So much of the focus on assessment misses the target--the rubber hits the road with students and teachers, working together, with parents and the broader community, to support learning. Ryan
1. The assessment of student learning begins with educational values. Assessment is not an end in itself but a vehicle for educational improvement. Its effective practice, then, begins with and enacts a vision of the kinds of learning we most value for students and strive to help them achieve. Educational values should drive not only what we choose to assess but also how we do so. Where questions about educational mission and values are skipped over, assessment threatens to be an exercise in measuring what's easy, rather than a process of improving what we really care about.
2. Assessment is most effective when it reflects an understanding of learning as multidimensional, integrated, and revealed in performance over time. Learning is a complex process. It entails not only what students know but what they can do with what they know; it involves not only knowledge and abilities but values, attitudes, and habits of mind that affect both academic success and performance beyond the classroom. Assessment should reflect these understandings by employing a diverse array of methods, including those that call for actual performance, using them over time so as to reveal change, growth, and increasing degrees of integration. Such an approach aims for a more complete and accurate picture of learning, and therefore firmer bases for improving our students' educational experience.
3. Assessment works best when the programs it seeks to improve have clear, explicitly stated purposes. Assessment is a goal-oriented process. It entails comparing educational performance with educational purposes and expectations -- those derived from the institution's mission, from faculty intentions in program and course design, and from knowledge of students' own goals. Where program purposes lack specificity or agreement, assessment as a process pushes a campus toward clarity about where to aim and what standards to apply; assessment also prompts attention to where and how program goals will be taught and learned. Clear, shared, implementable goals are the cornerstone for assessment that is focused and useful.
4. Assessment requires attention to outcomes but also and equally to the experiences that lead to those outcomes. Information about outcomes is of high importance; where students "end up" matters greatly. But to improve outcomes, we need to know about student experience along the way -- about the curricula, teaching, and kind of student effort that lead to particular outcomes. Assessment can help us understand which students learn best under what conditions; with such knowledge comes the capacity to improve the whole of their learning.
5. Assessment works best when it is ongoing not episodic. Assessment is a process whose power is cumulative. Though isolated, "one-shot" assessment can be better than none, improvement is best fostered when assessment entails a linked series of activities undertaken over time. This may mean tracking the process of individual students, or of cohorts of students; it may mean collecting the same examples of student performance or using the same instrument semester after semester. The point is to monitor progress toward intended goals in a spirit of continuos improvement. Along the way, the assessment process itself should be evaluated and refined in light of emerging insights.
6. Assessment fosters wider improvement when representatives from across the educational community are involved. Student learning is a campus-wide responsibility, and assessment is a way of enacting that responsibility. Thus, while assessment efforts may start small, the aim over time is to involve people from across the educational community. Faculty play an especially important role, but assessment's questions can't be fully addressed without participation by student-affairs educators, librarians, administrators, and students. Assessment may also involve individuals from beyond the campus (alumni/ae, trustees, and employers) whose experience can enrich the sense of appropriate aims and standards for learning. Thus understood, assessment is not a task for small groups of experts but a collaborative activity; its aim is wider, better-informed attention to student learning by all parties with a stake in its improvement.
7. Assessment makes a difference when it begins with issues of use and illuminates questions that people really care about. Assessment recognizes the value of information in the process of improvement. But to be useful, information must be connected to issues or questions that people really care about. This implies assessment approaches that produce evidence that relevant parties will find credible, suggestive, and applicable to decisions that need to be made. It means thinking in advance about how the information will be used, and by whom. The point of assessment is not to gather data and return "results"; it is a process that starts with the questions of decision-makers, that involves them in the gathering and interpreting of data, and that informs and helps guide continous improvement.
8. Assessment is most likely to lead to improvement when it is part of a larger set of conditions that promote change. Assessment alone changes little. Its greatest contribution comes on campuses where the quality of teaching and learning is visibly valued and worked at. On such campuses, the push to improve educational performance is a visible and primary goal of leadership; improving the quality of undergraduate education is central to the institution's planning, budgeting, and personnel decisions. On such campuses, information about learning outcomes is seen as an integral part of decision making, and avidly sought.
9. Through assessment, educators meet responsibilities to students and to the public. There is a compelling public stake in education. As educators, we have a responsibility to the publics that support or depend on us to provide information about the ways in which our students meet goals and expectations. But that responsibility goes beyond the reporting of such information; our deeper obligation -- to ourselves, our students, and society -- is to improve. Those to whom educators are accountable have a corresponding obligation to support such attempts at improvement.
Authors: Alexander W. Astin; Trudy W. Banta; K. Patricia Cross; Elaine El-Khawas; Peter T. Ewell; Pat Hutchings; Theodore J. Marchese; Kay M. McClenney; Marcia Mentkowski; Margaret A. Miller; E. Thomas Moran; Barbara D. Wright
This document was developed under the auspices of the AAHE Assessment Forum with support from the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education with additional support for publication and dissemination from the Exxon Education Foundation. Copies may be made without restriction
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Dewey
I have to admit this seems really obvious to nay thinking human being--he hit the nail on the head! Perfect, no, it is the product of the times but has so much to say about good teaching, leadership, engagement.
My Pedagogic Creed, John Dewey
John Dewey's famous declaration concerning education. First published in The School Journal, Volume LIV, Number 3 (January 16, 1897), pages 77-80.
ARTICLE I--What Education Is
I believe that all education proceeds by the participation of the individual in the social consciousness of the race. This process begins unconsciously almost at birth, and is continually shaping the individual's powers, saturating his consciousness, forming his habits, training his ideas, and arousing his feelings and emotions. Through this unconscious education the individual gradually comes to share in the intellectual and moral resources which humanity has succeeded in getting together. He becomes an inheritor of the funded capital of civilization. The most formal and technical education in the world cannot safely depart from this general process. It can only organize it or differentiate it in some particular direction.
I believe that the only true education comes through the stimulation of the child's powers by the demands of the social situations in which he finds himself. Through these demands he is stimulated to act as a member of a unity, to emerge from his original narrowness of action and feeling, and to conceive of himself from the standpoint of the welfare of the group to which he belongs. Through the responses which others make to his own activities he comes to know what these mean in social terms. The value which they have is reflected back into them. For instance, through the response which is made to the child's instinctive babblings the child comes to know what those babblings mean; they are transformed into articulate language and thus the child is introduced into the consolidated wealth of ideas and emotions which are now summed up in language.
I believe that this educational process has two sides-one psychological and one sociological; and that neither can be subordinated to the other or neglected without evil results following. Of these two sides, the psychological is the basis. The child's own instincts and powers furnish the material and give the starting point for all education. Save as the efforts of the educator connect with some activity which the child is carrying on of his own initiative independent of the educator, education becomes reduced to a pressure from without. It may, indeed, give certain external results, but cannot truly be called educative. Without insight into the psychological structure and activities of the individual, the educative process will, therefore, be haphazard and arbitrary. If it chances to coincide with the child's activity it will get a leverage; if it does not, it will result in friction, or disintegration, or arrest of the child nature.
I believe that knowledge of social conditions, of the present state of civilization, is necessary in order properly to interpret the child's powers. The child has his own instincts and tendencies, but we do not know what these mean until we can translate them into their social equivalents. We must be able to carry them back into a social past and see them as the inheritance of previous race activities. We must also be able to project them into the future to see what their outcome and end will be. In the illustration just used, it is the ability to see in the child's babblings the promise and potency of a future social intercourse and conversation which enables one to deal in the proper way with that instinct.
I believe that the psychological and social sides are organically related and that education cannot be regarded as a compromise between the two, or a superimposition of one upon the other. We are told that the psychological definition of education is barren and formal--that it gives us only the idea of a development of all the mental powers without giving us any idea of the use to which these powers are put. On the other hand, it is urged that the social definition of education, as getting adjusted to civilization, makes of it a forced and external process, and results in subordinating the freedom of the individual to a preconceived social and political status.
