Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Curriculum reviews are becoming more prevalent in higher educational institutions as a means to address quality assurance and improve program offerings. However, the review process can be structured so that instructors experience professional learning benefits as they work with program-level learning outcomes, map their courses, and analyze curriculum data with their colleagues. This paper shares an approach that was used to conduct a 1-year, complex, multi-program curriculum review in a faculty’s graduate unit. This approach enhanced the instructors’ continuing growth and their ability to carry out a curriculum review. To illustrate the dynamic nature of the curriculum review process, a three-level and three-phase curriculum review model has been developed.Based on our experience when implementing the model with an array of instructional teams, we identified four key recommendations for practice that promoted a professional learning environment while implementing a multi-program curriculum review: (1) mentoring and distributed leadership, (2) standardizing flexible structures and processes, (3) customizing the process for deep inquiry, and (4) collaborating. Curriculum reviews are becoming more prevalent in higher educational institutions as a means to address quality assurance and improve program offerings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dyjur et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: