Rethought Goal Management - OSP 2.6 Planning meeting in Indianapolis

A quick model of what I thought I heard about the future of Goal Management.

The big things that are different here:

  • Goal sets include both Goals and Levels. In essence a Goal Set actuallly will be a matrix. The illustration belies the multi-dimensional aspect that will result from a hierarchical set of goals.
  • Program chairs or assessment coordinators will be able to "stub out" assessment placeholders and link them to cells (a goal and a level).
  • Linking of activities (like assignments) can be semi-automated when faculty are prompted to identify their activity with an assessment placeholder.
  • The assessment placeholder would allow the chair or corrdinator to present a consolidated set of fields that will be used to collect ratings. Each field will need to have rules that disseminate the input ratings up to the linked cells.
Submitted by Sean Keesler on Tue, 2007-10-23 15:28.
Tags:
»

Comments

1

Sean Keesler:

After a brief conversation with Jan Smith (rSmart), she suggested we also consider allowing faculty to create their own "pllaceholders". One of the pain points for users is the tedium of linking identical sets of goals for similar assignments. If assignment A meets 25 goals and assignment B meets the same 25 goals (that will be rated in the same way), then creating a placeholder that represents that set of links and identifying multiple assignments with it would make doing the work easy. One thing that could be done is to simply duplicate an existing assignment that had been already linked and just edit it to reflect the new assignment. That would keep all of the links from the first assignment. I'll have to ask Jan if she has tried that, or what the benefit to this alternative is over duplicating.
2007-10-23 18:04