I believe that each of these objections is true when urged against one side isolated from the other. In order to know what a power really is we must know what its end, use, or function is; and this we cannot know save as we conceive of the individual as active in social relationships. But, on the other hand, the only possible adjustment which we can give to the child under existing conditions, is that which arises through putting him in complete possession of all his powers. With the advent of democracy and modern industrial conditions, it is impossible to foretell definitely just what civilization will be twenty years from now. Hence it is impossible to prepare the child for any precise set of conditions. To prepare him for the future life means to give him command of himself; it means so to train him that he will have the full and ready use of all his capacities; that his eye and ear and hand may be tools ready to command, that his judgment may be capable of grasping the conditions under which it has to work, and the executive forces be trained to act economically and efficiently. It is impossible to reach this sort of adjustment save as constant regard is had to the individual's own powers, tastes, and interests-say, that is, as education is continually converted into psychological terms.
In sum, I believe that the individual who is to be educated is a social individual and that society is an organic union of individuals. If we eliminate the social factor from the child we are left only with an abstraction; if we eliminate the individual factor from society, we are left only with an inert and lifeless mass. Education, therefore, must begin with a psychological insight into the child's capacities, interests, and habits. It must be controlled at every point by reference to these same considerations. These powers, interests, and habits must be continually interpreted--we must know what they mean. They must be translated into terms of their social equivalents--into terms of what they are capable of in the way of social service.
ARTICLE II--What the School Is
I believe that the school is primarily a social institution. Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends.
I believe that education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living.
I believe that the school must represent present life-life as real and vital to the child as that which he carries on in the home, in the neighborhood, or on the playground.
I believe that education which does not occur through forms of life, or that are worth living for their own sake, is always a poor substitute for the genuine reality and tends to cramp and to deaden.
I believe that the school, as an institution, should simplify existing social life; should reduce it, as it were, to an embryonic form. Existing life is so complex that the child cannot be brought into contact with it without either confusion or distraction; he is either overwhelmed by the multiplicity of activities which are going on, so that he loses his own power of orderly reaction, or he is so stimulated by these various activities that his powers are prematurely called into play and he becomes either unduly specialized or else disintegrated.
I believe that as such simplified social life, the school life should grow gradually out of the home life; that it should take up and continue the activities with which the child is already familiar in the home.
I believe that it should exhibit these activities to the child, and reproduce them in such ways that the child will gradually learn the meaning of them, and be capable of playing his own part in relation to them.
I believe that this is a psychological necessity, because it is the only way of securing continuity in the child's growth, the only way of giving a back-ground of past experience to the new ideas given in school.
I believe that it is also a social necessity because the home is the form of social life in which the child has been nurtured and in connection with which he has had his moral training. It is the business of the school to deepen and extend his sense of the values bound up in his home life.
I believe that much of present education fails because it neglects this fundamental principle of the school as a form of community life. It conceives the school as a place where certain information is to be given, where certain lessons are to be ]earned, or where certain habits are to be formed. The value of these is conceived as lying largely in the remote future; the child must do these things for the sake of something else he is to do; they are mere preparation. As a result they do not become a part of the life experience of the child and so are not truly educative.
I believe that the moral education centers upon this conception of the school as a mode of social life, that the best and deepest moral training is precisely that which one gets through having to enter into proper relations with others in a unity of work and thought. The present educational systems, so far as they destroy or neglect this unity, render it difficult or impossible to get any genuine, regular moral training.
I believe that the child should be stimulated and controlled in his work through the life of the community.
I believe that under existing conditions far too much of the stimulus and control proceeds from the teacher, because of neglect of the idea of the school as a form of social life.
I believe that the teacher's place and work in the school is to be interpreted from this same basis. The teacher is not in the school to impose certain ideas or to form certain habits in the child, but is there as a member of the community to select the influences which shall affect the child and to assist him in properly responding to these influences.
I believe that the discipline of the school should proceed from the life of the school as a whole and not directly from the teacher.
I believe that the teacher's business is simply to determine on the basis of larger experience and riper wisdom, how the discipline of life shall come to the child.
I believe that all questions of the grading of the child and his promotion should be determined by reference to the same standard. Examinations are of use only so far as they test the child's fitness for social life and reveal the place in which he can be of the most service and where he can receive the most help.
ARTICLE III--The Subject-Matter of Education
I believe that the social life of the child is the basis of concentration, or correlation, in all his training or growth. The social life gives the unconscious unity and the background of all his efforts and of all his attainments.
I believe that the subject-matter of the school curriculum should mark a gradual differentiation out of the primitive unconscious unity of social life.
I believe that we violate the child's nature and render difficult the best ethical results, by introducing the child too abruptly to a number of special studies, of reading, writing, geography, etc., out of relation to this social life.
I believe, therefore, that the true center of correlation on the school subjects is not science, nor literature, nor history, nor geography, but the child's own social activities.
I believe that education cannot be unified in the study of science, or so called nature study, because apart from human activity, nature itself is not a unity; nature in itself is a number of diverse objects in space and time, and to attempt to make it the center of work by itself, is to introduce a principle of radiation rather than one of concentration.
I believe that literature is the reflex expression and interpretation of social experience; that hence it must follow upon and not precede such experience. It, therefore, cannot be made the basis, although it may be made the summary of unification.
I believe once more that history is of educative value in so far as it presents phases of social life and growth. It must be controlled by reference to social life. When taken simply as history it is thrown into the distant past and becomes dead and inert. Taken as the record of man's social life and progress it becomes full of meaning. I believe, however, that it cannot be so taken excepting as the child is also introduced directly into social life.
I believe accordingly that the primary basis of education is in the child's powers at work along the same general constructive lines as those which have brought civilization into being.
I believe that the only way to make the child conscious of his social heritage is to enable him to perform those fundamental types of activity which make civilization what it is.
I believe, therefore, in the so-called expressive or constructive activities as the center of correlation.
I believe that this gives the standard for the place of cooking, sewing, manual training, etc., in the school.
I believe that they are not special studies which are to be introduced over and above a lot of others in the way of relaxation or relief, or as additional accomplishments. I believe rather that they represent, as types, fundamental forms of social activity; and that it is possible and desirable that the child's introduction into the more formal subjects of the curriculum be through the medium of these activities.
I believe that the study of science is educational in so far as it brings out the materials and processes which make social life what it is.
I believe that one of the greatest difficulties in the present teaching of science is that the material is presented in purely objective form, or is treated as a new peculiar kind of experience which the child can add to that which he has already had. In reality, science is of value because it gives the ability to interpret and control the experience already had. It should be introduced, not as so much new subject-matter, but as showing the factors already involved in previous experience and as furnishing tools by which that experience can be more easily and effectively regulated.
I believe that at present we lose much of the value of literature and language studies because of our elimination of the social element. Language is almost always treated in the books of pedagogy simply as the expression of thought. It is true that language is a logical instrument, but it is fundamentally and primarily a social instrument. Language is the device for communication; it is the tool through which one individual comes to share the ideas and feelings of others. When treated simply as a way of getting individual information, or as a means of showing off what one has learned, it loses its social motive and end.
I believe that there is, therefore, no succession of studies in the ideal school curriculum. If education is life, all life has, from the outset, a scientific aspect, an aspect of art and culture, and an aspect of communication. It cannot, therefore, be true that the proper studies for one grade are mere reading and writing, and that at a later grade, reading, or literature, or science, may be introduced. The progress is not in the succession of studies but in the development of new attitudes towards, and new interests in, experience.
I believe finally, that education must be conceived as a continuing reconstruction of experience; that the process and the goal of education are one and the same thing.
