next »

[xeno_cratus]

I am chair of a department of which most members agree that it is long past time for revision of our curriculum.  I'm looking for some reading on now to structure the process.  Any suggestions?

I'm assuming I'll start--where else?--with a committee, which will invite colleagues to write out their thoughts on where we are and were we need to go.  I'm imagining there will be pitfalls--certainly different interpretations of the present and differing visions of the future.

Anyone had experience in this area they would be willing to share?

Many thanks!

[csguy]

Look for examples and recommendations from disciplinary groups.

We've always been a bit small for the committee thing. Typically someone makes recommendations and we'd hack it out at a faculty meeting.

I did the last one and am still hurting.

[xeno_cratus]

I did the last one and am still hurting.

Thanks, CSguy.  That's what I'm afraid of.

[rockprof]

Been there, done that.  It's a painful process because everyone has to provide input and people have strongly held opinions.  In the end, it's generally worth the effort.  We're a small school so it's generally first OK'd by the academic dean, then hammered out at the department meeting level but then it has to be run through a campus-wide curriculum committee.  That's where idiots who have no clue about your discipline question your decisions (an english prof who chaired our curriculum committee one year caused all kinds of problems when the math people restructured their course sequences because she didn't like they way they taught precalculus!).

[csguy]

I did the last one and am still hurting.

Thanks, CSguy.  That's what I'm afraid of.

Well, actually the pain had a lot to do with the motivation for the changes (lack of resources).

The previous large scale change (which I was also responsible for) wasn't so bad. It greatly improved one of our programs (the one I've now, I think, damaged).

[zharkov]

Begin with program outcomes or disciplinary outcomes, then -- only then -- does it make sense to figure out the course by course curriculum.  The outcomes need to be addressed by one or more courses, and you don't need any courses that do nothing to advance or meet the outcomes.

[csguy]

Begin with program outcomes or disciplinary outcomes, then -- only then -- does it make sense to figure out the course by course curriculum.  The outcomes need to be addressed by one or more courses, and you don't need any courses that do nothing to advance or meet the outcomes.

Change your program outcomes to fit the courses you want to teach (couldn't resist that).

[mickfed]

All courses at our institution are subject to review every three years – no exceptions.  We follow an ADDIE methodology of curriculum design and revision (many web-sites on ADDIE process- Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement and Evaluate).

For existing courses, the review process begins with the results of the evaluation.  In addition to level one evaluations (the end of session “smile sheets” everyone gets from students, we routine seek evaluation from other departments for courses that support their majors, from other institutions where our former students are attending graduate school, and students two years or more removed.  I do not rely on faculty for evaluation.

I do rely on faculty for internal self-assessment but that assessment is informed by the evaluation process and is part of the analysis process.  My repeated manta since starting this process has been “don’t tell me what you believe, show me what you can prove.”

Because funding and staffing are always factors, I use the analysis process to determine gaps and redundancies in our course offerings.  We don’t add or eliminate courses without a faculty finding of need (you need to reward this process with care in making teaching assignments and budget allocations).

[mellonia]

what Zharkov said....though it can be hard to get people to think of outcomes first, details later.  We're in the midst of this now and getting the committee to first decide what a student graduating with a degree in X should know (whether that be concepts or skills), then look back at what we offer in terms of what may be lacking, or redundant, or whatever, has been tough.  I've tried to argue that (as an administrator) if I get a reasoned argument for adding area Y, we can then initiate discussions with higher-ups about doing that.  (we are in an era of retirements so can actually do this right now, if we had the guts, as we have fewer things that must be kept because so-and-so teaches this, what will he/she do if we kill it?).  Folks can be so invested in the current curriculum that they have trouble considering what might be better.  If you go the committee route, try not to have a large representation of people that have been at your institution more than, say, 10 years (though brand-spanking-newbies won't yet have an idea of what graduates should know, I've found, though I had hoped that they'd be unfettered in their opinions).

Good luck!  Just don't expect to make lots of friends during this...

[zharkov]

Begin with program outcomes or disciplinary outcomes, then -- only then -- does it make sense to figure out the course by course curriculum.  The outcomes need to be addressed by one or more courses, and you don't need any courses that do nothing to advance or meet the outcomes.

Change your program outcomes to fit the courses you want to teach (couldn't resist that).

Actually, IMHO, that isn't a bad idea.  If your program has been running a course, but that course is both popular and doesn't seem to synch up with any program objectives, then it may be time to revisit those objectives.

[csguy]

Begin with program outcomes or disciplinary outcomes, then -- only then -- does it make sense to figure out the course by course curriculum.  The outcomes need to be addressed by one or more courses, and you don't need any courses that do nothing to advance or meet the outcomes.

Change your program outcomes to fit the courses you want to teach (couldn't resist that).

Actually, IMHO, that isn't a bad idea.  If your program has been running a course, but that course is both popular and doesn't seem to synch up with any program objectives, then it may be time to revisit those objectives.

Also for small departments you have to consider what you can do a good job teaching. We don't teach AI or compilers because nobody in the department is up on these or interested (fortunately CS curricula are somewhat flexible).

[obprof]

You might also want to check into any guidelines posted by accreditors and professional associations in your field. If all your students need a course in xyz before they write their abc exam, then it might be useful to offer it.

A bad rationale that bugs me: "this is what school X is doing! Unless we do exactly the same things they do, we will never be better (i.e., different) than them!"

[georgia_guy]

A bad rationale that bugs me: "this is what school X is doing! Unless we do exactly the same things they do, we will never be better (i.e., different) than them!"

While exactly copying another school, without good purposes is certainly a bad idea, benchmarking can be very useful. Faculty often will hold on to outdated ideas about what is "mainstream" in the curriculum, if you don't periodically look at what others are doing. That "others are doing it" should not be the primary decision criterion, but it is useful information in assessing the appropriateness of the change.

[pretzel]

Also for small departments you have to consider what you can do a good job teaching. We don't teach AI or compilers because nobody in the department is up on these or interested (fortunately CS curricula are somewhat flexible).

Sorry for the intangential hijack ... OMG! That's exactly what my Dad teaches! AI and compilers, I mean. Althought he retired a few years ago, I bet he wouldn't mind spending a few hours a week in the classroom even for adjunct pay. Well, never mind, I don't think he'd like it after all.

[clayartist]

Depending on your discipline, you might look at your accrediting body to see if they have suggested outcomes.  Then simply borrow them to write your own outcomes.

We get three or four department faculty together, hash out the goals, outcomes, and course lecture topics in a small group.  Then we float the changes around the department for any additional comments.  Usually, the comments are minor and can be incorporated pretty easily.

Our curriculum process, once it gets past the department, is pretty painful in terms of how many people see and comment on it.  It also seems to take forever to get a class approved.  However, it goes faster if you don't have to make changes to please the curriuclum committee.