This page presumes prior knowledge of the material on http://www.comfsm.fm/~dleeling/department/slorevolution.html

The new outline format that has been proposed is similar to existing formats. This has allowed me to rearrange the extant PE 101j course outline into the new format fairly quickly.

The process of actually following a format, of applying the rubber to the road, so to speak, almost always generates unanticipated snags. Nothing too serious, and nothing that puts the new format out of reach.

The new outline format utilizes program level outcomes as general objectives for each course. For the College of Micronesia-FSM this means converting all general objectives into program objectives.

In addition, all course level specific outcomes are directly linked to a program level outcome. Thus the outline has the following basic structure:

1. Program outcome one
2. Program outcome two
3. Program outcome three

1.1 Specific course measurable outcome one that addresses program outcome one
1.2 Specific course measurable outcome two that addresses program outcome one
1.3 Specific course measurable outcome three that addresses program outcome one
2.1 Specific course measurable outcome four, the first that addresses program outcome two
2.2 Specific course measurable outcome five, the second that addresses program outcome two

And so on. This "legal numbering system" then ties all of the specific measurable student learning outcomes.

My first snag was situations in which a single specific outcome addresses more than one program outcome. The above structure presumes a strict "one-to-many" relationship between the program outcomes (formerly general objectives) and the specific course outcomes. This is not always the case, some specific outcomes may address more than one program outcome.

A strict "legal" style numbering system that ties specific outcomes to program outcomes might require modification.

Another snag I ran into is that a couple of my program level outcomes were of a global affective nature that are difficult to directly measure without turning to post-course Likert scale surveys, something we do not typically do at this time. These are outcomes that I call "Students will feel safe in my classroom" type outcomes. Some of these are measured in the negative (there was an absence of expressions of fear by the students). Others are simply not measured or may not be evoked in every single student but there is a design intent to attempt to evoke the stated response.

A program level outcome, or general objective, in the PE outline is: "Provide an opportunity for students to experience the joys of aerobic exercise: the feelings of strength, energy, and stress release." This is seen as a general outcome desirable for all PE courses.

There are no course level measured outcomes for this global objective. I would argue there cannot be for the following reason: students pass or fail PE 101j based on specific, measurable, attainable objectives. Performable psychomotor actions underlay most of the outcomes, measurements underlay the rest. Whether or not a student finds joy in running or aerobic exercise is not a constraint on passing the course. A student is free to hate aerobic exercise and still pass the course.

Yet studies have shown that many people who exercise express strong feelings of enjoyment, whether the sport is basketball, tennis, volleyball, or running. PE courses provide an opportunity for students to know this joyful feeling. But it is not going to be measured or required. So why not leave it off of the outline? I would argue that the outline is greatly diminished without this program level outcome. I am not still running after twenty-four years of running because I dislike running. Running thrills me and I want to share that thrill with others. This outcome is, for me, central to the course. Sure, secondarily students might become more fit and healthier, but it is the joy I want to share more than anything else. To leave that out of the outline would create a coldness in the outline.

Another program level outcome in my PE 101j outline that has no specific outcomes is "Introduce students to the benefit of life long exercise." No single specific measurable outcome fits under this one, rather the whole collection of specific learning outcomes is intended to generate this program level outcome. In other words, this outcome is meant to be achieved in a holistic manner rather than by a single specific thing a student does, knows, or values.

I hit one other complexity that is really a technical nerdity only. I am an aficionado of putting our outlines into HTML and posting them on the web. This way anyone can find our courses and determine what we are teaching. Type "Joggling" into Google and I believe you will find my PE 101j in the first twenty hits, possibly the top ten.

Unfortunately HTML does not support legal numbering. Hence I had to use a modified outline format in my own outline. Sure, I could manually type a "legal" numbering format. The use of the ordered list tags in HTML, however, lets me easily edit and rearrange my outcomes leaving the renumbering to the computer. A small thing, but it means that my outlines are not in a "legal" numbering format.

I have also added an attendance component, with all of the attendant controversy that this carries.* And my attendance component is a very strange looking beast. See the outline for details. Yet non-attainment of this outcome in isolation will not fail the student, that is, if a student attains the other outcomes and has exceeded the allowed absences as a result of serious illness the student will still pass. The result is a complex multi-line outcome that one will need a lawyer to decipher! Yet I want attendance to be important.

*The controversy centers on the following: If a student attains every single other outcome but the attendance outcome, does this alone fail them? What if they have attained all outcomes, 100%, except they have 8 absences. Do they fail? What about 9 absences? 10? At what point are the absences determining of the grade? The College says it was back at 7 MWF, 4 TuTh. So if you allowed for 8, thenyou have all ready violated policy. But it would be odd, would it not, to fail an 8 absence student with a 100%.

I also felt a strong need to include a separate conditions and definitions section. Discussion in the chairs meeting led to the adoption of a format wherein the conditions are included in the assessment portion. I have done this in one section on injuries and foot type, but in other sections the assessmentcan bedirectly inferred from the required psychomotor outcome. That is, the assessment would be a restatement of the outcome (Outcome: Students will be able to joggle the length of the gym. Assessment: Student joggled the length of the gym.).

The PE 101j outline remains a work in progress. I will continue to modify it over time. I am also continuing work on the statistics outline , but that outline has a long way to go.

The program level outcomes specified in the PE 101j outline are now also reflected in the cross-listing of institutional and divisional outcomes at http://www.comfsm.fm/~dleeling/department/phi.html#kinesiology