I believe that to set up any end outside of education, as furnishing its goal and standard, is to deprive the educational process of much of its meaning and tends to make us rely upon false and external stimuli in dealing with the child.
ARTICLE IV--The Nature of Method
I believe that the question of method is ultimately reducible to the question of the order of development of the child's powers and interests. The law for presenting and treating material is the law implicit within the child's own nature. Because this is so I believe the following statements are of supreme importance as determining the spirit in which education is carried on:
1. I believe that the active side precedes the passive in the development of the child nature; that expression comes before conscious impression; that the muscular development precedes the sensory; that movements come before conscious sensations; I believe that consciousness is essentially motor or impulsive; that conscious states tend to project themselves in action.
I believe that the neglect of this principle is the cause of a large part of the waste of time and strength in school work. The child is thrown into a passive, receptive, or absorbing attitude. The conditions are such that he is not permitted to follow the law of his nature; the result is friction and waste.
I believe that ideas (intellectual and rational processes) also result from action and devolve for the sake of the better control of action. What we term reason is primarily the law of orderly or effective action. To attempt to develop the reasoning powers, the powers of judgment, without reference to the selection and arrangement of means in action, is the fundamental fallacy in our present methods of dealing with this matter. As a result we present the child with arbitrary symbols. Symbols are a necessity in mental development, but they have their place as tools for economizing effort; presented by themselves they are a mass of meaningless and arbitrary ideas imposed from without.
2. I believe that the image is the great instrument of instruction. What a child gets out of any subject presented to him is simply the images which he himself forms with regard to it.
I believe that if nine tenths of the energy at present directed towards making the child learn certain things, were spent in seeing to it that the child was forming proper images, the work of instruction would be indefinitely facilitated.
I believe that much of the time and attention now given to the preparation and presentation of lessons might be more wisely and profitably expended in training the child's power of imagery and in seeing to it that he was continually forming definite, vivid, and growing images of the various subjects with which he comes in contact in his experience.
3. I believe that interests are the signs and symptoms of growing power. I believe that they represent dawning capacities. Accordingly the constant and careful observation of interests is of the utmost importance for the educator.
I believe that these interests are to be observed as showing the state of development which the child has reached.
I believe that they prophesy the stage upon which he is about to enter.
I believe that only through the continual and sympathetic observation of childhood's interests can the adult enter into the child's life and see what it is ready for, and upon what material it could work most readily and fruitfully.
I believe that these interests are neither to be humored nor repressed. To repress interest is to substitute the adult for the child, and so to weaken intellectual curiosity and alertness, to suppress initiative, and to deaden interest. To humor the interests is to substitute the transient for the permanent. The interest is always the sign of some power below; the important thing is to discover this power. To humor the interest is to fail to penetrate below the surface and its sure result is to substitute caprice and whim for genuine interest.
4. I believe that the emotions are the reflex of actions.
I believe that to endeavor to stimulate or arouse the emotions apart from their corresponding activities, is to introduce an unhealthy and morbid state of mind.
I believe that if we can only secure right habits of action and thought, with reference to the good, the true, and the beautiful, the emotions will for the most part take care of themselves.
I believe that next to deadness and dullness, formalism and routine, our education is threatened with no greater evil than sentimentalism.
I believe that this sentimentalism is the necessary result of the attempt to divorce feeling from action.
ARTICLE V-The School and Social Progress
I believe that education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform.
I believe that all reforms which rest simply upon the enactment of law, or the threatening of certain penalties, or upon changes in mechanical or outward arrangements, are transitory and futile.
I believe that education is a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness; and that the adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness is the only sure method of social reconstruction.
I believe that this conception has due regard for both the individualistic and socialistic ideals. It is duly individual because it recognizes the formation of a certain character as the only genuine basis of right living. It is socialistic because it recognizes that this right character is not to be formed by merely individual precept, example, or exhortation, but rather by the influence of a certain form of institutional or community life upon the individual, and that the social organism through the school, as its organ, may determine ethical results.
I believe that in the ideal school we have the reconciliation of the individualistic and the institutional ideals.
I believe that the community's duty to education is, therefore, its paramount moral duty. By law and punishment, by social agitation and discussion, society can regulate and form itself in a more or less haphazard and chance way. But through education society can formulate its own purposes, can organize its own means and resources, and thus shape itself with definiteness and economy in the direction in which it wishes to move.
I believe that when society once recognizes the possibilities in this direction, and the obligations which these possibilities impose, it is impossible to conceive of the resources of time, attention, and money which will be put at the disposal of the educator.
I believe that it is the business of every one interested in education to insist upon the school as the primary and most effective interest of social progress and reform in order that society may be awakened to realize what the school stands for, and aroused to the necessity of endowing the educator with sufficient equipment properly to perform his task.
I believe that education thus conceived marks the most perfect and intimate union of science and art conceivable in human experience.
I believe that the art of thus giving shape to human powers and adapting them to social service, is the supreme art; one calling into its service the best of artists; that no insight, sympathy, tact, executive power, is too great for such service.
I believe that with the growth of psychological service, giving added insight into individual structure and laws of growth; and with growth of social science, adding to our knowledge of the right organization of individuals, all scientific resources can be utilized for the purposes of education.
I believe that when science and art thus join hands the most commanding motive for human action will be reached; the most genuine springs of human conduct aroused and the best service that human nature is capable of guaranteed.
I believe, finally, that the teacher is engaged, not simply in the training of individuals, but in the formation of the proper social life.
I believe that every teacher should realize the dignity of his calling; that he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of proper social order and the securing of the right social growth.
I believe that in this way the teacher always is the prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of God.
******This piece has been reproduced on the understanding that it is not subject to any copyright restrictions, and that it is, and will remain, in the public domain.
My Pedagogic Creed, John Dewey
John Dewey's famous declaration concerning education. First published in The School Journal, Volume LIV, Number 3 (January 16, 1897), pages 77-80.
ARTICLE I--What Education Is
I believe that all education proceeds by the participation of the individual in the social consciousness of the race. This process begins unconsciously almost at birth, and is continually shaping the individual's powers, saturating his consciousness, forming his habits, training his ideas, and arousing his feelings and emotions. Through this unconscious education the individual gradually comes to share in the intellectual and moral resources which humanity has succeeded in getting together. He becomes an inheritor of the funded capital of civilization. The most formal and technical education in the world cannot safely depart from this general process. It can only organize it or differentiate it in some particular direction.
I believe that the only true education comes through the stimulation of the child's powers by the demands of the social situations in which he finds himself. Through these demands he is stimulated to act as a member of a unity, to emerge from his original narrowness of action and feeling, and to conceive of himself from the standpoint of the welfare of the group to which he belongs. Through the responses which others make to his own activities he comes to know what these mean in social terms. The value which they have is reflected back into them. For instance, through the response which is made to the child's instinctive babblings the child comes to know what those babblings mean; they are transformed into articulate language and thus the child is introduced into the consolidated wealth of ideas and emotions which are now summed up in language.
I believe that this educational process has two sides-one psychological and one sociological; and that neither can be subordinated to the other or neglected without evil results following. Of these two sides, the psychological is the basis. The child's own instincts and powers furnish the material and give the starting point for all education. Save as the efforts of the educator connect with some activity which the child is carrying on of his own initiative independent of the educator, education becomes reduced to a pressure from without. It may, indeed, give certain external results, but cannot truly be called educative. Without insight into the psychological structure and activities of the individual, the educative process will, therefore, be haphazard and arbitrary. If it chances to coincide with the child's activity it will get a leverage; if it does not, it will result in friction, or disintegration, or arrest of the child nature.
