|
|
Center for Teaching and Learning
Focused Inquiry Groups (FIGs) - Title
III
Global and Cultural Involvement
Area of Inquiry
The purpose of this faculty inquiry group (FIG) was to assess one of the
college-wide learning outcomes, global and cultural involvement, in a variety of disciplines. The FIG identified
all of the Chabot College course-level student learning outcomes (CLOs) that had
been designated as related to global and cultural involvement and categorized
them into four categories- awareness/understanding, analysis,
action/involvement, and aesthetic appreciation. Each of these categories
were represented by the CLOs of the faculty in this FIG, so the differences
between the categories and the relative representation of each category across
campus were discussed. The group provided the first glimpse at the status of student
learning of global and cultural involvement across the college, and discussed possible reasons
for the results.
Discoveries To Date
Exploring the Four Categories of Global
and Cultural Involvement (GCI)
(Awareness/Understanding, Analysis, Involvement/Action, and
Aesthetic)
At the first meeting of the GCI FIG in October 2009, the members reviewed all
the GCI-related course-level student learning outcomes (SLOs) at Chabot, as well
as a sample of GCI-related SLOs and rubrics from other colleges. They agreed
that these SLOs could be categorized into four types of SLOs—
Awareness/Understanding, Analysis, Involvement/Action, and Aesthetic. These
categories encompassed the given categories for GCI (Aesthetic Responsiveness,
Human Context, Environmental, and Familiarity with multiple paradigms and
methodologies)
During the semester, the FIG members selected or wrote GCI-related SLOs for
their own courses, assessed them, and then met to discuss their results. During
this meeting, they also chose which category their SLO best fit.
Categorizing their SLOs into these areas provided some insights about the value
of and the differences between these categories. They seem to be useful and
distinct categories, since Global and Cultural Involvement encompasses too many
facets to be assessed holistically. The Awareness/Analysis/Action categories
seemed to be a progression along a continuum, while the Aesthetic area seemed to
be on a different scale. While it was clear which SLOs fell into the
Awareness/Understanding or the Analysis categories, members disagreed about what
constituted Involvement/Action. Therefore, this category could use a discussion
among Chabot faculty about the types of learning outcomes they want to expect in
this area.
Members realized that we can’t really expect analysis without awareness and
understanding. However, an SLO about awareness and understanding is valid in
itself. And an SLO about analysis usually contains or assumes some awareness and
understanding within it.
What was striking about this FIG was the diversity of courses, across the
curriculum, that were either explicitly or implicitly teaching about
global/cultural involvement. Most of these courses assessed an
Awareness/Understanding SLO or an Analysis SLO. Only one assessed an
Involvement/Action SLO, and only one assessed an Aesthetic SLO.
This FIG shows that some courses at Chabot are providing a good foundation in
Global and Cultural Awareness and Understanding for students, and that there is
also a good attempt at Global and Cultural Analysis in these courses. With only
one example of Involvement/Action SLO in this group, there was a disagreement
about whether immersion in a culture counted as involvement, or whether other
types of action counted more or instead. In addition, it was unclear how much
Involvement/Action was really being taught in Chabot classrooms, other than
through Service Learning courses and credit, which could be a primary mechanism
for this SLO if this program had not been cut during recent budget cuts. It was
pointed out that plenty of GCI Involvement/Action was also being learned in
student government, clubs, and other activities, but these outcomes were not
being measured.
With only one example of Aesthetic GCI, this category was represented, but was
not explored in depth.
Other notes:
If the course is not about global and culture involvement, and the assignment
calls for analyzing culture, there is a need to be explicit about culture and
provide that info to the students. We can’t assume that they can analyze
culture, even though, or maybe because, they live among diverse cultures.
Therefore, SLOs that ask for GCI Analysis may need to be included in courses
that either include or can already assume that students have a basic
awareness/understanding of GCI to allow students to provide an in depth
analysis.
Some instructors noted that the students performed higher on the SLO than the
grade they got on the assignment, because the SLO did not take into account all
the other factors or SLOs, such as writing ability.
For courses that are not about culture explicitly, it is important to allow each
instructor to choose to use an SLO related to global/cultural, so that it can be
infused throughout the curriculum by the instructors who want to include it.
This may support the idea of having generic GCI SLOs available for all courses
to use, just like the Critical Thinking SLOs are available. In fact all
College-wide Learning Outcomes (Critical Thinking, GCI, Communication, Civic
Responsibility, and the Development of the Whole Person) could be made available
for all courses, and instructors could either agree to include one or more in
their joint courses, or individual instructors could choose one or more for
their own sections.
Documents
|
|
Student Email | College Index
