learning styles. The point, rather, seemed to be in greater self-awareness so that an individual could actively grow their weak areas. To some extent, the approach to the argument presented in this article is so American - so polarized - so not a useful approach.

Updating what we've heard.

The call for accountability du jour. Note dissatisfaction with provostial measures while suggesting we need more...provostial measures.