I believe that knowledge of social conditions, of the present state of civilization, is necessary in order properly to interpret the child's powers. The child has his own instincts and tendencies, but we do not know what these mean until we can translate them into their social equivalents. We must be able to carry them back into a social past and see them as the inheritance of previous race activities. We must also be able to project them into the future to see what their outcome and end will be. In the illustration just used, it is the ability to see in the child's babblings the promise and potency of a future social intercourse and conversation which enables one to deal in the proper way with that instinct.
I believe that the psychological and social sides are organically related and that education cannot be regarded as a compromise between the two, or a superimposition of one upon the other. We are told that the psychological definition of education is barren and formal--that it gives us only the idea of a development of all the mental powers without giving us any idea of the use to which these powers are put. On the other hand, it is urged that the social definition of education, as getting adjusted to civilization, makes of it a forced and external process, and results in subordinating the freedom of the individual to a preconceived social and political status.
I believe that each of these objections is true when urged against one side isolated from the other. In order to know what a power really is we must know what its end, use, or function is; and this we cannot know save as we conceive of the individual as active in social relationships. But, on the other hand, the only possible adjustment which we can give to the child under existing conditions, is that which arises through putting him in complete possession of all his powers. With the advent of democracy and modern industrial conditions, it is impossible to foretell definitely just what civilization will be twenty years from now. Hence it is impossible to prepare the child for any precise set of conditions. To prepare him for the future life means to give him command of himself; it means so to train him that he will have the full and ready use of all his capacities; that his eye and ear and hand may be tools ready to command, that his judgment may be capable of grasping the conditions under which it has to work, and the executive forces be trained to act economically and efficiently. It is impossible to reach this sort of adjustment save as constant regard is had to the individual's own powers, tastes, and interests-say, that is, as education is continually converted into psychological terms.
In sum, I believe that the individual who is to be educated is a social individual and that society is an organic union of individuals. If we eliminate the social factor from the child we are left only with an abstraction; if we eliminate the individual factor from society, we are left only with an inert and lifeless mass. Education, therefore, must begin with a psychological insight into the child's capacities, interests, and habits. It must be controlled at every point by reference to these same considerations. These powers, interests, and habits must be continually interpreted--we must know what they mean. They must be translated into terms of their social equivalents--into terms of what they are capable of in the way of social service.
ARTICLE II--What the School Is
I believe that the school is primarily a social institution. Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends.
I believe that education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living.
I believe that the school must represent present life-life as real and vital to the child as that which he carries on in the home, in the neighborhood, or on the playground.
I believe that education which does not occur through forms of life, or that are worth living for their own sake, is always a poor substitute for the genuine reality and tends to cramp and to deaden.
I believe that the school, as an institution, should simplify existing social life; should reduce it, as it were, to an embryonic form. Existing life is so complex that the child cannot be brought into contact with it without either confusion or distraction; he is either overwhelmed by the multiplicity of activities which are going on, so that he loses his own power of orderly reaction, or he is so stimulated by these various activities that his powers are prematurely called into play and he becomes either unduly specialized or else disintegrated.
I believe that as such simplified social life, the school life should grow gradually out of the home life; that it should take up and continue the activities with which the child is already familiar in the home.
I believe that it should exhibit these activities to the child, and reproduce them in such ways that the child will gradually learn the meaning of them, and be capable of playing his own part in relation to them.
I believe that this is a psychological necessity, because it is the only way of securing continuity in the child's growth, the only way of giving a back-ground of past experience to the new ideas given in school.
I believe that it is also a social necessity because the home is the form of social life in which the child has been nurtured and in connection with which he has had his moral training. It is the business of the school to deepen and extend his sense of the values bound up in his home life.
I believe that much of present education fails because it neglects this fundamental principle of the school as a form of community life. It conceives the school as a place where certain information is to be given, where certain lessons are to be ]earned, or where certain habits are to be formed. The value of these is conceived as lying largely in the remote future; the child must do these things for the sake of something else he is to do; they are mere preparation. As a result they do not become a part of the life experience of the child and so are not truly educative.
I believe that the moral education centers upon this conception of the school as a mode of social life, that the best and deepest moral training is precisely that which one gets through having to enter into proper relations with others in a unity of work and thought. The present educational systems, so far as they destroy or neglect this unity, render it difficult or impossible to get any genuine, regular moral training.
I believe that the child should be stimulated and controlled in his work through the life of the community.
I believe that under existing conditions far too much of the stimulus and control proceeds from the teacher, because of neglect of the idea of the school as a form of social life.
I believe that the teacher's place and work in the school is to be interpreted from this same basis. The teacher is not in the school to impose certain ideas or to form certain habits in the child, but is there as a member of the community to select the influences which shall affect the child and to assist him in properly responding to these influences.
I believe that the discipline of the school should proceed from the life of the school as a whole and not directly from the teacher.
I believe that the teacher's business is simply to determine on the basis of larger experience and riper wisdom, how the discipline of life shall come to the child.
I believe that all questions of the grading of the child and his promotion should be determined by reference to the same standard. Examinations are of use only so far as they test the child's fitness for social life and reveal the place in which he can be of the most service and where he can receive the most help.
ARTICLE III--The Subject-Matter of Education
I believe that the social life of the child is the basis of concentration, or correlation, in all his training or growth. The social life gives the unconscious unity and the background of all his efforts and of all his attainments.
I believe that the subject-matter of the school curriculum should mark a gradual differentiation out of the primitive unconscious unity of social life.
I believe that we violate the child's nature and render difficult the best ethical results, by introducing the child too abruptly to a number of special studies, of reading, writing, geography, etc., out of relation to this social life.
I believe, therefore, that the true center of correlation on the school subjects is not science, nor literature, nor history, nor geography, but the child's own social activities.
I believe that education cannot be unified in the study of science, or so called nature study, because apart from human activity, nature itself is not a unity; nature in itself is a number of diverse objects in space and time, and to attempt to make it the center of work by itself, is to introduce a principle of radiation rather than one of concentration.
I believe that literature is the reflex expression and interpretation of social experience; that hence it must follow upon and not precede such experience. It, therefore, cannot be made the basis, although it may be made the summary of unification.
I believe once more that history is of educative value in so far as it presents phases of social life and growth. It must be controlled by reference to social life. When taken simply as history it is thrown into the distant past and becomes dead and inert. Taken as the record of man's social life and progress it becomes full of meaning. I believe, however, that it cannot be so taken excepting as the child is also introduced directly into social life.
I believe accordingly that the primary basis of education is in the child's powers at work along the same general constructive lines as those which have brought civilization into being.
I believe that the only way to make the child conscious of his social heritage is to enable him to perform those fundamental types of activity which make civilization what it is.
I believe, therefore, in the so-called expressive or constructive activities as the center of correlation.
I believe that this gives the standard for the place of cooking, sewing, manual training, etc., in the school.
I believe that they are not special studies which are to be introduced over and above a lot of others in the way of relaxation or relief, or as additional accomplishments. I believe rather that they represent, as types, fundamental forms of social activity; and that it is possible and desirable that the child's introduction into the more formal subjects of the curriculum be through the medium of these activities.
I believe that the study of science is educational in so far as it brings out the materials and processes which make social life what it is.
I believe that one of the greatest difficulties in the present teaching of science is that the material is presented in purely objective form, or is treated as a new peculiar kind of experience which the child can add to that which he has already had. In reality, science is of value because it gives the ability to interpret and control the experience already had. It should be introduced, not as so much new subject-matter, but as showing the factors already involved in previous experience and as furnishing tools by which that experience can be more easily and effectively regulated.
I believe that at present we lose much of the value of literature and language studies because of our elimination of the social element. Language is almost always treated in the books of pedagogy simply as the expression of thought. It is true that language is a logical instrument, but it is fundamentally and primarily a social instrument. Language is the device for communication; it is the tool through which one individual comes to share the ideas and feelings of others. When treated simply as a way of getting individual information, or as a means of showing off what one has learned, it loses its social motive and end.
