Other+SC+ED+Program+LOs

=Other Secondary Education Program Learning Objectives=

For each of the programs below, you can follow the link to their page on the BYU Expected Learning Outcomes site to receive a full account of their programs and learning outcomes. Shoot for less than 10 LOs. || Science BS ||< They address all of the INTASC standards, mostly because their LOs are the INTASC standards with the words "family and consumer science" inserted occasionally ||< They don't seem to be very reflective of what is important in the discipline or what is considered good instruction in the discipline. ||< While it is important that our LOs reflect the INTASC standards, we must organize them so that they reflect what is most important to educating preservice mathematics teachers, and not just preservice teachers in general. || Science BS ||<  ||<   ||<   ||
 * ~ Program ||~ Strengths ||~ Weaknesses ||~ Implication for Math Ed LOs ||
 * < English Teaching BA ||< They clearly specify many important processes that teachers need to engage in as part of good teaching. Their list of LOs are manageable. ||< They don't mention content at all, or the actual act of teaching. Some of the INTASC standards are being addressed, but not all (e.g., content, technology). ||< We need to make sure that the influence of the content and discipline of mathematics is reflected in all of the LOs dealing with teaching. We need to address all of the INTASC standards. ||
 * < French Teaching BA ||< I like how broad this LOs are. They seem to cover broad areas that matter to this program. We might consider categories like "assessment" and "theories and instructional strategies" ||<  ||< A few categories might apply--but I think there are other ways of cutting across our LOs that might work better for us. ||
 * < German Teaching BA ||<  ||<   ||<   ||
 * < Spanish Teaching BA ||<  ||<   ||<   ||
 * < PE Teaching BS ||<  ||<   ||<   ||
 * < Tech Education BS ||< These LOs are quite good. I like the language that is used, as it seems to represent a philosophy that is pretty consistent with our department. ||< I think there might be too many. Funny how 11 now seems like too many. ||< Use some of this language as a model.
 * < Family and Consumer
 * < History Teaching BA ||< There are 5 LOs, including one regarding the INTASC standards. The other 4 address, in broad, but thoughtful language, what "doing history" means--what it looks like in a graduate and how it might serve them in teaching students. ||<  ||< I like how these LOs capture the structure of the discipline of history, not just the skills of teaching history. ||
 * < Teaching Social
 * < Dance Education BA ||< They basically have five standards: curricula, teaching, professionalism, alignment with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and competency in the field. They have subskills in most of these LOs which further clarify the LO. They seem to reflect BYU AIMS and INTASC standards, and suggest specific things that can be assessed ||<  ||< In some ways, this set of LOs may be closest to what our current LOs are, except with a clearer macro structure and with fewer sub-parts. If we wish to keep the feel of our system, we could look at this set of LOs to see how to do this and still keep it manageable. ||
 * < Music Ed Choral ||< They have a broad statement up front that seems to capture the basic courses the program offers--the "core requirements". Then they are able to focus on just **4** LOs. I guess the broad statement up front may or may not be a strength. ||< I'm not sure if this is a weakness, but most of their classes contribute to **all 4** of the LOs. Is this good or bad in terms of measurement? Program cohesion? Individual course LOs?

I don't like that the outcomes are stated in terms of what students will "do" instead of what they will "understand". ||< In the end, I'm convinced that what I listed here as a weakness is actually mostly a strength. Our LOs should be big enough ideas that multiple program courses contribute to them. If any are not, they are merely course LOs and should be broadened. If any LOs are covered by every course, then we just need to think deeply about how the course LOs need to differ, so that the courses together combine (rather than compete) to accomplish our program LOs.

In narrowing down our list of LOs we need to consider the message we send about the stuff that is left out. We are sending a message that the articulated LOs are the most important ones, but not the only ones and we need to capture the others somewhere. OR we could ensure that all of our valued outcomes are actually under the umbrella of our chosen LOs. This is a decision we will need to make. || Education BS ||< Small number of LOs (only 4). Require students to demonstrate the INTASC standards and to qualify for licensure. ||< There seems to be little thought about how they are adapting the INTASC standards for biology. ||< The LOs are written so that they are extremely easy to measure. The measure for the second LO is the CPAS, the measure for the third LO is the TWS, and the measure for the fourth is whether or not the student completes the program and qualifies for a teaching license. We may want to similarly try to document LOs by using major chunks of the CPAS, TWS, or Praxis, or by pointing to licensure requirements. || Science Education ||< Tied to the 4 aims (like Physics - maybe all physical science LOs do this?). ||< Simply saying students will learn and apply InTASC standards and the McKay school's moral dimensions of teaching seems to pawn off responsibility of specifying what that looks like within the department. Standards seem overly nonspecific, and the values and purposes of the department/major are not clear. ||< Our LOs should reflect what we value as a department, and what general principles that might be found in any education document (like the InTASC standards) will look like specifically in our discipline and our department. || Teaching ||< There are 4 LOs, each tied to multiple BYU AIMS. ||< NTASC standards are one of their LOs, Moral Dimensions is another, with no distinction of what this looks like in physical science teaching. The other 2 LOs are very broad (obtain a basic knowledge of physical sciences, and design inquiry based units). ||< Our LOs capture a definition of what it means to be a mathematics teacher, based on mathematics education documents such as the professional mathematics teaching standards, PSSM and Mathematics Teaching Today. The physical science teaching standards mention national standards documents, but do not incorporate them into their LOs. ||
 * < Music Ed Instrumental ||<  ||<   ||<   ||
 * < Theatre Arts Education ||< The last sentence in their program purpose emphasizes not just career purposes, but gospel, life, and family purposes. The expectation that what students learn is also important for their lives, families, and service in the church is reflected in several of the learning outcomes, without watering down the professional purposes. ||< Lots of LOs (15) - however, these are nicely organized into well-defined categories, and they don't seem unwieldy. ||< The purposes of educating our students goes beyond their work as math teachers. We should be helping out students grow as caring, involved individuals who can bring what they learn in our program to other areas of their lives, and who can also draw on their testimonies of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ in their professional activities. ||
 * < Art Education BA ||<  ||<   ||<   ||
 * < Biological Science
 * < Chemistry Education ||<  ||<   ||<   ||
 * < Earth and Space
 * < Physical Science
 * < Physics Teaching ||< They have also tied their LOs to BYU's 4 aims.

We might have a LO that covers the majority of our mathematics classes that parallels this one: "Obtain a broad, basic knowledge of physical sciences." ||< The majority of these LOs state what students will "do" instead of what they will "understand" in order to do those things. The latter seems much more important. ||< Try to send the message that our LOs are about what students will understand (possibly adding what we might want them to be able to do with that understanding). ||