Curriculum in Higher Education/HIED 762Fall 2014

Wednesdays 1:00 - 4:00 pmSchool of Education, Room 2340

INSTRUCTOR: Lisa R. LattucaProfessor

OFFICE: Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education (CSHPE)University of MichiganSEB Room 2117DAnn Arbor, MI 48109

OFFICE PHONE: (734) 647-1979EMAIL: llatt@umich.eduOFFICE HOURS: Contact me for an appointment

OVERVIEW OF THE COURSE:

The course is designed for individuals who wish to plan, design, evaluate, and/or study learning experiences in higher education. To enhance your work as an instructor, researcher, or administrator, we will explore practices, theory, and research related to course and program planning, development, and implementation; teaching and assessment; student learning; faculty and administrators’ educational roles and responsibilities; curricular innovation and curricular change; and quality assurance.

During the term we will consider key questions facing higher education institutions and educators in the United States, focusing primarily, but not exclusively, on undergraduate curricula in two- and four-year colleges. Our discussions of curricula will be multidimensional, following the definition of curriculum as an academic plan that requires deliberate decisions about educational goals, content, instructional materials and methods, and assessment. Accordingly, we will examine various ideas about the purpose of higher education and the implications of those beliefs for curricular content, teaching, and student outcomes. We’ll also read and discuss theories about how people learn and think about how these theories shape -- or should shape -- curricular decisions. As we analyze processes of curricular decision making, innovation, and change, we will consider the influences of institutional missions, instructors’ beliefs about education, their affiliation with academic fields, and the impact of diverse learners on instructional decisions. Throughout the term, we will reflect on how social, cultural, economic and political influences affect higher education curricula in the U.S.

Course Objectives: The primary goal of this course is to enhance your understanding of effective curricular decision making. This course will also help you:

identify and evaluate the varied assumptions that have shaped American postsecondary curricula in the past and present;

EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014 1

recognize and understand the philosophical and epistemological underpinnings of various perspectives on curricula;

understand curricular components such as general education and the major and their historical evolution;

understand the roles of faculty and administrators in developing curricula and how these vary by type of position (e.g., lecturer, associate professor, chairperson) and in different types of institutions;

understand disciplinary influences on curricular planning and instruction;

develop basic understanding of prominent theories of learning and their main assumptions;

understand how instruction and instructional environments can influence students and their learning;

examine assumptions, processes, and implications of various kinds of assessment and evaluation processes at the course, program, and institutional level; and

understand the scope, processes, and complexity of decision-making about postsecondary curricula.

TEXTS AND REQUIRED READINGS:

Required Text: Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (2009). Perspectives on learning (5th ed.). New York:

Teachers College Press.

Additional Readings: CTools course site and Internet websites

Recommended Text: NB: We will use several chapters from this book; these will be on CTools but you may want to buy a used copy online. Please do not purchase the 1997 Edition; it is significantly different than the 2009 edition.

Lattuca, L. R., and Stark, J. S. (2009). Shaping the College Curriculum: Academic Plans in Context. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

EXPECTATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS:

Class Participation: This is a discussion-based course. Our class discussions are an opportunity to raise questions, clarify understandings, challenge ideas and opinions constructively, consider how ideas can be translated into practice in different higher education settings, and learn about others’ perspectives. Effective discussions are marked by attentive listening to and thoughtful consideration of ideas that are circulating. Good discussions ensue when we critically assess the arguments, practices, or ideas in the assigned texts and that we bring to the conversation. Noting key points, posing questions, and connecting ideas and concepts as you read enable us

EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014 2

to actively participate in class. Your comments, whether fully developed or still under construction, are welcome as we work together to understand the strengths and limitations of specific ideas and their utility for guiding higher education practice and scholarship.

Please review the schedule of readings in advance so that you will have time to fully prepare for each class meeting. The quality of our discussions relies on your ability to talk and think about the ideas we encounter. Class participation will contribute 20 percent of your final grade. A rubric explaining the grading criteria is posted on CTools (Rubric Folder: Class Participation Rubric).

Written Assignments: The written assignments for this course are described below. Please note that all written assignments should conform to – and include – APA (American Psychological Association) style for citations and references. Assignment 1 asks you to consider the readings in the first section of the course. Assignments 2 through 4 are related to the development of the course paper that will contribute 65% of your course grade.

Assignment 1: Purposes of Higher EducationThe nature of the first assignment varies based on whether you were enrolled in EDUC 561, Introduction to Higher Education, in fall 2012.