I believe that there is, therefore, no succession of studies in the ideal school curriculum. If education is life, all life has, from the outset, a scientific aspect, an aspect of art and culture, and an aspect of communication. It cannot, therefore, be true that the proper studies for one grade are mere reading and writing, and that at a later grade, reading, or literature, or science, may be introduced. The progress is not in the succession of studies but in the development of new attitudes towards, and new interests in, experience.
I believe finally, that education must be conceived as a continuing reconstruction of experience; that the process and the goal of education are one and the same thing.
I believe that to set up any end outside of education, as furnishing its goal and standard, is to deprive the educational process of much of its meaning and tends to make us rely upon false and external stimuli in dealing with the child.
ARTICLE IV--The Nature of Method
I believe that the question of method is ultimately reducible to the question of the order of development of the child's powers and interests. The law for presenting and treating material is the law implicit within the child's own nature. Because this is so I believe the following statements are of supreme importance as determining the spirit in which education is carried on:
1. I believe that the active side precedes the passive in the development of the child nature; that expression comes before conscious impression; that the muscular development precedes the sensory; that movements come before conscious sensations; I believe that consciousness is essentially motor or impulsive; that conscious states tend to project themselves in action.
I believe that the neglect of this principle is the cause of a large part of the waste of time and strength in school work. The child is thrown into a passive, receptive, or absorbing attitude. The conditions are such that he is not permitted to follow the law of his nature; the result is friction and waste.
I believe that ideas (intellectual and rational processes) also result from action and devolve for the sake of the better control of action. What we term reason is primarily the law of orderly or effective action. To attempt to develop the reasoning powers, the powers of judgment, without reference to the selection and arrangement of means in action, is the fundamental fallacy in our present methods of dealing with this matter. As a result we present the child with arbitrary symbols. Symbols are a necessity in mental development, but they have their place as tools for economizing effort; presented by themselves they are a mass of meaningless and arbitrary ideas imposed from without.
2. I believe that the image is the great instrument of instruction. What a child gets out of any subject presented to him is simply the images which he himself forms with regard to it.
I believe that if nine tenths of the energy at present directed towards making the child learn certain things, were spent in seeing to it that the child was forming proper images, the work of instruction would be indefinitely facilitated.
I believe that much of the time and attention now given to the preparation and presentation of lessons might be more wisely and profitably expended in training the child's power of imagery and in seeing to it that he was continually forming definite, vivid, and growing images of the various subjects with which he comes in contact in his experience.
3. I believe that interests are the signs and symptoms of growing power. I believe that they represent dawning capacities. Accordingly the constant and careful observation of interests is of the utmost importance for the educator.
I believe that these interests are to be observed as showing the state of development which the child has reached.
I believe that they prophesy the stage upon which he is about to enter.
I believe that only through the continual and sympathetic observation of childhood's interests can the adult enter into the child's life and see what it is ready for, and upon what material it could work most readily and fruitfully.
I believe that these interests are neither to be humored nor repressed. To repress interest is to substitute the adult for the child, and so to weaken intellectual curiosity and alertness, to suppress initiative, and to deaden interest. To humor the interests is to substitute the transient for the permanent. The interest is always the sign of some power below; the important thing is to discover this power. To humor the interest is to fail to penetrate below the surface and its sure result is to substitute caprice and whim for genuine interest.
4. I believe that the emotions are the reflex of actions.
I believe that to endeavor to stimulate or arouse the emotions apart from their corresponding activities, is to introduce an unhealthy and morbid state of mind.
I believe that if we can only secure right habits of action and thought, with reference to the good, the true, and the beautiful, the emotions will for the most part take care of themselves.
I believe that next to deadness and dullness, formalism and routine, our education is threatened with no greater evil than sentimentalism.
I believe that this sentimentalism is the necessary result of the attempt to divorce feeling from action.
ARTICLE V-The School and Social Progress
I believe that education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform.
I believe that all reforms which rest simply upon the enactment of law, or the threatening of certain penalties, or upon changes in mechanical or outward arrangements, are transitory and futile.
I believe that education is a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness; and that the adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness is the only sure method of social reconstruction.
I believe that this conception has due regard for both the individualistic and socialistic ideals. It is duly individual because it recognizes the formation of a certain character as the only genuine basis of right living. It is socialistic because it recognizes that this right character is not to be formed by merely individual precept, example, or exhortation, but rather by the influence of a certain form of institutional or community life upon the individual, and that the social organism through the school, as its organ, may determine ethical results.
I believe that in the ideal school we have the reconciliation of the individualistic and the institutional ideals.
I believe that the community's duty to education is, therefore, its paramount moral duty. By law and punishment, by social agitation and discussion, society can regulate and form itself in a more or less haphazard and chance way. But through education society can formulate its own purposes, can organize its own means and resources, and thus shape itself with definiteness and economy in the direction in which it wishes to move.
I believe that when society once recognizes the possibilities in this direction, and the obligations which these possibilities impose, it is impossible to conceive of the resources of time, attention, and money which will be put at the disposal of the educator.
I believe that it is the business of every one interested in education to insist upon the school as the primary and most effective interest of social progress and reform in order that society may be awakened to realize what the school stands for, and aroused to the necessity of endowing the educator with sufficient equipment properly to perform his task.
I believe that education thus conceived marks the most perfect and intimate union of science and art conceivable in human experience.
I believe that the art of thus giving shape to human powers and adapting them to social service, is the supreme art; one calling into its service the best of artists; that no insight, sympathy, tact, executive power, is too great for such service.
I believe that with the growth of psychological service, giving added insight into individual structure and laws of growth; and with growth of social science, adding to our knowledge of the right organization of individuals, all scientific resources can be utilized for the purposes of education.
I believe that when science and art thus join hands the most commanding motive for human action will be reached; the most genuine springs of human conduct aroused and the best service that human nature is capable of guaranteed.
I believe, finally, that the teacher is engaged, not simply in the training of individuals, but in the formation of the proper social life.
I believe that every teacher should realize the dignity of his calling; that he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of proper social order and the securing of the right social growth.
I believe that in this way the teacher always is the prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of God.
******This piece has been reproduced on the understanding that it is not subject to any copyright restrictions, and that it is, and will remain, in the public domain.
Complexity in Education
I was playing with some ideas about organizing education along big themes as a way to make this make more "real world" sense to teachers and students.
Complexity
1. Purpose, motivation within a context, a community, a reason for learning
2. Process to seek answers through a team-based problem solving
3. Project, process of collection, finding creating
4. Presentation to a community, a group, that matters and creates a voice
Large thematic examples
• Ecology
• Climate
• Genetics
• Transportation
Subtopics/skills/components
• Urban Design
• Architecture
• Field science
• Space science
• Teams, team-based problems solving
• Self organization
• Homeostasis
Interesting topics
• Fire and climate
• Robotics, AI
• Salmon and fishing
• Salmon and coastal development
• Public health and changing behaviors
Mathematics
• Chaos theory
• Fractals
• Models of complexity
• Statistics and probability
Computers
• GIS
• 3-D Models
• Modeling
• Graphical analysis
• Databases
Jargon
• Complexity theory
• Systems thinking
• Networks, Network dynamics
Ryan 3-04
Complexity
1. Purpose, motivation within a context, a community, a reason for learning
2. Process to seek answers through a team-based problem solving
3. Project, process of collection, finding creating
4. Presentation to a community, a group, that matters and creates a voice
Large thematic examples
• Ecology
• Climate
• Genetics
• Transportation
Subtopics/skills/components
• Urban Design
• Architecture
• Field science
• Space science
• Teams, team-based problems solving
• Self organization
• Homeostasis
Interesting topics
• Fire and climate
• Robotics, AI
• Salmon and fishing
• Salmon and coastal development
• Public health and changing behaviors
Mathematics
• Chaos theory
• Fractals
• Models of complexity
• Statistics and probability
Computers
• GIS
• 3-D Models
• Modeling
• Graphical analysis
• Databases
Jargon
• Complexity theory
• Systems thinking
• Networks, Network dynamics
Ryan 3-04
De La Salle- thoughts of teachers
The affection of those a teacher inspires is life-long
Dignity - Seriousness, assurance, and presence: acting with composure.
