In the ever constant race to update and revise and be prepared for our next departmental review, we're doing these projects to make our courses "outcomes based." For every course, we're supposed to have goals (which, as I understand it, are supposed to have to do with what we want students to learn), outcomes (which, as I understand it, are supposed to have to do with what students produce to show that they've reached the goals), and sub-outcomes (which, as I understand it, is what students actually produce to show they've reached bits and pieces of the bigger goals and outcomes). We're supposed to have between 1 and 4 goals, 1 and 4 outcomes (one for each goal), and for each outcome, 1-3 sub-outcomes.
I want to brainstorm a bit here, because I find this sort of stuff intensely frustrating and not fun, and I don't think I find it nearly as helpful as the edu folks keep promising I should.
Let's take, say, an intro Shakespeare course, a genre-based Shakespeare course.
What should the goals be?
1. I want students to get better at reading difficult texts.
2. I want students to get a sense of how damned good Shakespeare is. (I think of this as building in an understanding of some plays, how genre works, how imagery and such work, how character development works, and on and on.)
3. I want students to get a sense of the historic, cultural, and social contexts of early modern theater. (Yes, that's huge. HUGE!)
Do those goals make sense? Are there better goals? Are there more goals?
Edited to add: There should be something about writing in there, maybe in the first one, reading and writing about difficult texts?