Introduction
Discussion
The learning environment has a great influence on the outcome of student endeavors. The availability of physical facilities that support educational programs is requisite to good performance by students. Additionally, the quality of support offered these facilities is equally important. However, it is important to note that the influence that the learning environment has on student outcomes is not direct. Other factors that are beyond the control of faculty members come into play (Driscoll & Wood, 2007).
As such, I identify with the skepticism of the author on the logic of outcome assessments, especially as a replacement of previous approaches to education assessment in institutions of higher education. The author posits that the logic behind the assessment of the learning environment is realistic. This he reckons is because the logic can differentiate between differences in education and other products. However, I find his assertions that the outcomes of students cannot be used as indicators of the quality of teaching fallacious. The author offers an example of a patient with high cholesterol levels because he has failed to adhere to the diet prescribed by the doctor. He argues that such outcomes do not reflect on the quality of the doctor.
I differ with such assertions and instead argue that the doctor has an influence on the patient and therefore can to a large extent influence the patient’s compliance to prescribed diets. In the context of education assessment, teachers cannot fully absolve themselves from blame when students perform dismally. It is true that the levels of motivation vary with students. It is also true those other factors that are incumbent to the students and beyond the control of teachers may affect the outcomes. However, teachers can influence the motivation of the students through their methods of instruction. The author argues that students’ outcomes cannot solely be used to judge the quality of teaching (Killen, 2007).
The ability of a student upon joining an institution of higher learning is a potent determinant of home much learning a student can in the length of his academic program. Naturally talented students are better poised to learn more when compared to students without the natural talent. However as espoused earlier, other factors have an influence on the outcomes of such students. For instance, motivation and self discipline have a bearing on the outcomes of learning. It is on this point that I agree with the author that outcomes assessment conducted on students does not reliably judge on the quality of a teacher. However, this does not negate my argument that the teacher also has a role to play. Based in this, the sole use of outcome assessment to judge the quality of teaching is unreliable and invalid (Driscoll & Wood, 2007).
When human subjects are aware of what they are being tested for, they are bound to be biased for or against depending on what is being tested. It is for this reason that different methodologies are used during research. Researchers are also keen to pick out bias from respondents of design approaches that lock out the aspect of bias. Double bind experimental designs are lauded in this aspect because neither the respondent nor the one administering the test is aware of the phenomenon being tested (Jackson, 2009). This would be a very appropriate approach for faculty deans conducting assessments on learning outcomes. Instead, the methods used are neither reliable nor accurate. Therefore, using the information acquired from such methods to change instruction material and methods is propagating an error. In this way, outcomes assessment is not the productive tool it was desired to become (Killen, 2007).
It is the position of the author that so long the existing methods have shown to work well over time; the status quo should be maintained. While I do not advocate for retrogressive change, I acknowledge the need for continual improvement. This concept is applied across the board in different spheres of life and subjects. Through continual improvement, the instructional methods used by teachers will be improved to the benefit of both the teacher and student. Additionally, and using the sentiments of the author with regards to learning in liberal arts, learning also involves change from conventional systems. Borrowing from this, I posit that the development and subsequent use of new approaches is favorable for a forward thinking society.
Conclusion
In recognition of the fact that other factors influence the performance of students, accrediting bodies should not solely rely on outcome assessment to judge the quality of learning. Other extenuating factors ought to be incorporated in the assessment in order to get a holistic picture of the quality of learning in institutions of higher learning. Additionally, proper approaches and methods should be used in order to get reliable data that can reliably inform change in curriculum, subject content and instruction methods (Jackson, 2009).
References
Driscoll, A., & Wood, S. (2007). Developing outcomes-based assessment for learner-centered education: A faculty introduction. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus.
Jackson, S. L. (2009). Research methods and statistics: A critical thinking approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Killen, R. (2007). Teaching strategies for outcomes-based education. Cape Town: Juta.