Calmness - Stillness and peace, not just silence, marks the ideal atmosphere.
Humility - Modest, unassuming; willing to admit mistakes; courtesy and respect.
Prudence - Level-headed, of sound judgment, reasonable; a steadying quality.
Patience - Remain composed and even-tempered in difficult moments.
Self-Control - Reserve and restraint when annoyed or provoked.
Gentleness - Meek, respectful, refined, amiable, kindly, and with good manners.
Zeal - Keenness, enthusiasm: a warm, cheerful involvement in one’s vocation.
Vigilance - Caring presence, with a watchful eye.
Thoughtfulness - Raising up one’s mind and heart to other’s lives.
Generosity - Unselfish, giving, and unconcerned with measuring one's own gain.
Wisdom - Discernment and sufficient knowledge to make sound judgments.
Adapted by Ryan Collay, August 22, 2006
In his "Recueil", published in Paris in 1717, De La Salle lists twelve qualities which every good teacher should possess. Brother Agathon (1731-1798), Superior General, popularized the Twelve Virtues, dedicating nearly a third of his 1785 circular to the virtue of gentleness.
Dignity - Seriousness, assurance, and presence: acting with composure.
Calmness - Stillness and peace, not just silence, marks the ideal atmosphere.
Humility - Modest, unassuming; willing to admit mistakes; courtesy and respect.
Prudence - Level-headed, of sound judgment, reasonable; a steadying quality.
Patience - Remain composed and even-tempered in difficult moments.
Self-Control - Reserve and restraint when annoyed or provoked.
Gentleness - Meek, respectful, refined, amiable, kindly, and with good manners.
Zeal - Keenness, enthusiasm: a warm, cheerful involvement in one’s vocation.
Vigilance - Caring presence, with a watchful eye.
Thoughtfulness - Raising up one’s mind and heart to other’s lives.
Generosity - Unselfish, giving, and unconcerned with measuring one's own gain.
Wisdom - Discernment and sufficient knowledge to make sound judgments.
Adapted by Ryan Collay, August 22, 2006
In his "Recueil", published in Paris in 1717, De La Salle lists twelve qualities which every good teacher should possess. Brother Agathon (1731-1798), Superior General, popularized the Twelve Virtues, dedicating nearly a third of his 1785 circular to the virtue of gentleness.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Letter to Time White--OSU restructuring
This letter was during a budget crisis, a time when OSU was more interested in measuring students as widgets, and our leadership was faced with revitalizing the vision for "OSU."
Letter to Tim White- Thank you for all your efforts. I wish to offer my time and expertise with the campus-wide redesign process. My seven years with The SMILE Program, involvement with outreach statewide, and my experiences working with each academic college through their students and faculty, has given me a unique perspective on the role of connecting academic experience with community and outreach.
I'm concerned that we have translated “supporting resident undergraduate education” into “classroom instruction” as the overarching mission of the university. In developing the mission and metrics we may be missing the role of developing that undergraduate population, building a cohort with the necessary attributes to succeed at OSU, who will persist and attain, requires efforts beyond the classroom experience. Our academic efforts require internships, service learning, involvement in community and outreach, involvement in research and projects, all working to create a graduate that has both the content competencies, skills and experience to move out and be a successful graduate.
I'm very concerned that as we measure these efforts those that are "easiest" to define and measure will inherently take precedence over the more difficult and perhaps more powerful. For example, if we are striving to build a more diverse population and we must look systemically at the variety of barriers each student will experience and our efforts may play out over many years. I have a letter from a white pre-med., 3.96 GPA, who says one of the most important experiences of her undergraduate career was teaching Hispanic and Native American fourth and fifth grade students at our camp. She told me that she was surprised how smart and motivated they were studying field ecology. When she is a doctor she will treat patients differently based on this transformative experience. She now sees these students as “college material” and will work accordingly. Her experience is exemplary of SMILE and the mission of OSU.
How do we measure this? What's the metric? Is this strategic?
Unless we look at a holistic model for academic skills and experience we miss these transformative experiences, the involvement that keep students in school, helps them to make informed personal choices about steps in their careers, the kinds of experiences that stay with them when they reflect on their time at OSU. There is a current disconnect between these elements of student’s academic preparation. For example volunteering with SMILE is required as part of the Public Health MAT experience through our HS Challenge. Why should engineering students get involved with our engineering challenge middle schoolers if it’s not part of their program. What about the role faculty play in creating these experiences for students? Many faculty wish they could be more involved in these community-based projects but feel, rightly so, that this is not valued as part of retention and tenure. They will do the work but only at the expense of their careers-this is a foolish calculation.
So, if the goal is to best support a high quality students experience, to create the best graduates well prepared to pursue the career of choice, why don't we better define the overarching academic experiences for students and involve faculty in this effort? It is clear that if the goal is to grow impact then we must think outside the constraints of defining the undergraduate experience as classroom contact.
The comment has been made that while SMILE is highly effective at welcoming students into a family of learners, at creating a vivid vision for a future that includes academics, we may be creating false expectations for college life and what will be important once they arrive here.
We focus on a community of learners in a challenging and yet inviting world, an idealized view of academics. The view of people as life-long learners working and striving for excellence, working towards a common set of goals. Is this the academic experience the redesign envisioned? Have they gone only the first step or they even on a path to consider a model based on experience and success or are we only rearranging the deck chairs?
It seems to me that a coherent set of overarching goals should drive all efforts and that we should avoid the competitive metrics model. We should back off pitting one academic area against another. How can you define a common vision and strive towards these goals if we define a model that ultimately looks just like what we have now, with those deans and division heads that are best at protecting their turf in control of all academics and budgets. Putting a college into a division with a couple of other groups doesn’t mean anything unless there’s leadership to define a set of goals integrated into the mission of that group.
A truly different way to define the roles would be to look at overarching goals of undergraduate experience, define the elements and competencies more campus-wide, engage faculty in providing these experiences to include classroom instruction, service learning, research, outreach, creating an inviting campus climate, learning teams, while defining "student success" as the metric for campus-wide success.
We could involve a variety of groups, students, recent graduates, faulty, business and community leaders, in defining student success. We can then more tightly couple this metric to pre-college, post graduation, graduate and professional school enrollment and give us the chance to get more impact for effort on many facets.
Colleges would have a role in providing content competencies but also in providing faculty that are involved in the overarching university-wide goals as well. Where a coherent set of standards and goals exist for the undergraduate experience in which all efforts strive towards create a successful college graduate.
When I worked for a general contractor we had a designer who said, "If I can draw it, you should be able to build it." When they drew something with no supports we would laugh about hiring the "sky hook", a helicopter that would fly over the house in perpetuity. I also liked your comment about it "smelling right" although I guess we are all downwind of somebody and we can always point fingers.
So, on the macro scale I see a current plan hasn’t evolved enough to justify that effort that looks good on paper but doesn't set us on to a 5-6 years time course to redefine the undergraduate experience university-wide. On the micro scale I see a variety of ill-defined metrics that could mean most anything and leave me wondering if I'm essential and strategic enough to continue to be an integral part of OSU's mission.
