On June 18, 2007 the
Curriculum Development Resource Network held its first Curriculum Symposium at
the Turfgrass Institute.
This initiative grew out of
the Teaching and Learning Innovations Conference and the tremendous amount of
curricular (re)visioning taking place across campus. It was an opportunity to engage with other University of
Guelph faculty and staff responsible for curriculum at the department or degree
program level.
Setting the Context
On
behalf of the Provost, Maureen Mancuso, Andrew thanked everyone for having
interest in the symposium and for being part of the activity that focuses on
undergraduate curriculum renewal and revision. The fact that they were there signifies the importance that
faculty and staff charged with the development and delivery of curriculum are
dedicated to ensuring student engagement and success.
Curriculum
renewal happens on many levels and at different entry points. There are a number of initiatives
underway across campus.
-
CBS & CPES hosted a forum
on First Year Science Education. A
task force was established and they will be reviewing the delivery of first
year science curriculum in the BSc Programs this summer
-
CPES has a new major in
Nanoscience that will start in Fall 2008
-
Psychology has reviewed their
specializations, and have combined formerly discrete minors with low enrolments
(and similar requirements) into one minor – Psychology. They have also refocused and renamed
their BSc major, which is now called Psychology: Brain and Cognition.
-
In CSAHS there is a new major
in the BA Program - Environmental Goverance, which is being jointly developed
between Political Science and Geography.
This still has to go forward to Senate.
-
Art History, College of Arts,
has put a greater credit weight on senior level research courses. This effort will have two
outcomes: ensure a 2-2 teaching
load for faculty and provide senior students with a deliberately intensive
experience not otherwise possible in a 0.5 credit course.
-
Philosophy has a new minor
– Ethics in the Life Sciences, which is designed to support students in a
variety of programs, including but not limited to students in science
specializations. They have also
introduced two (2) 1.0 credit 4th-year seminars as capstone courses
for the majors. They are also
reviewing course offerings and introducing new courses such as 21st
century philosophy. In addition,
they are in the process of ensuring that all large first-year courses have
small tutorial sections association with it.
-
CBS & OVC jointly offer a
minor in neuroscience, also supported by Psychology. Since there is interest from students across degree
programs, these 3 departments are considering a new major in neuroscience.
-
OVC continues to focus on
their DVM program and continues to make updates to their curriculum so
graduates are well prepared for the challenges and complexities of practice,
teaching and research in veterinary medicine.
-
The BSc Environmental
Sciences, in OAC, had a recent revision of the majors and are capitalizing on
the newly created Guelph Institute for the Environment.
-
Food Science is continually
revisiting their curriculum and aiming for an ongoing curriculum renewal
process.
-
CME is in the midst of a
full-scale review of their B.Comm program, the third largest degree program on
campus.
21st Century Curriculum Committee
This committee has lead a
campus-wide consultation process and is in the process of preparing a report to
Senate in the fall. There are many
outcomes that have come out of this process but the 4 most significant are:
1. Renewed focus on 1st year student
experience and the emphasis on active learning, the interdisciplinarity of
knowledge, and the development of foundational intellectual skills –
critical thinking, reading, writing, and numeracy
2. Integrate active research experiences throughout the
undergraduate learning experience.
The committee proposes a new modular university-wide research course
worth 1.0 credits that student begin in their first year and complete in their
2nd or 3rd years.
Course would consist of 4 modules offered in a variety of formats:
a) Faculty research module (large lecture, 6 weeks)
b) Self-study module (online format, 6 weeks)
c) College or Disciplinary module (variable formats, 6
weeks)
d) Portfolio module (tutorial format, 6 weeks)
3. Re-examination of credit weightings
4. Create a Graduate teaching certificate. Improve GTA training to foster
pedagogical effectiveness and innovation.
It will give them opportunities to expand pedagogical competence
Funding
Initiatives
There
are some funding initiatives that support curriculum development.
LEF – Learning
Enhancement Fund
Created by the Provost’s
office to support initiatives that are designed to strengthen undergraduates’
intellectual engagement and academic success.
PIF – Priority
Investment Fund
This is an outcome of the
Integrated Plan. This too has made
significant investments in support of innovation in teaching and learning.
Again it was mention that
they were at the symposium because they are looking to engage in the redesign
of curriculum within their department, program, college, or they were already
doing so.
What Are We Trying to
Achieve?
Learning Objectives (knowledge,
skills and values)
Three (3) perspectives:
1) University of Guelph Learning Objectives
· Approved by Senate in 1987
· They are a set of objectives described in terms of the desired characteristics of educated graduates, and are used in part to guide educators in their development of courses and programs.
