Curriculum Planning

Strategic Planning for Curriculum Renewal/Curriculum Visioning

In the first stage of preparation for curriculum review, departments typically engage in “curriculum visioning” for the program. Curriculum visioning is essentially a form of strategic planning for curriculum review and renewal. It is an opportunity to bring faculty together to articulate the strengths and outcomes of the graduate or undergraduate program, and to generate materials that can be included in the self-study. The majority of departments choose to accomplish these goals through curriculum retreats.

Strategic planning for curriculum review may include:


Characteristics of Successful Curriculum Reviews

In our experience, departments that have found their engagement in curriculum review processes rewarding and meaningful have shared some of the following characteristics:

  • strong leadership from chairs and committees who communicate a rationale and move processes forward
  • appropriate time built into processes, allowing for reflection throughout the stages of curriculum review
  • outcomes from previous curricular processes reviewed prior to starting a new review cycle
  • review process designed such that contributions and feedback from all departmental faculty is invited and encouraged
  • data collected from a variety of sources, including students, alumni, TAs, and employers
  • data collected used as an opportunity to identify and address potential concerns prior to external review
  • data collected for IQAP used to help inform longer-term continuous curriculum improvements.

 

Timelines for Program Review and Renewal

Timeline of the 8 year curriculum review cycle

Start preparing for curriculum review 2 years before the visit by external reviewers.

  • IQAP Preparation
    • Year 1: Create plan; develop outcomes
    • Year 2: Self-study prep & data collection
  • IQAP Submission
    • Year 3: Self-study submission; site visit
  • Continuous Improvement
    • Year 4: Improve and align
    • Year 5: Consider High impact practices
    • Year 6: Revisit Learning Outcomes
    • Year 7
    • Year 8

New Program Design and Program Renewal Consultation

Western’s Institutional Quality Assurance Process stipulates the process for new program proposals.

The Centre for Teaching and Learning regularly supports this process through individual consultation. Please contact us to collaborate at curriculum@uwo.ca 

 Writing Program-Level Learning Outcomes

Program-level learning outcomes are clear statements that describe the competencies that students should possess upon completion of a program (Anderson et al., 2001; Harden, 2002; Kennedy, 2007; Simon & Taylor, 2009). At Western, program-level learning outcomes are written for each Undergraduate module level (e.g., Honors Specialization & Specialization). Drafting learning outcomes at the program level is a faculty-driven process and should be undertaken with opportunities for all faculty members to be involved.

The curriculum specialists at the CTL support the development of program-level learning outcomes in the following ways:

  • providing feedback on draft program-level learning outcome.
  • facilitating workshops focused on articulating and revising program-level learning outcomes.

Effective learning outcomes state what students should know, value, and/or be able to do, and articulate the depth of learning expected. Learning outcomes are often presented separately in the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains (Table 1), but may also reflect a range of interacting knowledge, skills and attitudes (Harden, 2002; Soulsby, 2009). Based on various situational factors and contexts, programs typically contain 6-12 broadly stated learning outcomes that represent a graduate’s integrated and essential learning within the program.

Drafting learning outcome statements

Learning outcomes complete a phrase describing what students should know, value and/ or be able to do by the end of the program or course (e.g., “By the end of this program, successful students will be able to…”). After this stem, choose an action verb that specifies the depth of learning expected, followed by a statement describing the knowledge/abilities/attitudes to be demonstrated. Finish the outcome with a statement to provide context within the discipline.  

By the end of this program, successful students will be able to…

action verb
to identify the depth of learning expected (e.g., identify, explain, apply, analyze, evaluate, create).

learning to be demonstrated
statement specifying learning to be demonstrated (e.g., what?)

learning context
statement(s) to give the disciplinary context or state how the learning will be achieved (e.g., about what? why? how?).

Learning outcomes should:

  • Be concise, direct, and clearly stated. Terms such as know, understand, learn, appreciate, and be aware of should be avoided, and the specific level of achievement should be clearly identified.
  • Be observable and measurable.  Learning outcomes must be capable of being assessed, based on clearly defined criteria associated with the teaching/learning activities and assessment strategies contained within the curriculum.  It is often helpful to add the preposition “by” or “through” followed by a statement that clearly states how the learning outcome will be assessed.
  • Be balanced. If the learning outcome is too broad, it will be difficult to assess.  If the learning outcome is long and detailed, it will limit flexibility and adaptability in the curriculum.
  • Be grounded within the discipline and consistent with disciplinary language, norms and standards.

Refining learning outcomes

When reviewing and refining program-level learning outcomes, consider the following prompting questions:
  1. Do the learning outcomes accurately describe what a graduate should know, value and be able to do upon finishing the program? Are there any specific statements that should be added, consolidated and/or removed?
  2. Do the learning outcomes align with those defined by the institution and/or other related programs? Do learning outcomes align to each of the seven Western Degree Outcomes (undergraduate degrees) or six Graduate Degree-Level Expectations (graduate degrees)?
  3. Do the action verbs adequately convey an appropriate level of understanding for each learning outcome?
  4. Could multiple audiences (e.g., students, instructors, employers, administrators, across institutions) understand the learning outcomes?
    • If not, how could the clarity of the learning outcome be improved?
  5. Would the disciplinary context of the statement be clear if read in isolation?
    • If not, what additional detail could be added to provide additional disciplinary context?
  6. Could you appropriately assess each outcome?
    • If not, how should they be revised? What additional detail/ context is required?
Consult Table 2 for “before and after” examples as suggestions for improving program-level learning outcomes.

Example Program-level Learning Outcomes


 

Questions?

If you would like to discuss this topic further, please contact a member of the CTL curriculum team.