Program-Level Learning Outcomes

This report explores the use of program-level learning outcomes in non-professional programs at Canadian institutions. It focuses on program-level development, implementation, and assessment of these learning outcomes.

Allow program-level leaders to customize development and implementation processes

At all profiled institutions, program leaders can tailor learning outcome development and implementation processes to align with their program’s unique size, structure, or field of study. The freedom to customize these processes helps ensure that learning outcomes use feels program-appropriate. To encourage customization, administrators at Institution B familiarize program leaders with different development and implementation options through the support of Centre for Teaching and Learning staff. Regardless of the exact process used by a specific program, contacts at all institutions agree that administrators should encourage program leaders to consider the right personnel to involve and the right responsibilities for those personnel, given the program’s unique needs.

Support learning outcome processes through a CTL

All profiled institutions have a Centre for Teaching and Learning (CTL) that educates faculty members on the value of learning outcomes and that offers support throughout development and implementation processes. CTL staff provide especially valuable support due to their understanding of pedagogical and learning design best practices. CTL staff at Institution B and Institution E distribute informational documents to educate faculty on learning outcomes’ meaning and value. At all profiled institutions, CTL staff offer customized ongoing support through either short-term or long-term consultations.

Common Program-Level Learning Outcome Development Processes Used at Institution B

Engage faculty members by fostering their feelings of ownership

Contacts at all profiled institutions cite that faculty members often feel restricted by program-level learning outcomes, and thus do not fully implement learning outcomes in their courses. To mitigate these concerns among faculty members, administrators at all profiled institutions recommend building faculty members’ sense of ownership over learning outcome creation and use. When faculty members feel more engaged in learning outcome processes, they may be more invested in learning outcome success and use. To increase faculty members’ sense of ownership over learning outcomes, administrators at Institution A, Institution B, Institution D, and Institution E recommend delegating a leadership role to a faculty member. This faculty leader can help coordinate the learning outcome development and implementation process for their own program. Contacts at Institution B highlight that these leaders provide peer-level support for learning outcomes, which can prove more impactful than administrator-level support.

Administrators struggle to properly assess program-level learning outcomes

Administrators at all profiled institutions find it difficult to assess how effectively learning outcomes reflect student learning. Assessment can present greater challenges in non-professional programs, as desired outcomes for students in these programs are less concrete than desired outcomes for students in pre-professional programs. While an external assessment process occurs every eight years for institutions in Ontario through the province’s Quality Assurance Framework, contacts at Institution B, Institution D, and Institution E do not use any more frequent assessment processes. However, contacts at Institution A, Institution B, Institution C, and Institution E note increasing stakeholder interest in course-level learning outcome assessment.

Common Processes Used to Revise Learning Outcomes