· List of learning objectives:
§ Literacy
§ Numeracy
§ Sense of Historical Development
§ Global Understanding
§ Moral Maturity
§ Aesthetic Maturity
§ Understanding of Forms of Inquiry
§ Depth and Breadth of Understanding
§ Independence of Thought
§ Love of Learning
· Expectations of performance by the graduates of the
Baccalaureate/Bachelors programs of Ontario’s publicly funded universities
· List of expectations:
§ Depth and Breadth of Knowledge
§ Knowledge of Methodologies
§ Application of Knowledge
§ Communication Skills
§ Awareness of Limits of Knowledge
§ Autonomy and Professional Capacity
3) Making the Match Research on Skill Development
Project Summary
· 2-phased research project:
· Phase 1: Commissioned by the Corporate-Higher
Education Forum, which examined the adequacy of university education for
corporate employment.
· Phase 2:
Survey-based analysis of skill competencies of university student and graduates
working in organizations in Canada.
Conducted to investigate the skill development process from the early
years of university to the ten-year point in individual’s careers within Canadian
corporations.
· Set of 18 skills form the heart of the questionnaires
· Four distinct combinations emerged, which were found
to be consistent with the evolving literature on skills and which capture the
current bases of competence necessary
to work in today’s workplace
§ Mobilizing Innovation and Change
§ Managing People and Tasks
§ Communicating
§ Managing Self
· Technical skills did not group with any of the four
base competencies. These skills
(computing and other technical skills) should be dealt with as a distinct skill
set.
Internationalism
· Centre for International Programs reports to AVPA
· Reinventing their office
· Very involved with semester aboard and exchanges
· Is now the resource area to support the
internationalization of the curriculum
· Infusing internationalism into the curriculum by:
§ Reviewing international strengths
§ Facilitating international academic opportunities for
faculty
§ Navigating policies and guidelines
§ Look at and tap into research – Are we creating
global citizens?
Service-Learning
Presented by Cheryl Rose, Executive Director Canadian
Association for Community Service-Learning
Service-Learning
is an educational approach, which integrates service experiences in the
community within academic curriculum or leadership development programs. It is characterized by:
· Cycles of action and reflection, facilitating
connections between experience and learning
· Partnerships between campus and community, planned
for mutual benefits
· Service experiences which meet needs identified by
the community itself
· Engaged, holistic learning, which highlights the
relevance of academic studies and the leadership capacity of communities,
academics, and institutions
For
information on examples of service-learning courses and support for
service-learning initiatives on campus visit: http://www.uoguelph.ca/servicelearning/
Objectives:
· To develop undergraduate and graduate student
academic writing skills
· To serve as a resource to faculty and TAs to enhance
student writing and thinking in their courses
Programs and Services for Students and Faculty
· Supplemental (individual assistance, walk-in help, generic writing workshops, etc.)
· Integrated (custom-tailored workshops, TA training in courses or departments on
writing-to-learn and assessing, etc.)
· Embedded
(support for faculty who want to develop more writing assignments and to
develop writing-intensive courses, assistance to departments in designing
sequenced writing projects throughout the curriculum, etc.)
Handouts given out at
symposium:
· Brief Outline of Some Major Differences Between
Novice and Expert Writers
· Learning and Writing Challenges Facing First-Year
Students at University
Information Literacy
Presented by Jane Burpee, Manager Reference and Information Literacy, McLaughlin Library
· Information literacy is a set of abilities that
enables individuals to:
§ Determine the extent of information needed
§ Access information effectively and efficiently
§ Evaluate information and sources critically
§ Use information effectively for a specific purpose
§ Use/incorporate information ethically and legally
· Goal of information literacy is to develop a leader
and thinker who can:
§ Learn about a topic and issue on their own
§ Learn how to seek opinions and ideas from experts on
their own
§ Seek contrasting perspectives on their own
§ Rethink an argument on their own using these ideas
· Models of instruction currently in practice:
§ Traditional Information Literacy Efforts
- One-time course – integrated
- Self-paced online tutorials
- Individual consultation
- Workshops
§ Embedded models
- Faculty collaboration
- For credit courses
For
more information on Information Literacy, please go to: http://wikis.open.uoguelph.ca/cdrn/default.aspx?topic=InformationLiteracy
Numeracy
· Learning Commons, the Department of
Mathematics and Statistics, Data Resource Centre (DRC) and Teaching Support
Services (TSS) has begun to explore how we can enhance numeracy support offered
by each of our departments
· Build new opportunities to improve their numeracy and
quantitative reasoning skills as well as reach out to those programs
· Background on numeracy initiative
· Received funding from the Learning Enhancement Fund
to develop a numeracy repository for students who need assistance with math and
statistics concepts that are needed in their courses
· Accomplishing this by:
§ Developing a repository
-
Collect learning objects
-
Disseminate learning objects
§ Create learning objects
§ Bring together various initiatives on campus
· Components:
basis math (ratios, fractions); quantitative reasoning (read tables,
graphs); and statistical procedures (how to interpret)
· Repository will be dynamic to match growing needs and
will be open to everyone
SCIR is the Standing
Committee on Internal Review, a
sub-committee of SCUP (the Senate Committee for University Planning), and is
responsible for ensuring all departments/schools and undergraduate programs are reviewed for quality on a 7-year cycle.
