By Raymond Cox

There is nothing more disconcerting than to find that the basic assumptions upon which you based your lesson plan—the prior knowledge of the students—is wrong. This is not unusual. There is enough variability in the any student group that it is always a “guess” as to what they know. Especially in programs where the students are predominantly part-time, the academic backgrounds at entry into the program are diverse and the sequence in which they take classes will be driven by their work schedules and lifestyle, more than by an idealized sequence. This is more difficult for part-time faculty because they are less familiar with the broad cohort of students in the class.

In truth I think it is better to expect to be wrong about the students (whether the pleasant surprise that they know more than you expected or the more likely reality that there are gaps in their knowledge) rather than expect things to go as planned. Therefore, one of the most critical skills for a successful instructor is to monitor course progress to know when to change. The keys are two-fold: to stay true to the learning outcomes and to alter the schedule and approach in the classroom to address perceptions of the deficiencies of the original lesson plan. The model that I suggest is to use the framework of strategic management and implementation as the basis for mid-course, on-the-fly, change.

In strategic management, the approach to performance review is based on a stance that avoids the problem of sunk costs. In other words, at specific benchmarks, you should ask yourself if a change of direction the question of changing direction is asked. This requires two assumptions:

(1)  It is possible to identify in advance assessment points when you consider changing the lesson plan if you expect to reach the outcomes desired.

(2)  There is more than one path by which to get to the learning outcomes. Therefore, “staying” on track is not the appropriate course. The goal is to achieve the learning outcomes, not to follow the path. The route to an outcome may be serpentine rather than straight—in fact it is very likely to be serpentine.

A semester-long course is not composed of 15 equal components. There may, in fact, be 20 or 30 parts of the lessons to be learned. Also, an individual class may only address one or two of those parts, while another class may address several parts. The first step then is to cluster the parts of the lessons in relation to the learning outcomes. These can be arranged by importance and chronologically. Then a chart of the timing of the parts can be created, providing a visual depiction of the learning outcomes as they will be delivered in the classes. A new column which depicts when the parts are actually addressed in the classroom helps you keep track of progress (both planned and actual).

Assessment points are those times when it is expected that a learning outcome or a significant part is completed. At an assessment point you will know whether the class is going as planned or that you are ahead or behind in reaching the intended outcomes. As I have discussed in a previous commentary, there are assessment points built into all courses—they are the homework assignments and examinations that are scheduled during the term. As I noted in that earlier commentary you can learn as much about progress toward the outcome of the course as you can about the achievement of individual students if you see these activities as benchmarks toward the learning outcomes. The second, more qualitative judgment is whether being ahead or behind is viewed as good or a problem. If you are “ahead” of schedule, it likely suggests that the students are “ahead” in terms of the baseline of knowledge they brought to the classroom. This would suggest that you can add depth or detail to parts of the learning outcomes and/or add parts. Both of these strategies strengthen the learning outcomes rather than add outcomes. Adding new outcomes at this point not only does damage to the explicit agreement in the syllabus, but also it creates the potential problem of getting behind later on. Adding depth to the discussion and classroom assignments (maybe, for example, examinations and assignments may become more “sophisticated”) keeps you true to the learning outcomes.

If you find yourself behind, it probably means either that you are covering material you had not planned to cover and/or the students did not have the academic background you assumed. Both of these issues need to be addressed. If you are covering materials not planned, is it because you go off “plan” or does it reflect in implied concern about the original lesson plan? If it is either of these issues, then you must find a way back to the original lesson plan. The problem is in your teaching style. You must be disciplined by ensuring that your stories and commentaries reinforce the lesson plan. If the problem is that the students have different knowledge than you expected, then you must chart a path back to the outcomes that address the general weaknesses and gaps in their knowledge. In the same way that I suggested that adding depth is possible to expand the lessons, here you must add breadth that reflects the gaps in the background and knowledge of the students. The outcomes are still preserved but the discussion and classroom assignments are refocused on the missing knowledge. This may extend to changing the examinations and assignments to focus on that missing knowledge. Again, the strategies are designed to achieve the learning outcomes, not back away from them. Change the focus of the lessons, not the outcomes.

A mistake that is often made by all of us is to sacrifice the outcomes to exigencies of time. Instead of changing how we reach an outcome (how and/or what we teach), we drop outcomes to stay “on track” with the lesson plan. We forget the most basic of all assumptions in strategic management—the path to the outcome is unknowable in advance. Therefore, the path itself is irrelevant. The lessons we planned are simply a means to the end, not an end in themselves. They can and should be expanded, contracted or even rejected. The lessons are merely instruments for achieving the outcomes we committed to in the syllabus. The route to an outcome might be serpentine rather than straight—in fact it is very likely to be serpentine. We must not become so comfortable with the path that we risk the outcomes to adhere to the path. I would assume that a course that “goes as planned” is rare.

The driving force in a course is the achievement of the stated learning outcomes. Everything else about the classroom experience should be subservient to those outcomes. Having said that, no two groups of students are alike and no two terms are alike. The path to the outcomes should reflect those realities. You must adjust your teaching to the students and other exigencies of the term. As such, the lessons you planned to reach those outcomes should be treated as expendable. Adding to them or changing them is something you should expect.  

Raymond Cox, Ph.D, is chair of NASPAA's Local Government Education Committee and professor, University of Akron, Department of Public Administration and Urban Studies.