So there’s my bias and resume. I would very much like to be involved in the process, as I strongly believe in the need to make real changes and I see a great need to think about solving the problems at hand over a much longer term that just next year. Otherwise we should just take our collective lumps, hunker down and ride this out as we all know that, “This too shall pass.”
Thanks again and take care.
Letter to Tim White- Thank you for all your efforts. I wish to offer my time and expertise with the campus-wide redesign process. My seven years with The SMILE Program, involvement with outreach statewide, and my experiences working with each academic college through their students and faculty, has given me a unique perspective on the role of connecting academic experience with community and outreach.
I'm concerned that we have translated “supporting resident undergraduate education” into “classroom instruction” as the overarching mission of the university. In developing the mission and metrics we may be missing the role of developing that undergraduate population, building a cohort with the necessary attributes to succeed at OSU, who will persist and attain, requires efforts beyond the classroom experience. Our academic efforts require internships, service learning, involvement in community and outreach, involvement in research and projects, all working to create a graduate that has both the content competencies, skills and experience to move out and be a successful graduate.
I'm very concerned that as we measure these efforts those that are "easiest" to define and measure will inherently take precedence over the more difficult and perhaps more powerful. For example, if we are striving to build a more diverse population and we must look systemically at the variety of barriers each student will experience and our efforts may play out over many years. I have a letter from a white pre-med., 3.96 GPA, who says one of the most important experiences of her undergraduate career was teaching Hispanic and Native American fourth and fifth grade students at our camp. She told me that she was surprised how smart and motivated they were studying field ecology. When she is a doctor she will treat patients differently based on this transformative experience. She now sees these students as “college material” and will work accordingly. Her experience is exemplary of SMILE and the mission of OSU.
How do we measure this? What's the metric? Is this strategic?
Unless we look at a holistic model for academic skills and experience we miss these transformative experiences, the involvement that keep students in school, helps them to make informed personal choices about steps in their careers, the kinds of experiences that stay with them when they reflect on their time at OSU. There is a current disconnect between these elements of student’s academic preparation. For example volunteering with SMILE is required as part of the Public Health MAT experience through our HS Challenge. Why should engineering students get involved with our engineering challenge middle schoolers if it’s not part of their program. What about the role faculty play in creating these experiences for students? Many faculty wish they could be more involved in these community-based projects but feel, rightly so, that this is not valued as part of retention and tenure. They will do the work but only at the expense of their careers-this is a foolish calculation.
So, if the goal is to best support a high quality students experience, to create the best graduates well prepared to pursue the career of choice, why don't we better define the overarching academic experiences for students and involve faculty in this effort? It is clear that if the goal is to grow impact then we must think outside the constraints of defining the undergraduate experience as classroom contact.
The comment has been made that while SMILE is highly effective at welcoming students into a family of learners, at creating a vivid vision for a future that includes academics, we may be creating false expectations for college life and what will be important once they arrive here.
We focus on a community of learners in a challenging and yet inviting world, an idealized view of academics. The view of people as life-long learners working and striving for excellence, working towards a common set of goals. Is this the academic experience the redesign envisioned? Have they gone only the first step or they even on a path to consider a model based on experience and success or are we only rearranging the deck chairs?
It seems to me that a coherent set of overarching goals should drive all efforts and that we should avoid the competitive metrics model. We should back off pitting one academic area against another. How can you define a common vision and strive towards these goals if we define a model that ultimately looks just like what we have now, with those deans and division heads that are best at protecting their turf in control of all academics and budgets. Putting a college into a division with a couple of other groups doesn’t mean anything unless there’s leadership to define a set of goals integrated into the mission of that group.
A truly different way to define the roles would be to look at overarching goals of undergraduate experience, define the elements and competencies more campus-wide, engage faculty in providing these experiences to include classroom instruction, service learning, research, outreach, creating an inviting campus climate, learning teams, while defining "student success" as the metric for campus-wide success.
We could involve a variety of groups, students, recent graduates, faulty, business and community leaders, in defining student success. We can then more tightly couple this metric to pre-college, post graduation, graduate and professional school enrollment and give us the chance to get more impact for effort on many facets.
Colleges would have a role in providing content competencies but also in providing faculty that are involved in the overarching university-wide goals as well. Where a coherent set of standards and goals exist for the undergraduate experience in which all efforts strive towards create a successful college graduate.
When I worked for a general contractor we had a designer who said, "If I can draw it, you should be able to build it." When they drew something with no supports we would laugh about hiring the "sky hook", a helicopter that would fly over the house in perpetuity. I also liked your comment about it "smelling right" although I guess we are all downwind of somebody and we can always point fingers.
So, on the macro scale I see a current plan hasn’t evolved enough to justify that effort that looks good on paper but doesn't set us on to a 5-6 years time course to redefine the undergraduate experience university-wide. On the micro scale I see a variety of ill-defined metrics that could mean most anything and leave me wondering if I'm essential and strategic enough to continue to be an integral part of OSU's mission.
So there’s my bias and resume. I would very much like to be involved in the process, as I strongly believe in the need to make real changes and I see a great need to think about solving the problems at hand over a much longer term that just next year. Otherwise we should just take our collective lumps, hunker down and ride this out as we all know that, “This too shall pass.”
Thanks again and take care.
Larry Roper Letter-On SMILE's Impact
This letter tried to sum up what I thought SMILE members gained that helped them peruse their academic goals more successfully that other students from their cultures and communities--some good thoughts.
Dec. 2nd, 2001
Larry Roper
Vice Provost for Student Affairs
Greetings:
I’m glad I ran into you. Thank you for inviting me to the meeting for students services as much of my concerns are addressed by a vision of the “academic experience” as including much more than classroom contact with instructors. I’m sorry my schedule on Monday was already full but here are a few thoughts.
I’ve thought about the process of defining what a student needs, the attributes for a successful student, and the services we need to provide. A couple of thoughts come to mind related to our work to better define want SMILE does for students as we prepare them to create a vivid vision for an academic future.
As you may know, SMILE students seem to be persisting and attaining at a higher rate than their cohort. We are curious as to why; what attributes and assets do these students have that help them succeed. The potential list is large, from academic support to family support; but something seems to be helping our students over the barriers and challenges to their persistence and attainment. We would like to know if this is something that we can distill and use to better serve all students.
Here are a few thoughts about student experience in a system similar to one we are using to helps identify those essential attributes.
Foundational to college enrollment
Precollege community, better advising, family support, purpose to K-12 experience
Assets: basic needs, income, safety, transportation, employment
Attributes: prior skills, academic success, sense of self-efficacy, community and/or family support, sense of agency
Entrance
Transition to college, first generation and family issues, help to be in two worlds, translating one experience into another
Assets: above plus financial aid, housing, orientation, programs to overcome external barriers to access, advising, registration
Attributes: academically ready, both long and short-term goals, vision for progress of academic success, sense of belonging
College experience
A community of life long learners, with a place and purpose, welcoming each students as a valued member, bridge to the outer world
Assets: memberships supported, sense of belonging to community, leisure activities, academic problem-solving, tutoring and advising, plugged into a variety of information sources
Attributes: resilient, aware of services, secure, awareness of internal barriers to success, growing sense of power and purpose, responsible for creating the community for others
Developing “Metrics”
Membership
Academic
So just a few random thoughts. Please let us know how and where can be best involved.
Sincerely,
Ryan Collay-Programming and Evaluation Coordinator, The SMILE Program
Dec. 2nd, 2001
Larry Roper
Vice Provost for Student Affairs
Greetings:
I’m glad I ran into you. Thank you for inviting me to the meeting for students services as much of my concerns are addressed by a vision of the “academic experience” as including much more than classroom contact with instructors. I’m sorry my schedule on Monday was already full but here are a few thoughts.