For students who took EDUC 561: Intro to Higher EducationThe readings and discussions in the first few weeks of this course delve more deeply into a topic that you considered in Introduction to Higher Education last term. These readings present and critique a wide variety of perspectives regarding the purposes of higher education. In your first paper for the Intro course, you argued for the purpose(s) of higher education that you thought most appropriate. This paper will ask you to take your thinking a step further. For this paper you develop a memo to the academic dean of your college (you decide what “college” means here -- the college of education, a liberal arts college, etc.) that will recommend a design for an academic program that will 1) help new undergraduate students understand the origins and purposes of general education and its (desired) relationship to the major program, and 2) encourage them to be intentional and reflective as they make their academic choices. Assume that the dean has given you permission and some funding to create or revise part or all of a program -- for example, new student orientation, advising, first-year seminar -- for this program.

In designing and defending your program, you must provide information on the mission of your college and its stated learning outcomes as well as provide explanations/support for key ideas using readings from the course. You may also use supporting literature from other courses.

EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014 3

FOR All other students: Response Paper – Purposes of Higher EducationThe readings and discussions in the first few weeks of this course introduce and critique different perspectives regarding the purposes of higher education, the assumptions that underlie various purposes, and the content and pedagogy viewed as suitable for achieving those purposes. Your first assignment is to write a paper that presents, explains, and defends your personal view of the purpose(s) of higher education. How do your ideas reflect, challenge, or extend the ideas about the purposes of higher education -- and how they should be achieved -- that we have read to date. What do your personal commitments suggest to you about the types of educational settings that you might choose as a faculty member, administrator, or professional working in government, policy or advocacy organizations?

Details: Your paper should reflect your understandings of the course readings assigned up to and including the readings assigned for September 24. This paper may not exceed 8 pages in length and is due on Monday, September 29 at 4 pm. It will contribute 20% to your course grade. Consult the Assessment Rubric on CTools before you write to understand the evaluation criteria I will use in grading.

Assignments 2 - 5: Course Paper ComponentsYour course paper will focus on a specific instructional practice or learning theory. You are not writing a literature review although you will be systematically reviewing a small set of articles that you identify on the topic of your choice. Instead, your paper will examine a set of readings through the curricular and learning perspectives that we will be discussing throughout this course. This conceptual review will identify, examine, and evaluate the assumptions and implicit understandings of curriculum, teaching, and learning that authors who write on this topic espouse explicitly or implicitly, and identify directions for future research and/or practice.

Assignment 2: Proposal for Course Paper (DUE 10/15)Each student will submit a proposal for a course paper that focuses on a specific instructional practice or learning theory. In this two page proposal you will describe the instructional practice or theory that you wish to study and provide 5 sources directly related to the practice or theory that you have identified to date. You must identify an instructional practice or learning theory for which there is a focused and significant empirical or theoretical literature base. Examples of potential topics include: design learning in engineering, field experiences in teacher education, cultural-historical activity theory, civic learning, teaching for transfer in science courses. Your proposal is due on Wednesday, October 15, and will not be graded. Instead, I will provide feedback on your choice of topic.

Assignment 3: Annotated Bibliography for Course Paper (DUE 11/14)To help you prepare your course paper, you have two interim assignments. The first, an annotated bibliography, is due on Friday, November 14 at 4 pm. It is worth 10% of your course grade; doing it well will ensure you get a good start on your course paper.

Your annotated bibliography will consist of 6 - 10 key resources. You will add to this list of references as you develop and complete your course paper. Your annotations should briefly but carefully describe each article and why you selected it. If each of your annotations sounds

EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014 4

the same, you haven’t been specific enough in your discussion of the key ideas in the article or chapter and how they will contribute to your final paper.

Assignment 4: Critical Review (DUE 11/19)You will select two or three resources included in your annotated bibliography for a critical review. This paper should include a) a brief but substantive summary of the arguments made in the articles and/or chapters selected, and b) your critical assessment of the major ideas or claims that are relevant to your course paper. Be sure to make clear the specific questions or issues that these resources raise for your paper and why you think these ideas or issues will be important in your final paper. Your review must provide a balanced discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of these ideas and should make good use of the readings from the course in supporting your review. A rubric for the review will be posted on CTools.

This paper (6 -10 pages) is due on Wednesday, November 19 at 4 pm and will constitute 20% of your final grade. Consult the Assessment Rubric for the assignment before you write.

Assignment 5: Final Course Paper Review the description of this paper in the section that introduces the Course Paper. Remember, your final paper is not a literature review; rather it explores the implicit and explicit ideas about curriculum, teaching, and learning in a set of readings on a type of instruction or learning. Thus, your paper should reflect not only your understanding of the articles you have identified, but your knowledge and understanding of the ideas, theories, concepts, and research literature we have read, discussed, and analyzed throughout the course.

