Substantial Completion

What does “substantial completion” mean for course delivery planning?

This information has been prepared to support faculty as they are coming to terms with “substantial completion” and what it means for their delivery plans.

The purpose is to outline the context in which the Academic Contingency Plans have been created and to provide faculty with options to consider. The information is organized as follows:

Introduction

  • Outcomes-based education,
  • Program standards and program descriptions,
  • Reliable demonstration of outcomes

Frequently Asked Questions

  • Is it possible to use “a most recent, most consistent” approach to evaluation?
  • How does the number 80% relate to our Academic Continuity Plans?
  • Do I need to make adjustments to the Evaluation Criteria Weighting specified in the course outline?

Introduction

As we move forward with our plans for academic continuity, it is important to be clear about the context in which these changes are being made. Clarity will help with the decision-making required to finalize delivery plans.

At Algonquin, we are working towards ensuring that courses are “substantially complete.”

For clarification purposes, a course would be considered “substantially complete” when

  • the course has made its contribution to the program as outlined at the beginning of the course outline (e.g., VLOs, EESs or General Education theme requirement), and
  • the faculty member responsible for the course has determined that learners have had the opportunity to demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and abilities building to the applicable outcomes, and 
  • the plan for substantial completion, with direction from the program coordinator(s), is approved by the Chair responsible for the course.

To appreciate this definition of “substantially complete” more fully, some core concepts for the delivery of programs in Ontario colleges will be useful. These concepts include:

  • Outcomes-based education,
  • Program standards and program descriptions, and
  • Reliable demonstration of outcomes.

Outcomes-based education

Programs delivered in Ontario colleges are predominantly outcomes-based. Among other things, this approach is learner-centred because the focus is on the results that learners demonstrate and not the amount of time required to meet the outcome.

Think of an exercise plan that you may create for yourself. Your personal goal (outcome) could be weight loss, better mobility, greater agility, increased strength, improved cardiovascular health, or a combination of all of these. It may be possible to determine an average or general time required (normative hours) to achieve the goal. At the same time, depending on your background, and your previous experiences with exercise and other competing goals and responsibilities in your life, the time required to achieve the goal can vary. It may take you more time to achieve the goal, or it may take you less time to achieve it.

As with an exercise plan, outcomes-based education focuses on the results and not on the time required. The outcomes themselves are tangible and it is possible to identify and document when the outcome has been demonstrated or completed. Also, as with exercise, outcomes are a journey of development in that the knowledge, skills and attitudes captured in the outcomes build towards a specific profile that is aligned with employment requirements and employer expectations.

Program standards and program descriptions

For Ontario colleges, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities supports the development of program standards (http://www.tcu.gov.on.ca/pepg/audiences/colleges/progstan/) for programs that are common throughout the province. In cases where programs are less common, program descriptions exist and serve the same purpose as program standards. These documents are an essential part of our work with our learners. Through consultation processes and collaboration with our employer partners, program standards and program descriptions provide the outcomes for a graduate from the program. These outcomes describe a profile required for entry-level positions in the given industry or discipline. Upon graduation, then, we are saying to potential employers that a graduate has demonstrated each of the outcomes for the program (Assess) and that they have had opportunities that require multiple outcomes to be demonstrated at the same time and require them to function at the level of a graduate (Culminating Performance).

Courses play a support role in the delivery of programs and that support is identified in the Contribution to Program section of the Course Outline (i.e., Relationship to Vocational Learning Outcomes or Relationship to Essential Employability Skills Outcomes). Remember that program-level maps are available in COMMS (https://www.algonquincollege.com/comms/). These maps can be accessed by clicking on the Generate Reports button in the menu.

To build on the exercise analogy from earlier, if the goal (outcome) is related to strength training, the rotation through muscle groups (courses) is required to achieve the goal. Too much focus on one muscle group (one course) or too little focus on other muscle groups (other courses) and the strength training (outcome) will be imbalanced and incomplete.

Under the current circumstances, when we are thinking of the program, we should not lose track of the amount of learning completed in the program and the amount of learning that remains before graduation.

Drawing on this profile of a graduate prepared for an entry-level position in the discipline, we need to determine the things that are essential for learners to demonstrate in order to assure potential employers that they have met the outcomes for the program.

Reliable demonstration of outcomes

When we are thinking about the demonstration of program-level outcomes, we are looking for a reliable demonstration of those outcomes. Reliable demonstration is characterized by the opportunities to both:

  • practice the knowledge, skills and attitudes connected to the outcomes and
  • demonstrate the outcomes at the level of a graduate a minimum of two times over the duration of the program.

