You read three letters—A, O, and L—and I can feel your eyes roll. “Here we go again, someone telling us how to teach our courses, totally disregarding academic freedom!”
Believe me, I have heard the grumbles about assurance of learning. It is “unscientific.” “overly complicated.” “useless garbage data.” And I will concede that, sometimes, it can seem that way.
AOL is a program-wide, collective effort, but often faculty only see their small piece of the bigger picture. “Why am I being asked to assess oral communication when my course is not a communication course?” “Why should I assess for content knowledge that is covered in a different course?” When a faculty member does not see how their extra work contributes to the overall effort, frustration is understandable.
But that is because too often we get caught up in the AOL process, missing the point entirely. AOL is not just rubrics, or assessment points, or long meetings where we debate about the significance of data.
AOL is about helping learners succeed. When we make curricular changes based on assessments, we create a feedback loop—the proverbial “loop” we try to “close.”
The basic idea—the “spirit of AOL”—is experimentation for continuous improvement. The world changes, so we cannot expect our learners to succeed if we keep doing things the same way forever. Change is not just inevitable, it is necessary.
But what if our “improvement” does not work? That is OK! A loop closing does not necessarily require success, and we should not be afraid to try something different just because it might not work.
Sometimes, faculty object to this point, arguing that program-level curriculum changes need to be well developed and carefully considered. It takes a lot of time and effort to get program-level changes through the university system, and those changes, once implemented, can often tie our hands. Given limited resources, consensus is important to avoid unsuccessful improvements.
And that is a fair objection. But not all improvements need to be program-level changes. A critical mass of small, course-level changes can produce program-wide impact. And course-level changes can be made by the individual instructor or department-level group of instructors from semester-to-semester.
By embracing the “spirit of AOL” at a course-level, we can see program-wide effects emerge. This course-level continuous improvement process can be conceptualized similarly to the program-level process.
Whether we are looking at program-wide changes or course-level changes, the question is the same: “What do learners need to get out of my course to succeed in their careers, and how can I facilitate that?”
In considering course-level changes, we engage in a process of building empathy for learners—our customers. Examples of easy-to-implement course-level changes include:
- Switching textbooks to freshen materials.
- Rearranging content sequencing to give extra emphasis to weak spots.
- Adding new teaching tools or supplemental resources.
- Revising assignment instructions to help learners produce responses more in line with expectations.
And academic freedom is key here! You are in the best position to assess how learners are doing in your course and to brainstorm helpful changes. From my standpoint as an AOL coordinator, all I request is a good-faith effort and openness to change. I am happy to facilitate a conversation as needed, but ultimately, I trust in your passion for helping learners succeed. Faculty should feel empowered to try new things!
Just let your program AOL coordinator(s) know what improvements you are trying and how successful they work. Like this blog, AOL is a vehicle for sharing best practices. We want to celebrate your efforts to help learners succeed, develop better teaching strategies, and tell the world our story. Your work is an important chapter in that story.