Be judicious in your choice of topics to explore as you write your paper, selecting those aspects of the topic that are most relevant to this course. You do not have to use everything you learned; rather, you will gain most if you explore particular connections in depth and detail. For example, you might consider how “learners” are conceptualized in the literature you have reviewed. What assumptions about learners are embedded in the different articles you read? How do these assumptions influence the research design or interpretation of the findings? Are there patterns across studies or do different researchers espouse different views? What implications do you see for research or practice? In addition to this kind of analysis, you will want to evaluate what you have read and learned and, consider the implications of what you have learned for future research and practice

Details: Your final paper must be double-spaced, 12-point Times Roman, with one-inch margins. It may be no longer than 25 pages in length, excluding the title page, references, and any figures or appendices. This completed assignment will contribute 35% of your final grade and is due on Friday, December 12 at 4 pm. An Assessment Rubric for the assignment will be posted to guide you as you write.

EVALUATION CRITERIA :In general, written assignments will be evaluated using the following criteria:

demonstration of complex understanding of subject, indicated by quality of research, analysis, argumentation, and elaboration of important ideas;

EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014 5

knowledgeable and effective use of relevant literature to support claims; organization (logical progression of ideas and arguments); clear and engaging writing; balanced and critical discussion of ideas or arguments; and Compelling conclusions supported by strong rationales.

An assessment rubric that specifies additional evaluation criteria will be posted on the CTools course website for each course assignment in advance of the due date.

Grading Scale: The scale used for determining final course grades will be:

A 3.7 - 4.0A- 3.4 - 3.69B+ 3.1 - 3.39B 2.8 - 3.09B- 2.5 - 2.79C+ 2.2 - 2.49C 2.0 - 2.19D 1.1 - 1.99F 0 - 1.0

Rewrite Policy: Students who receive grades of less than a B on the first assignment have the option to rewrite this paper. (Credit lost due to lateness cannot be regained through rewriting.) There is no grade limit for a voluntary rewrite. A rewrite does not guarantee an increase in your grade. To improve your grade, you must demonstrate significant improvement by addressing my comments. Rewriting typically requires attention to the conceptualization, content, and organization of a paper. It may also require attention to synthesis, evaluation, and/or analysis.

Please submit the original copy of your paper with your rewrite. Rewrites will be accepted until Friday, October 31. Please inform me if plan to do a rewrite. It may be useful to set up a time to discuss my comments before begin your rewrite.

DUE DATES: All assignments for the course are due on the dates posted in this syllabus. If you have a pressing commitment, you must negotiate an alternative date with me in advance of the due date. Deferred grades for the course (incompletes) will be awarded under extraordinary circumstances; you must discuss the need for a deferred grade, and the due date for completion of the course, with me in advance.

Requirements Due Dates % of Grade

Participation ongoing 15%Assignment 1: Response Paper – Purposes Mon. 9/29 (4 pm) 20%Assignment 2: Proposal for Course Paper Wed. 10/15 (1 pm) creditAssignment 3A: Course Paper Component: Annotated Bibliog. Fri., 11/14 (4 pm) 10%

EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014 6

Assignment 4: Course Paper Component: Critical Review Wed., 11/19 (4 pm) 20%Assignment 5: Course paper: Final Paper Fri., 12/12 (4 pm) 35%

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY: Students are expected to comply with the Rackham Policy on Academic Integrity (http://www.rackham.umich.edu/policies/academic_and_professional_integrity/

statement_on_academic_integrity/). Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, falsifying or fabricating information, plagiarizing the work of others, facilitating or failing to report acts of academic dishonesty by others, submitting work done by another as your own, submitting work done for another purpose to fulfill the requirements of a course, or tampering with the academic work of other students. If you are unsure what constitutes a violation of academic integrity, please come talk with me.

 ACCOMMODATION FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: If you need an accommodation for a disability, please let me know at your earliest convenience. Some aspects of this course, the assignments, the in-class activities, and the way I teach may be modified to facilitate your participation and progress. As soon as you make me aware of your needs, we can work with the office of Services for Students with Disabilities to help us determine appropriate accommodations. I will treat any information you provide as private and confidential. See http://www.umich.edu/~sswd/<http://www.umich.edu/~sswd/> for more information about services for students with disabilities.

RELIGIOUS OBSERVATION: This class observes University defined holidays (such as Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Fall break). Because other days may be of more significance than a University-designated holiday, please inform me as soon as possible if a class day or due date for a class assignment conflicts with your observance of a holiday important to you. I will work with you to accommodate your needs.

