The two most recent chapters of Driscoll & Wood delved into the transition from applying Outcomes-Based Assessment strategies to individual classes/courses and ingraining them as department or university culture. Moreover, I felt these chapters represented a distinct epistemological shift that is centered around holding teachers, departments, and universities as a whole accountable for the transformation into being learner-centered. Instead of using the teacher/student paradigm where the vast majority of responsibility falls on the student regardless of the teacher, a more standard service-oriented structure is used. If we consider students the client and teachers/universities the service provider then student assessment would be the final reflection on the service provider rather than the client.
This closely resonates with me when I reflect on my experiences teaching martial arts. Working with such a wide range of skill can be frustrating at times and it’s easy to blame the student for a lack of achievement, but ultimately I have to remind myself that their achievement is a reflection of the work I’ve done with them. During a graduation ceremony if I see a group of students who are performing poorly I treat it as a negative outcome on myself as much as the students. I think this accountability on a faculty-wide level is crucial. I cannot describe the frustration I feel when I’m told of classes and teachers who boast their high failure rates and necessity for students to repeat their class in order to pass.
There are many ways to implement the concepts in chapters 9 and 10 into my own practice. The most direct way these chapters have influenced my teaching is providing a framework for formalizing my thoughts and concepts to present to the rest of the department. Throughout the course of this text I’ve continually been able to relate concepts discussed with ways I already teach the class or more commonly ways I wish I could alter my class because of my limitations working within the confines of a department-mandated course structure. Outlining how to leverage student assessments as a catalyst for inter-faculty discussion and collaboration is a technique I will be sure to implement.
Chapter 9 also discussed the ways faculty discussion should parallel all of the same goals and attitudes described in the book. This completes an iterative structure that involves more than just a single class. This will avoid disconnects from class to class and helps congeal a program of study into an entire program rather than a collection of classes that loosely form a knowledge base. Reflecting on my past educational experiences I wish there was more continuity from class to class. I did not see any synergy between my classes until my capstone class and that is a travesty. Comparable to the diversity sought when formulating Faculty Learning Communities, much of the deeper learning is accomplished in interdisciplinary study.
Finally Chapter 10 helped provide insight to the possible reactions I would receive if/when I approach my administration concerning changes I would propose to make. Being so inexperienced with the inner-workings of academic administration and also being so young one of my biggest worries is that I will not be taken seriously despite the validity of my ideas. However, with better anticipation of the reactions I might garner, I can tailor my approach to preemptively address their concerns.