• Owens EF Jr
• Mullin P
• Nafziger R
• Percuoco R

• Association of Chiropractic Colleges / congresses

METHODS: The initial goals in developing the assessment program was that all stakeholders were trained, had adequate reference materials relevant to assessment and shared a common vernacular. It was acknowledged that members of the LOC needed training first in order to support their peers in the development of the assessment program. The LOC formed a study group, reading two books on program assessment with discussion at meetings. An expert presenter gave a faculty in-service to the entire teaching faculty. The LOC fashioned a process to assist faculty in writing course level outcomes and established a timeline for compliance over several stages. In stage 1, the LOC members wrote and critically reviewed outcomes for courses taught by its membership. A construct rubric was developed to provide critical feedback on the construction of outcomes. In stage 2, LOC teams met with discipline-based departments to introduce the process and the rubric. Packets of resources were provided with instructions for outcomes composition, the rubric and lists of suggested terms to describe outcomes (e.g. Bloom’s Taxonomy). In stage 3, faculty wrote and submitted their course outcomes. Stages 4 and 5 were for peer review, with revision and submission of final outcomes. We used a custom-developed web-based data entry system to collect learning outcomes. The web form contained fields for course designation and instructor, course description and goals, and up to 30 outcomes grouped into learning domains.

RESULTS: All lead instructors submitted a draft of learning outcomes on time, with 85 sets were collected. The LOC found the rubric a useful tool to evaluate learning outcomes. Faculty seemed to have the most difficulty with using measurable verbs to describe their outcomes. There was confusion about the domains of learning, or which outcomes represent attitudes, knowledge or skills. Some faculty also seemed unable to express deeper levels of learning that should occur in higher-level courses.

DISCUSSION: Our experience with the development of the LOC and an assessment plan has shown success, particularly in the collection of learning outcomes for every course in the curriculum. The web-based entry system was useful and well-received. The rubric we developed proved useful both as a training and evaluation tool. The LOC members themselves seem well-trained in outcome construction but the general faculty lags behind. There is a lack of understanding at the basic level of outcome construction and classification according to domain and level of knowledge. In the near future, the LOC will work to finish stages 4 & 5 of the plan. We need to find a better method for helping faculty hone their learning outcomes development skills.

This abstract is reproduced with the permission of the publisher.