I’ve thought about the process of defining what a student needs, the attributes for a successful student, and the services we need to provide. A couple of thoughts come to mind related to our work to better define want SMILE does for students as we prepare them to create a vivid vision for an academic future.
As you may know, SMILE students seem to be persisting and attaining at a higher rate than their cohort. We are curious as to why; what attributes and assets do these students have that help them succeed. The potential list is large, from academic support to family support; but something seems to be helping our students over the barriers and challenges to their persistence and attainment. We would like to know if this is something that we can distill and use to better serve all students.
Here are a few thoughts about student experience in a system similar to one we are using to helps identify those essential attributes.
Foundational to college enrollment
Precollege community, better advising, family support, purpose to K-12 experience
Assets: basic needs, income, safety, transportation, employment
Attributes: prior skills, academic success, sense of self-efficacy, community and/or family support, sense of agency
Entrance
Transition to college, first generation and family issues, help to be in two worlds, translating one experience into another
Assets: above plus financial aid, housing, orientation, programs to overcome external barriers to access, advising, registration
Attributes: academically ready, both long and short-term goals, vision for progress of academic success, sense of belonging
College experience
A community of life long learners, with a place and purpose, welcoming each students as a valued member, bridge to the outer world
Assets: memberships supported, sense of belonging to community, leisure activities, academic problem-solving, tutoring and advising, plugged into a variety of information sources
Attributes: resilient, aware of services, secure, awareness of internal barriers to success, growing sense of power and purpose, responsible for creating the community for others
Developing “Metrics”
- Access
- Physical
- Emotional
- Explore barriers to access
- Programs to help overcome barriers
Membership
- Rules of memberships transparent
- Recruiting of members part of program
- A variety of communities serving students
- Memberships doesn’t imply “sameness”
- Overcome external barriers to access
Academic
- Sense of purpose and motivation for program
- Involvement of students in academic climate
- Mission to create “real world experiences”
- Attributes for success in college and beyond
- Overcome internal barriers to access
So just a few random thoughts. Please let us know how and where can be best involved.
Sincerely,
Ryan Collay-Programming and Evaluation Coordinator, The SMILE Program
OSU Strategic Vision-2007
OSU-2007: Strategic Vision -- (this is a process that started in 2002 to create a future vision for OSU.)
The current version of the 2007 plan is at http://oregonstate.edu/leadership/strategicplan/goals.html
The University aspires to have positive and measurable impacts on the civic, economic, environmental, and social foundation of society - particularly for the major issues that are important to Oregon in its global context - and as such be recognized for excellence as a 21st-Century land, sea and space-grant university.
Fostering areas of excellence enables the vision, including attracting and retaining top faculty, staff and students, building an environment that embraces diversity and a global perspective, and configuring for efficiency and effectiveness of operations in the context of a changing and competitive environment.
Consequently, the University will:
1. Provide high quality disciplinary, professional, and interdisciplinary programs in which stakeholder constituents, including students and various 'publics', are meaningfully engaged.
2. Accelerate the development of excellence in five thematic areas: arts, sciences, and education; atmosphere, earth, and ocean systems; biosciences and health; engineering, business and technology; and natural resources. *
3. Attract and retain students of the highest quality and potential, and be recognized for excellence in providing a nurturing, challenging, and supportive environment for the student experience.
4. Attract and retain excellent faculty and staff, and foster a supportive environment for personal and professional growth, contribution, and satisfaction.
5. Increase recognition for an international and global perspective, and for providing such opportunities to faculty, staff, and students.
6. Advance diversity as a core educational value and to foster an environment that welcomes inclusiveness.
7. Provide robust information and communication systems that enable first-rate instructional, research, outreach, and administrative/business practices.
8. Optimally configure and manage academic and administrative units to capitalize on new opportunities and be maximally cost-effective.
9. Fully implement a coherent, visible and sustainable budget process, and provide a resource management practice that optimizes the generation and allocation of resources to core functions of the university, thereby advancing the strategic vision.
10. Engage university, OUS, state and private efforts to invest in facilities and people that enable first-rate instructional, research, and outreach programs.
11. Establish appropriate metrics to benchmark and set targets to measure progress toward our strategic vision.
* Five thematic areas:
* Arts, sciences, and education - core to the excellence of all educational programs; provides a foundation for the respective disciplinary teaching, research, scholarship, and outreach programs
* Atmosphere, earth, and ocean systems--understand and predict the long-term changes in the ocean, climate and terrestrial ecosystems, particularly of Oregon and the Pacific Northwest; improve predictive capacity for environmental hazards and change; use best available science to inform local, state, and national economic, environmental and social policy and practice
* Biosciences and health--develop and apply new technologies, strategies, products and policies to protect and improve the health of people, families, and communities, animals, and natural and human-dominated environments
* Engineering, business, and technology--develop and apply technology and entrepreneurial skills to drive Oregon's economy by improving and expanding current businesses, creating new businesses, and contributing to high quality life throughout the state
* Natural resources--improve the productivity, economic viability, and conservation of agricultural, forest, and marine resources, while concurrently improving environmental quality
The current version of the 2007 plan is at http://oregonstate.edu/leadership/strategicplan/goals.html
The University aspires to have positive and measurable impacts on the civic, economic, environmental, and social foundation of society - particularly for the major issues that are important to Oregon in its global context - and as such be recognized for excellence as a 21st-Century land, sea and space-grant university.
Fostering areas of excellence enables the vision, including attracting and retaining top faculty, staff and students, building an environment that embraces diversity and a global perspective, and configuring for efficiency and effectiveness of operations in the context of a changing and competitive environment.
Consequently, the University will:
1. Provide high quality disciplinary, professional, and interdisciplinary programs in which stakeholder constituents, including students and various 'publics', are meaningfully engaged.
2. Accelerate the development of excellence in five thematic areas: arts, sciences, and education; atmosphere, earth, and ocean systems; biosciences and health; engineering, business and technology; and natural resources. *
3. Attract and retain students of the highest quality and potential, and be recognized for excellence in providing a nurturing, challenging, and supportive environment for the student experience.
4. Attract and retain excellent faculty and staff, and foster a supportive environment for personal and professional growth, contribution, and satisfaction.
5. Increase recognition for an international and global perspective, and for providing such opportunities to faculty, staff, and students.
6. Advance diversity as a core educational value and to foster an environment that welcomes inclusiveness.
7. Provide robust information and communication systems that enable first-rate instructional, research, outreach, and administrative/business practices.
8. Optimally configure and manage academic and administrative units to capitalize on new opportunities and be maximally cost-effective.
9. Fully implement a coherent, visible and sustainable budget process, and provide a resource management practice that optimizes the generation and allocation of resources to core functions of the university, thereby advancing the strategic vision.
10. Engage university, OUS, state and private efforts to invest in facilities and people that enable first-rate instructional, research, and outreach programs.
11. Establish appropriate metrics to benchmark and set targets to measure progress toward our strategic vision.
* Five thematic areas:
* Arts, sciences, and education - core to the excellence of all educational programs; provides a foundation for the respective disciplinary teaching, research, scholarship, and outreach programs
* Atmosphere, earth, and ocean systems--understand and predict the long-term changes in the ocean, climate and terrestrial ecosystems, particularly of Oregon and the Pacific Northwest; improve predictive capacity for environmental hazards and change; use best available science to inform local, state, and national economic, environmental and social policy and practice
* Biosciences and health--develop and apply new technologies, strategies, products and policies to protect and improve the health of people, families, and communities, animals, and natural and human-dominated environments
* Engineering, business, and technology--develop and apply technology and entrepreneurial skills to drive Oregon's economy by improving and expanding current businesses, creating new businesses, and contributing to high quality life throughout the state
* Natural resources--improve the productivity, economic viability, and conservation of agricultural, forest, and marine resources, while concurrently improving environmental quality
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