The mandate of SCIR is
outlined through Senate policy and is regulated by OCAV through the
Undergraduate Program Review Audit Committee (UPRAC) Guidelines. Oversight for the SCIR process is a
responsibility of the Office of the Associate Vice-President (Academic);
membership on SCIR includes faculty members from Senate and the University
community.
Universities in Ontario
continue to be self-regulated through OCAV and UPRAC and are audited on a
10-year cycle. The Ministry of
Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) is very keen to ensure quality and
performance measures are in place and effective. The 10-year cycle could be modified within in a few
years.
Under the UPRAC Guidelines,
universities in Ontario undertake to “establish, maintain, and enhance the
academic quality of their [undergraduate] programs in accordance with their
mission statements.” Through OCAV,
we’ve agreed to:
· Establish policies and procedures for the approval
process for the introduction of new programs (or, moving your new program /
specialization through Senate)
· Establish policies and procedures for the review of
existing programs (or, SCIR)
· Have these policies and procedures audited (or, the
UPRAC review).
Reviews cover the
following: consistency of program;
appropriateness and effectiveness of admission requirements, of program’s
structure and curriculum, mode of delivery, methods used for evaluation of
students, level of student achievement; appropriate and effective utilization
of human, physical, financial resources; and with indicators that provide
evidence of quality – faculty, student – and outcomes of the
program. All of these should be reviewed
with attention to the expressed learning objectives of the institution and
degree program or department/school.
The review is only concerned
with graduate programs insofar as they impact the undergraduate education. Review of graduate programs is the
purview of OCGS.
The review process normally
takes 18 months from first notification to final report. The SCIR website (www.scir.uoguelph.ca) houses a significant amount of information for
programs/departments undertaking review.
Information includes:
· Details of the process
· Links to the current review schedule
· Copies of the review process
· Examples of completed reviews
Downloads available to
support the process include:
· Guidelines for preparing the self-study
· Templates for departments & schools
· Templates for undergraduate programs
· Checklist for the chair/director and administrative
personnel responsible for carrying out the review
Curriculum
Review Process
During the 21C
consultations, one of the most frequently cited barriers to making change in
curriculum is the review process, or “getting through Senate”. There is no question that governance
and oversight are key to quality curricula and to ensuring students have access
to the courses they require to graduate in a timely fashion, but it is
disheartening to hear a process cited as barrier to quality innovation. This must change.
Over the last year, we have
begun to pilot electronic submission of calendar changes, first with the
Bachelor of Arts program and then this year with any degree program that wanted
to participate. It is clear from
the interest across the campus, that faculty and staff are now ready to support
changes to the process and move into the electronic age. Also clearly voiced through the 21C
consultations is the need for a streamlined process by which minor, editorial
changes are approved. This too
will occur.
During the next cycle, we
will start to phase in a number of the recommendations coming forward in the
final 21C report. Crucial to this
process is communication. In an
effort to reach those responsible for curriculum change (whether this is
curriculum committees, program committee chairs, or the administrative staff
charged with ensuring proper forms are used), my office (Coordinator of
Undergraduate Curriculum) will host information and training sessions across
campus and a new website will be launched with detailed information and
assistance for moving through the process.
We expect this to be a
two-year progression in order to ensure that we maintain adequate oversight as
well as assist departments/programs in getting staff and faculty up-to-speed
with the technology.
Crucial to making change
effectively is hearing from those who use the process to move curriculum change
forward: that’s YOU! The culture at the University of Guelph
is collaborative and consultative and we all benefit from sharing ideas. There are already some very effective
models of support in place and we will work to highlight some of the best
practices across campus, but hope to hear from you as we work to make the
process user-friendly and support students learning along the way.
