Grey goo

Grey goo came up in a discussion at a college summit as part of a discussion on the implications of the current course outline structure on the aggregation of student learning outcome performance data. In light  of that discussion I wanted to use an actual course and outcome performance averages to explain what I mean by grey goo. At issue is a set of implied many-to-many relationships in the outlines. The result is higher level outcomes wind up averaging out to an overall population mean value.

EN 120a is an expository writing course in the general education program. The course serves three program learning outcomes, has three course level student outcomes, and seven specific learning outcomes. 

Program learning outcomes served

  • GenEd 1.1 Write a clear, well organized paper using documentation and quantitative tools when appropriate.
  • GenEd 2.1 Demonstrate the ability for independent thought and expression.
  • GenEd 2.2 Demonstrate understanding of the modes of inquiry by identifying an appropriate method of accessing credible information and data resource; applying the selected method; and organizing results

Course student learning outcomes 

  • 120a.1 Utilize all stages of the writing process: pre-writing, drafting, revision when composing academic papers.
  • 120a.2 Write essays in various rhetorical patterns such as example, comparison/contrast classification, cause/effect, and process analysis.
  • 120a.3 Establish and defend a position in an argumentative essay.


The above table is the structure used in the outlines: each specific learning outcome is mapped to one or more program and institutional learning outcomes. The outlines do not map the course learning outcomes to program learning outcomes. This mapping is left as implied by the mappings of the specific learning outcomes. The language of the specific learning outcomes is not included here. 

Assessment systems in current use, however, only record data at the course student learning outcome level. Using the above table to generate the implied mapping of course learning outcomes to program and institutional learning outcomes generates the following mapping.


Note the numbers in the last line of each box. These are the averages on a five point scale where 5 is optimal performance of the outcome, 4 is sufficient performance, 3 is suboptimal performance, and 0 is no evidence of the learning. The choice of this scale is discussed in a blog. The averages are aggregated up the lines shown on the chart.

Gen Ed 2.1 and 2.2 wind up with the same average of 3.625, as do institutional outcomes 3 and 6 with a common average of 3.54. Now consider what happens as more courses are added, each outline with a mapping that looks like the previous mapping. 

Although a slight oversimplification, the effect being seen is that when everything maps to everything, all of the averages will be the same. The result is everything is a single tone: grey goo. 

The solution is one-to-one mappings. Each course learning outcome maps to a single program learning outcome. Each program learning outcome in turn maps consistently to the same single institutional learning outcome. This is also underneath the genesis of the proposed five institutional learning outcome model. The gen ed outcomes are the only outcomes all graduates have in common. There are five "integer" areas for the general education outcomes. The one-to-one mapping means that there should be five matching institutional level outcomes. The next chart includes the proposed five institutional outcomes along with the existing eight institutional learning outcomes. The gen ed program learning outcomes lead digit maps to the number of the i5 proposal, which is displayed for visual purposes as a decimal point in the following chart.


Averages now provide meaningful, distinct values.


Aggregation shows differential strengths and weaknesses at the program...


... and the institutional level.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plotting polar coordinates in Desmos and a vector addition demonstrator

Image
In an earlier post I noted that Desmos did not directly plot polar coordinates. Not only was I incorrect, but Desmos responded to my blog to correct me! Although I had at some point seen that one could define a function f(x)=3x+5 and then have Desmos calculate f(6), I had not absorbed how this might be used to plot polar coordinates. The above works beautifully . Realizing that I could effectively program Desmos, I applied this thinking to demonstrating how to add two vectors when given the magnitudes m and the direction angles theta. The graph calculates the i and j components for the two vectors and then adds the vectors, graphically displaying the result while also providing information on the magnitude and direction of the vector sum. m1 and theta1 are the magnitude and direction angle for one of the two vectors, m2 and theta2 are the magnitude and direction for the other vector. All four are dynamically interactive and can be changed. The diagram purports to illustra
Read more

Setting up a boxplot chart in Google Sheets with multiple boxplots on a single chart

Image
The  Google Statistics  add-on for Google Sheets can display multiple boxplots in a single chart. The key is the layout of the data. One column should be the variable by which the data is to be grouped, the other column should be the data to be box plotted. Set up the Statistics add-on with the data to be plotted as the variable, and the grouping column as the "by" variable. In this image I had deselected all but the boxplot option, the result was the appearance of the Moment, Standard errors, and Confidence intervals options. The default is apparently a 95% confidence interval for the mean. The result is multiple boxplots on a single chart with a common scale. The new tab that is created also quotes 95% confidence intervals for the mean. Note that as of 2018 the Google Statistics add-on cannot be found by search in the add-ons. In addition, as of May 2018 the add-on no longer verifies, possibly due to the add-on not having been updated since August 2017. One may ha
Read more

Traditional food dishes of Micronesia

Image
Clara, Jennette, and Joanie presented ground hard taro cooked in an umw, effectively a hot rock oven. Pohnpeian: rotama. Pingelapese: sero. Mwoakillese: rodma. Mortlockese: Amahd. Kosrae: rodoma. After cooking in an umw the rotama is pounded with the petiole of a palm frond. Rotama is made from hard or swamp taro, known as mwahng on Pohnpei, mweian on Pingalap, pula in Mortlockese, and pahsruhk on Kosrae. In traditional times on the outer islands the women had primary responsibility for tending the taro while the men handled fishing and climbing tasks. Joesen and Noeleen presented fermented breadfruit from the outer islands of Yap such as Woleai and Eauripik. The raw ingredients were actually brought in from Yap, Noeleen prepared the maare.  The leaf wrap is ti leaf - Cordyline fruticosa. Pauleen, Barnson, Trisha, Verginia, Con-ray, and Maylanda from Kitti, Pohnpei brought in mahi umw, koahpnoair koakihr, and uht sukusuk. Above is breadfruit umw, mahi umw, one o
Read more