To keep us focused on the academic continuity for our learners, it is important to consider that reliable demonstrations

  • are not time-based — learners bring diverse backgrounds to our classes and will require more or less time to demonstrate the outcomes successfully.
  • should be as authentic as possible — think of the activities that would be completed in the workplace on a daily basis and allow learners to do those activities or versions of them or have them explain their thoughts and actions as they work through a scenario.
  • are focused on entry-level positions — while it is nice to prepare learners for continued success in their careers, the additional information that relates to later in their careers is not required at this point.
  • exist in multiple places across the program — as we consider working with learners in a variety of program levels, we need to recognize and accept that opportunities for reliable demonstrations of the outcomes have already happened and will continue to happen in upcoming terms.

Frequently Asked Questions

To help further contextualize our aim of “substantial completion”, the answers to some of the current Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) are provided here:

Is it possible to use “a most recent, most consistent” approach to evaluation? 

An evaluation approach that considers learners’ most recent work (work that is the result of learning that has taken place up to this point in the term) as well as their most consistent work (work that shows a recurring level of success) aligns with the principles of outcomes-based education. Under all circumstances, and, especially now, providing learners with the opportunity to improve their knowledge, skills and attitudes through practice is a great way to support the demonstration of program-level outcomes.  

For example, if a student’s knife skills show improvement within the last few weeks of the course, a faculty member may choose to make a final assignment count for more of the evaluation criteria weighting.   

Alternatively, if a student’s knife skills were consistently strong throughout the course, but weak on a final assessment or unable to be accurately assessed, a faculty member may choose to assign a higher point value to that final knife skill assessment in keeping with the student’s most consistent performance.  

How does the number 80% relate to our Academic Continuity Plans? 

The 80% number is a minimum threshold that has been included in some communications. It is not a target and is certainly not a definitive mark of “substantial completion.”   

Since outcomes-based education is not time-based, the current circumstances may involve some changes to normative course hours as listed on an approved course outline. Learners may experience as little as 80% of the normative hours or they may still experience 100% of the normative hours.  

It is worth noting that outcomes-based education is not the same as grades-based education. It is entirely possible to have 80% of the grade completed without all of the course outcomes having been met. At the same time, a discussion of grades in a specific course is stepping away from the course’s contribution to the program-level outcomes. The question is: What performances have been completed so far? What performances need to be completed for the program-level outcomes to be met? The program-level maps in COMMS (https://www.algonquincollege.com/comms/) will be useful for answering these questions. These maps can be accessed by clicking on the Generate Reports button in the menu. 

Given the components of a reliable demonstration, it is entirely possible that some content in a given course exceeds the requirements for an entry-level position in the discipline. As a result, it may be possible that covering 80% of the content will be sufficient for meeting the course’s contribution to the program.  

The key is to be learner-centred and provide opportunities for learners to demonstrate the outcomes in a manner that is consistent with the requirements, but also allows for learner variability as well.  

Do I need to make adjustments to the Evaluation Criteria Weighting specified in the course outline?

In our Academic Continuity model of “substantial completion,” we can still maintain the weighting listed in the course outline, while adjusting the assessments that speak to it.   

This, in essence, is a change to the Course Section Information (CSI) document and not the Course Outline. Instructors have the option to change the remaining assessments by dividing up planned assignments into smaller parts. They could also change the nature of the deliverable and keep the weight of the assignment the same—for instance a lab could become a case study, a presentation could become a report, a test could become an assignment or a skills demonstration could become a video submission.  

Another option would be to use marks already earned earlier in the semester for similar demonstrations in order to create a balance for the learner. This could vary from using no marks from earlier assignments (0% earlier and 100% now) to a greater reliance on earlier marks (70% earlier and 30% now) for the final grade. 

For example, consider a learner who did not do well on earlier assignments in the semester, but who has been showing improvement on more recent assignments. The learner then demonstrates mastery of the performance on the final assignment. In this case, it is best to focus on achievement of the most recent assignment and all the marks (100%) are attached to the most recent result. 

Alternatively, think of a learner who has been excelling in the classroom, face-to-face environment and who has high marks on earlier assignments, but who begins to submit incomplete work with numerous errors after the move to online activities. This learner contacts you to say that they are overwhelmed with all the online course work and will not be submitting the final assignment. In this case, marks from earlier demonstrations of the outcomes can be used again (70% for example), while some marks (30%) are allocated to the assignment that was not completed. In this way, the overall mark will be more representative of the learner’s demonstration of the outcomes over the course of the semester. The learning goals for the course do not relate to mastery of online learning environments and this balanced grading approach ensures that the learner is not penalised for reasons that are unrelated to the outcomes assessed in the course. 

Although this may require additional work with the Gradebook or a spreadsheet, this approach would align with outcomes-based education by recognising successful demonstrations of the outcomes.  

In either case, communication with the learners and transparency about the decision will be important. 

Creative Commons LicenceThe content on the Algonquin College Academic Continuity site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.