ä¸‹è¼‰å ¨æ›¸ - The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Stephen J. Friedman, Outcomes, Learning, and Assessment in General Education 5I had previously participated in discussions of this nature, and knew thatprogress can be slow, especially in the early stages. A colleague and I offeredthe metaphor of thinking in geologic time (or perhaps like the pace at whichglaciers move) when it comes to getting faculty to arrive at a consensus whendeveloping the goal of a GEP. Perhaps one way to move deliberations alongis to discourage faculty from talking about the courses that they teach—anindication that the new program would be well served if only it could bemolded around the courses that already exist. Developing a new programshould commence with a goal statement that reflects deeply held educationalvalues. It means transcending our desire to repeat what we do best—teachcourses—and focus on the learner. What is our goal for the learners who willparticipate in our program? Answering this question does not come naturallyto faculty and certainly changes the vantage point from which we view ouractivities in the classroom.So what are some worthy goals of a GEP? I am interested in this questionto some extent, but find that dealing with the pedagogical and assessmentchallenges inherent in the goal, whatever it is, to be sufficiently demanding.Much of my career has been spent consulting with a wide range of programsand departments on assessment-related issues. Generally, I regard facultyto be the highest authorities in their respective disciplines, and they are inthe best position to articulate the goal for their majors or programs. Thisis also a matter of ownership, an issue that is admittedly more problematicin a GEP than in individual departments (Stone & Friedman, 2002). Inmy experience, administrators will defer to the faculty on these matters,as well they should. Their concern is with the existence of a goal, not its