The Engineerng Course Learning Outcome (CLO) and Assessment Review Project
The task
The School of Engineering Course Learning Outcome (CLO) and Assessment Review Project was significant: 28 Programs. 350 courses. 1 Deputy Dean (Learning & Teaching). 6 Deputy Head of Departments (DHoD), 160 course coordinators, 1 project coordinator, the Program Life Cycle team, 1 learning designer and myself all reviewing and revising more than 1,600 CLOs.
The imperative was derived from:
The process was managed through SmartSheet automation of emails and sign-off between the DHoD (L&T)’s and individual course coordinators. Further, it aided the transfer of data to the curriculum management system.
The results were encouraging. About 80% of the CLOs we suggested were adopted without changes, and another 18% were adapted after thoughtful critique. That told me academics weren’t just accepting—they were engaging. And that’s exactly what we wanted. This wasn’t about enforcing rules; it was about giving academics ownership and voice.
By doing so this lead to success of the project – of course quality, of academic capacity, and an valuing how this pedagogical theory actually benefits students. When academics own the process, quality improves. Most importantly, CLOs aren’t just a compliance exercise. They help students understand what they’ll achieve and how it applies in the real world. That’s powerful.
The imperative was derived from:
- Program Learning Outcomes changes to better align with Engineers Australia Competencies.
- New program designs course accreditation documentation were triggering reviews of CLOs, assessments and course materials. Many older courses had evolved in the face of technology and teaching teams but the accreditation documentation had not kept up.
The plan
The process was intense but rewarding. The plan developed was to:- Learning Designers create CLO suggestions by reviewing courses within scope for changes in PLO mapping and alignment of assessment, syllabus and activities,
- Run workshops to build the capacity of DHoD(L&T) team
- Run workshops with academic course coordinators, focusing on creating sound CLOs and strengthening their own based on the Learning Designer provided suggestions.
- DHoD sign-off CLOs
- Learning Designers final check
- Program Lifecycle Group submit updates.
The process was managed through SmartSheet automation of emails and sign-off between the DHoD (L&T)’s and individual course coordinators. Further, it aided the transfer of data to the curriculum management system.
A simple plan was complicated by the School of Engineering complex program structures and accreditation requirements. Many courses crossed different jurisdictions which have a differing lead-time of change management. Different courses are taught across many programs. Closing of the Bundoora campus for undergraduate teaching meant many course codes were being changed which created data management issues. Spreadsheet based data management is always an issue with change. Fortunately we had a highly capable team able to manage in such a shifting landscape.
The outputs
What did we produce? In updating CLOs for all 350 courses, stronger accreditation documentation and better alignment between CLOs, assessments, and program outcomes. It created a capacity to drive faster program innovation. Professionally, it consolidated a confidence to write strong CLOs, deliver engaging workshops, provide a rich resource of training materials. Further, it really introduced me to many School of Engineering academics.
The results were encouraging. About 80% of the CLOs we suggested were adopted without changes, and another 18% were adapted after thoughtful critique. That told me academics weren’t just accepting—they were engaging. And that’s exactly what we wanted. This wasn’t about enforcing rules; it was about giving academics ownership and voice.
The outcomes
One particular lesson for us third space professionals stood out. The review process as designed empowered the DHoD(L&T) and Course coordinators to remain in control of their course. Even if their CLOs were not textbook quality – it was important that respect was given to honouring our word and trusting the process.
By doing so this lead to success of the project – of course quality, of academic capacity, and an valuing how this pedagogical theory actually benefits students. When academics own the process, quality improves. Most importantly, CLOs aren’t just a compliance exercise. They help students understand what they’ll achieve and how it applies in the real world. That’s powerful.
The reflection
As a profession, the learning for me was in the way Learning Designers are engage in change. We ignore the L&T management hierarchy’s accountability role at our peril. When we do so, our work becomes invisible to School’s management teams. We are, understandably, seen as ‘interfering’ taking away ownership an academic’s course. Furthermore, when we put ourselves in an impossible position of both collaborator and accountability.
Comments
Post a Comment