Adam Watkins
Mathematics and Computer Science, Technical University Eindhoven
Challenge
It is possible to view a curriculum from multiple perspectives. For the purposes of this case we use the following;
- the intended curriculum
- the enacted curriculum
- the experienced curriculum
[(PDF) Acquisition of the curriculum development knowledge in pre-service teacher education (researchgate.net).
Tensions and issues in curriculums are exacerbated by lack of transparency and agreement when using these perspectives, and in how these are communicated (insert ref to linear communication model!). For example;
- Parallel courses may overload on certain assessment types or have the same assessment deadline [implemented curriculum] causing students to lose focus or struggle to balance priorities[experienced curriculum]
- Courses may use language/phraseology in the enacted curriculum, e.g. 'Reflect on...' that requires course level interpretation on the part of students [experienced curriculum]
- Student feedback [experienced curriculum] is left open to interpretation if there is no clear reference to a baseline or whether questions pertain to the intended or the enacted curriculum.
Goal
The goal of this challenge is to encourage teachers to contribute to the increased transparency of a curriculum, from which they will then bemefit when introducing curriculum changes.
- When designing a course it helps to align, or be aware of, different philosophies that underpin the rationale for other courses [intended curriculum]
- When creating an assessment plan [implemented curriculum] it helps to know what other assessment types and deadlines the students will face in the same study period
- It is easier to scaffold courses according to what students have been exposed to in previous course; thus encouraging, for example, skills development or independent thinking
- During the QA cycle it is easier to ensure that course level changes do not conflict with existing program content
A significant influencing factor in development of this case is teacher engagement. Encouragement of this is required because, overall, there is low enthusiasm for increased course documentation such detailed asssement plans or course rationales, or for working collaboratively on curriculum changes.
Topic of the user case
curriculum transparency, constructive alignment, curriculum perspectives;
Local context (specific)
Although multiple contexts are possible we focus on all courses in a single program - the Bachelor Computer Science within the department of Mathematics and Computing at the Technical University of Eindhoven.
This program is under revision as of academic year 2023, with new courses being introduced and others being revised. Curricular transparency is very difficult to achieve and maintain because information needs to be sythesised from multiple sources that are incomplete, inconsistent and disparate. This is coupled with low enthusiasm for addressing these issues due to time pressures and the manner in which many staff are disconnected from the the QA, program validation process, and overall academic progress of students throughout an entire program.
- The course catlogue often has some rationale [intended curriculum], an overview of content knowledge and objectives, but no clear insight into assessment [implemented curriculum]
- The LMS contains the course materials [implemented curriculum], but is not openly accessible to all faculty
- Assesment plans are required of all courses, but progressing this requirement is not enforced
The majority of course level changes are implemented based on teachers' interpretations of student evaluations and feedback. The low sample count afforded by formal student evaluations (provided by academic support services and automatically provided to students) allows faculty to adopt various stances on the validity of the surveys. Additional feedback may come in the form of custom surveys during or after the course, though these are instigated by the teacher and are not uniform in structure or integrity.
Crucually, the current questions in the student evaluations are not framed according to a context. The lack of context gives further reasons for low motivation to develop courses accordin to the feedback.
Local CPD goals
The local CPD goals are;
Teaching competence 1 - frame the course in the context of the program;
Lecturer Attitude 6 - use student evaluations and feedback of students to improve courses
The context above has covered how these goals not easy to directly address. A possible solution is to frame the local CPD goals under the title 'Improving Student Evaluations'. This will then be developed in two stages;
1 - adjusting the actual questions within the survey so that it is clear to students within what context they are benchmarking their evaluations against. This will require the support of the Quality Assurance team to revise the questions, for example;
“Rate the difficulty off this course (1 to 5)” can be prefixed with “Compared to other courses in this study period...”
Example contexts could be; same study period, same learning line, courses with same structure (project based, lecture based etc). Once the contexts are made clear, the next step is to;
2 - Provide teachers in the same context a chance to use the student evalutions in a more actionable manner, and provide them with a framework to communicate those changes. This framework consists of four elements;
a) the course rationale (intended curriculum)
b) the intended learning outcomes (implemented curriculum)
c) the core topics / knowledge areas (implemented curriculum)
b) the assessment plan which is the alignment of assessment type, deadlines and weighting with course ILOs(implemented curriculum)
Teachers can then work collaboratively and effectively to revise the above elements as needed for their courses. Their interpretation of "Improving Student Evaluations" relates to the actual evalutions students provide.
As the program progresses each year the transparency in increased.
Needs defined in STEM-CPD Roadmap
Competences
Attitudes
Activities
CPD activities at the local university
These activities require engagement with different layers of management and service providers;
| Quality Assurance and Education Management (often with members of faculty) | Revise the student evaluations to agree on, and provide, a clear context for the questions |
| Teachers or Representatives |
With permission of teachers and education management, and in conjunction with LMS and Course Catalogue maintainers, to extract and synthesise information relating to assessment types, weightings, deadlines, learning outcomes etc, they draft the following;
|
| Teachers in the same context (determined by the evalaution context); | To collaborate on interpreting the student evaluations in order to improve/change their courses. |
| Teachers, either individually, or in the same context |
To revise and maintain the;
|
Expected Impact of the CPD User Case
The immediate impacts of increased transparency are multiple. A non-exhaustive list is given below. Note that the beneficiaries of this can be students, teachers, education management, program validation committees, QA officers.
- clear insight into the rationale for courses in the program
- insight into student workload re: assessment types and scheduling
- insight into how the ILOs of courses can be interpreted to ensure development of skills (i.e. increasing use of higher order cognitive skills as the program progresses)
- engagement of teachers with the QA process when they present intended course changes
Plans for eventual continuation of the CPD within the same topic
This CPD project forms the baseline for other projects that are dependent on having curriculum transparency. For example;
- development of curriculum visualations that show how different courses can be aligned in terms of topics/skills
- tracking of student progress with respect to program outcomes (that are linked to course outcomes)
Developing confidence in sound course design (type P1-1)
This CPD scenario describes a User case in which lecturers develop their competence in sound course design and develop attitudes in practicing teaching and learning in an evidence informed way.
The approximate duration of a User case that follows this scenario is several months.
In this CPD scenario the participants professionalize in a close connection to their own teaching practice (at their workplace) and meet in person on location with the training staff and with other participants.
Learning environment
Time
Several months
Creative Commons 3.0 BY SA applies to all content on Starfish.
Starfish-education support for the publishing on Starfish-education.eu does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors and Starfish-education cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. Starfish-education cannot be held responsible for the content published by authors that is not conform with Creative Commons 3.0 BY SA.