· Indicates the level of resource and service support
for an individual course or program.
· Informs where collections/resources are adequate and
where gaps exits in relation to supporting the course or program in question
· May make recommendations regarding acquisition of new resources
· May enhance existing support
· May be triggered by the following reasons:
§ Proposal of new course or program
§ Major revision to an existing course or program
§ Mandated program review
For more information on
Library Assessment please go to: http://wikis.open.uoguelph.ca/cdrn/default.aspx?topic=LibraryAssessment
Curriculum Evolution Processes
Presented by Peter Wolf, Acting Assoc. Director and Manager Instructional Development, Teaching Support Services
Curriculum
evolution process overview:
· Curriculum visioning
§ Curriculum assessment –
develop SWOT analysis (collect data via focus groups, surveys, interviews, etc.
with stakeholders)
§ Program objectives re/development
– articulate characteristics of the “Ideal Graduate”
§ Program focus – identify
foundational content and identify desirable educational experiences
· Curriculum Development
§ Curriculum Mapping – match
foundational content to current/future use and match program objectives to
current/future courses
§ Re/Develop program structure –
review gaps, redundancies and opportunities
· Alignment, Coordination and
Development
§ Align program and course objectives
– prioritize short and long-term development plan
§ Align foundational and course
content – prioritize short and long-term development plan
§ Align program and course learning
experiences – prioritize short and long-term development plan
Faculty
Perspectives Panel on Curriculum Processes
Curriculum
Assessment: Triggering Ongoing
Discussions
Presented by Art Hill, Associate Professor, Department of
Food Science
Art
presented “The Teaching/Learning Fractal”.
· A circle/cycle that contains 4 elements that are
connected and ongoing:
§ Teaching or learning experience
§ Evaluate, observe and reflect
§ Update strategies, techniques and processes and
identify resource needs
§ Apply, develop and test techniques, processes and
structure resources
· In going through the curriculum evolution process,
they came up with a list of items that reflected “What the ideal food science
graduate should look like in terms of attributes
· They have now developed a continuous curriculum
improvement model which is:
§ Focused on learning outcomes
§ Simple, flexible, incremental
§ Accountable to stockholders
§ Resourced and championed
· They have found ways of doing things with less
resources
Curriculum
Mapping
Presented by David Wolyn, Associate Professor, Department
of Plant Agriculture
· BSc (Agriculture) has majors in Crop Science,
Horticulture and Turfgrass Science
· Underwent curriculum evolution process
§ Held focus groups for 3rd and 4th
year students, and with employers
§ Conducted surveys with alumni and all students in 3rd
and 4th year courses
§ Developed a SWOT analysis from information gathered
from focus groups and surveys
§ Held a faculty retreat where they developed their own
SWOT analysis
§ Developed from SWOT analyses the characteristics of
the ideal graduate (18 competencies)
§ Conducted a web survey for each competency within
each course
o Taught
o What % of course devoted
o Level of sophistication
o Teaching method
o Assessment Method
§ Objective was to identify 3-4 competencies to improve
over the next year, while considering quality, efficiency, redundancy and
appropriate
· Struggles with mapping:
§ Interpretation difficult
§ Self-assessment (inconsistent)
§ What do competencies mean?
§ Levels of teaching vs. practice (confusion)
§ What is enough?
What is too much? Changes
with each competency
§ What is the department’s responsibility vs. that of
program committee or university (e.g. writing, life skills)
§ Nearly all electives in department. No guarantees that students will get
sufficient training if skills are developed in selected courses
§ Buy-in for change
Curriculum
Development as a Culture
Presented by Donna Pennee, Associate Dean, Arts and
Social Science
· BAS program went through the process outlines on
pages 18-19 of the Curriculum Development Handbook.
· Draws on both faculty and student input – added
value
· Student and faculty are between cultures
· Structure of program:
§ Minor – BA
§ Minor – BSc
§ ASCI courses – integrated (no one has ownership
over these programs/courses)
· Polled people to communicate to find out:
§ What are they doing well
§ What are they not doing well
§ What needs to be changed
§ Finding ways to talk about what is meaningful (this
is what we do, need to do, these are the needs in order to succeed)
· Found that faculty are interestd in collaborating across colleges and that interdisciplinary teaching enables this to occur
· Proper reward system and encouragement
Click
here to view photographs taken at the curriculum symposium.