Goal Management Subgroup Notes

Owned by Former user (Deleted)
Last updated: May 15, 2007 by Former user (Deleted)Version comment
2 min read

General Reasons for GMT

  • Streamline learning goals workflow
  • Associate multiple goals to evidence easily
  • Facilitate reporting on learning goals

GMT Feature Requests

Lessons Learned at Saginaw

  • Faculty weren't ready for matrix collection and review
  • Students weren't ready for matrix submission and feedback
  • Raw program (site) management (matrix structure, instructors, students) is difficult (administrative overhead)
  • Detail data must be understood as being able to fulfill a specific business case for data before reports are useful
    • Developers and implementors cannot necessarily conceive of reports that are programmatically significant
    • Faculty and program personnel without assessment and statistical background have trouble defining these significant reports in a way that is functional and insulated from change

What GMT is Solving at Saginaw

  • Provides a way to "bring it to" the faculty and students through assignments (goal-awareness in a familiar interaction model)
    • Mitigates confusion on behalf of both students and faculty
    • Reduces various maintenance, load, and overhead concerns with large program sites
  • Bundling activities (as NCATE or other "assessments" - termed "assessment tools" in new data model)
    • Need for wrapper/descriptor around activities
    • This descriptor is essentially the purpose or application of the activity (why? what are we assessing? what competencies are we aiming for?)
  • Staging prescribed, reusable assignments with attached goals
    • Master (or template) assignments live in a program site with real assignment instructions, etc.
    • Deployment of these activities into specific courses on a recurring, low maintenance basis
  • Can grade assignments (ie, for individual assessment within a course) and rate assignments (against a rubric for program assessment)
  • Reports can be tabulated against the assessments "down to" the ratings, rather than trying to extrapolate programmatic meaning from various attachments/ratings of goals without hierarchical program mapping.