danaleeling

This particular blog is really notes to myself about how I structured outcome data in the institutional account in Canvas. After realizing that using an institutional learning outcomes to program learning outcomes drill down would leave faculty lost in the weeds trying to find a particular student learning outcome, I switched to a course prefix oriented drill down. Aggregation to the program and institutional level is done afterwards in a business intelligence tool. On the input side the top level is aligned roughly along divisions. vendor_guid object_type title description anr group ANR Agriculture b group BU Business edd group ED Education langlit group EN Language and literature kines group ESS Exercise sport science hrtm group HTM Hotel tourism management legal group LAW Law mssc group MSSC Math science nuph group NUPH Nursing public health s group SS Social science v group VOC Career and technical The second level is based on course prefixes. ac group AC Accounting ag group AG Agr

This post is a part of series of posts informally documenting some of the decisions being made in the setting up of a student learning outcomes hierarchy in an Instructure Canvas instance. This post is preceded by a presentation the taxonomy of assessment which was informed by earlier work on institutional assessment and by videos from a workshop at Kansas State University on their assessment system using Instructure Canvas. Prior posts covered hierarchical assessment ,   outcome rating scales decisions , and  implementing a hierarchy of outcomes in Canvas .   The decisions are being made against a background of having a commercial assessment database which was installed circa 2012. At that time faculty were invited to load course learning outcomes into the database. For some programs, program learning outcomes were also entered. Only later would a serial series of assessment coordinators be hired to tackle the task of entering the rest of the program learning outcomes and the insti

The following is an informal documentation of the early structure of the hierarchically nested learning outcomes being experimentally set up in an Instructure Canvas instance. At the top level in Canvas are the institutional learning outcomes with the program learning outcomes in the second tier.  Here you can see the top level proposed institutional learning outcomes which are depicted as folders. These are not directly evaluated. The second column are program learning outcomes flowing as seen below. Source: Taxonomy of assessment The program learning outcomes are in turn fed by course level learning outcomes from below. Note that a course cannot be used as a group in the hierarchy because different course level outcomes will serve different program learning outcomes. The many-to-one structure will mean that a course cannot be a group (a folder) in Canvas. Canvas calls these folders "groups." Here program learning outcome GE 3.2 contains two course learning outcomes, one fro