Paraphrasing the standard: The institution will identify student learning outcomes for each program, assess the extent to which students attain those outcomes, and will use the data to inform changes seeking improvement in student learning.
I was recently reviewing a student learning outcomes report from a faculty member at one of my client institutions. The assessment protocol they have in place is simple, efficient, streamlined, effective, and compliant. Maybe I’m biased since I designed it, but many SACSCOC committees have favorably reviewed this system…but I digress. As I was reading the report, I noted language like…
“To address this ongoing challenge, tailored support mechanisms such as additional tutoring sessions, interactive simulations, or targeted practice problems could be implemented. Providing multiple avenues for engagement and reinforcement can help struggling students grasp these concepts more effectively and improve their overall performance in the subject“
“By addressing these foundational concepts directly, students can build a stronger knowledge base, enhance their comprehension, and ultimately improve their performance in the subject. Additionally, providing personalized attention and tailored instruction ensures that students receive the support they need to succeed academically.“
“Students who struggled might have benefited from additional support or resources aimed at elucidating these fundamental concepts, thereby bolstering their comprehension and ultimately enhancing their performance. Moving forward, addressing this gap through targeted instruction and support mechanisms could facilitate better outcomes for all students.“
All three examples are very nice, but they say absolutely nothing specific to the data produced by the assessment work. Assessment writing in its most efficient and effective form is brief, detailed, and must be specifically related to data generated by the assessment process. One could put these examples (and the others that were not included) into any assessment report for any program at any institution at any level for any group of students and reported to any accreditor. They are that general and that useless.
I get this on LinkedIn all the time. “You have been specially selected to contribute to this article!” Then you read the thing and it is so general and then you start computing the hours it will take to provide the detail to make it meaningful. Then you realize that AI wrote the article. Then you realize that contributing to it means that you are training AI to do your job. Then you think about Terminator. Then you turn off your computer and go hide under your bed…or is that just me?
More disturbing is that this rather flowery language was obscuring the fact that this particular program had identified the same student learning issues and had identified the same change seeking improvement in student learning as in the previous assessment cycle. Hidden behind the language examples above and the identification of the same change, was the dreaded, “no changes necessary” that make a case for compliance difficult or impossible to make. I almost didn’t notice it after wading through what appears to be AI-generated text. Once I looked at the previous year’s report and noted the style of writing and compared that to the new report…well, every faculty member in the history of time has noted sudden and spectacular gains in writing proficiency in a single student and we all know what that means.
So, can you have AI write general content for your reports about student attainment of learning outcomes? Yes, yes you can. But for the love of all that higher education stands for, don’t. A straightforward, specific, and data-focused reflection and improvement is worth all the non-specific AI generated text you could include.