The Summer Institute focused on answering the knotty question, "What exactly is a learner outcome?" Our goal was to understand the theory and then use it to create a plan that could be used in the classroom. The emphasis was hands-on and practical.

The first week featured a team from Howard Community College in Maryland who defined how the learner outcomes approach is used at their school. In addition, Cabrillo experts presented sessions on the link between personality types and learning styles and successful teaching strategies. The group itself possessed a high level of expertise about how to best serve the needs of our "millennial" students. An energetic exchange of learner-centered teaching ideas proved to be a highlight of the week.

Institute participants also spent the week revisioning their specific course and writing learner outcomes for it. While we saw much to value in the learner outcomes approach, we also wrestled with the difficult issues it presented such as: how does a learner outcome differ from the course objectives listed in our course outlines? We have carefully articulated our course outlines with transfer institutions. If we restructure our courses around outcomes other than those in the course outlines, are we failing in our responsibility to our transfer institutions? Can we define learner outcomes to include qualities that are not easily measured, such as caring, in the case of nursing.

We liked this teaching model, yet felt, as serious teachers and scholars, we needed to think critically about it. We asked: is this another educational fad, cloaking the same old approach in new language? Is this a business model applied to education, as some of the papers we read suggest? If so, can the mix be valuable or are we combining two worlds that should remain distinct? Since Howard Community College switched to a learner outcomes approach because the Maryland State legislature required it, even going so far as to legislate what a C grade should be, Institute participants wondered about the future. How does this model affect academic freedom? What happens when it's applied, as it has been in Maryland, to several sections of the same course taught by different instructors? Will this result in a standardization of course materials, tests and lectures? Individuality in the classroom has long been a proud tradition at Cabrillo. Is this teaching model something that will undermine it?

Our discussions provided a basis for exploring the model in depth. They were balanced by the hours spent creating curriculum plans for the fall. Those plans were enriched by the probing questions we asked of the learner outcome teaching model. Some of those questions, in fact, became incorporated into the plans as a matter to research.

The second week featured presentations by Sandra Pacheco from California State University at Monterey Bay, explaining how one of Cabrillo's major transfer partners is using this model. She taught us how CSUMB aligns course activities and assessment with learner outcomes. Other presentations by Cabrillo experts demonstrated various assessment methods such as classroom-based research and the use of portfolios. As faculty worked to design activities and assessments for their fall course, we probed the difficulties of assessment: how can we assess qualitative learner outcomes? If we can't design such assessment and focus only on those that can be easily measured, will those qualities no longer have a priority in our classrooms? What is a good assessment instrument? What factors affect student performance? How can one measure it accurately, taking into account all the possible variables? Is qualitative assessment as reliable or valuable as numbers? Is it possible that this learner outcomes approach could shift the focus in our classrooms from teaching to testing? Would that increase student success? How did we define success?

These questions found their way into the curriculum plans of the participants. We were excited to have an upcoming semester of teaching in which to explore them. The Institute ended with detailed presentations of the curriculum plans of each participant.