A CONTINUUM OF STUDENT LEARNING EXPECTATIONS

The value of organizing a course according to clearly stated and authentically assessable student learning outcomes or goals is widely accepted in geoscience education. However, advanced courses for a geoscience major also require entering students to bring with them certain prior knowledge and skills accrued from prior completed courses. This can be enforced by requiring prerequisite courses for enrollment (e.g., introductory geology for structural geology). But it is unlikely that the full set of summative learning outcomes of all prerequisite courses is relevant to any given advanced course. In addition, a syllabus may specify exactly what a student should know and be able to do upon completing an advanced course, but not always include what specific knowledge and skills students should already have to build on. An informal survey of 56 structural-geology college course syllabi posted online (14 found through SERC and 42 with Google), representing a range of accredited institution types and 11 different nations, revealed that 82% (46 syllabi) included clearly stated summative learning outcomes, but only 7% (4 syllabi) offered detail on expected pre-course knowledge and skills beyond a list of prerequisite course numbers and titles. Normalizing the practice of including specific statements of prerequisite student knowledge and skills on course syllabi could potentially help to make explicit the “hidden curriculum” that disadvantages first-generation students. This practice could also facilitate better alignment of courses within degree or certification programs as specific skills developed within courses are identified and not assumed. The practice of backward design begins with identification of desired learning outcomes, which are used to define assessable evidence of learning and, thence, the development of instructional activities that will enable students to achieve the desired outcomes (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). An explicit and theoretical understanding of prerequisite knowledge and skills, informed by research-based cognitive frameworks such as Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001) and the Interactive-Constructive-Active-Passive model (Chi & Wylie, 2014), could expand and enhance the backward design approach to improve design of courses and more efficient degree plans.