TOPICS AND READING ASSIGNMENTS BY CLASS SESSION

CLASS 1 September 3 Introduction to Curricula in Higher Education

On CTools:

Lattuca, L. R & Stark. J.S. (2009). Chapter 1, Defining Curriculum: An Academic Plan. In Shaping the College Curriculum: Academic Plans in context (pp. 1 – 22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Course-Level Plan:

Berrett, D. (2012). 3 colleges’ different approaches shape learning in Econ 101. Chronicle of Higher Education, A6-A9.

Program-Level Plan:

EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014 7

Terry, M.A., Goodman, R. M., Sharma, RA. K. & Jaros, K. J. (2007). Transforming a public health curriculum for the 21st century. In J. Branche, J. Mullennix, & Cohn, E. R. (Eds.) Diversity across the Curriculum: A Guide for Faculty in Higher Education, (pp. 136-144). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Continued on next page

College- Level Plans:

St. Johns College, Program overview video: http://www.youtube.com/stjohnscollege and Four Year Reading List: http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/academic/ANreadlist.shtml

Kliewer, R. (1999). Interdisciplinary Education at Hampshire College: Bringing People Together Around Ideas,” in Reinventing Ourselves: Interdisciplinary Education, Collaborative Learning, and Experimentation in Higher Education. Hampshire Program Overview Hampshire College Curriculum Roadmap

Class 2 September 10 Sociocultural Influences: Changing Views of Knowledge

CTools:Willis, J. W. (2007). History and the context of paradigm development. In Foundations of Qualitative Research: Interpretive and Critical Approaches, (pp. 27-65). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reuben, J. A. (1996). Chapter 1: The Unity of Truth. In The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality (p. 17-35). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Reuben, J. A. (1996). Chapter 2: Science and Religion Reconsidered. In The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality (p. 36-60). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Reuben, J. A. (1996). Conclusion. In The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality (p. 267-269). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Best, S. & Kellner, D. (1997). The time of the posts. In The Postmodern Turn, (pp. 3 – 37). New York: The Guilford Press.

CLASS 3 September 17 Curricular Purposes and Content: Diversification, Part I

CTools:

Review curriculum examples discussed in first class; they will help us ground this discussion.

Hutchins, R. M. (1936). Grammar, rhetoric, and Mr. Dewey. The Social Frontier, 3 (23), 137-139. http://www.ditext.com/hutchins/hut-r1.html

Dewey, J (1936). Rationality in education. The Social Frontier, 3 (21), 71-73. http://www.ditext.com/dewey/dewey1.html

Dewey, J (1936). President Hutchins’ proposal to remake higher education. The Social Frontier, 3 (22), 103-104. http://www.ditext.com/dewey/dewey2.htmlEDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014 8

Hutchins, R. M. (1936). The dilemmas of the higher learning. In The higher learning in America, (pp. 33-58). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Continued on next page

Hutchins, R. M. (1936). General education. In The higher learning in America, (pp. 59-87). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Dewey, J. (1938). Traditional vs. progressive education (pp. 17-23); The need of a theory of experience (pp.25-31); Criteria of experience (pp. 33-50); The meaning of purpose (app. 67-72). In Experience and Education. New York: Simon and Schuster. (NOTE: divided into 2 pdfs)

The Harvard Committee on the Objectives of a General Education in a Free Society. (1945). Theory of general education. In General education in a free society: Report of the Harvard Committee (pp. 42-78). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (NOTE: the entire book is on CTools)

Lagemann, E. C. (2003). The Challenge of Liberal Education: Past, Present, and Future, Liberal Education. Retrieved from www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-sp03/le-sp03feature.cfm

Humphreys, D. (2009). College outcomes for work, life, and citizenship. Liberal Education, 14 – 22.

Curriculum Example:

Connecting Work and Learning at the University of Iowa (2014, March). AAC&U News.

CLASS 4 September 24 Curricular Purposes and Content: Diversification, Part II DUE - Assignment 1 is due on Monday, Sept. 29 at 4 pm (hard copy and upload to CTools)

CTools:Bloom, A. (1987). Introduction: Our virtue. In The Closing of the American Mind (p. 25-43). New York: Simon and Schuster.

Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity, Group Identity, and Citizenship Education in a Global Age. Educational Researcher, 37(3), 129-139.

Giroux, H. (1992). Decentering the canon: Refiguring disciplinary and pedagogical boundaries. In Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education (pp. 89-110). New York: Routledge.

Nussbaum, M. C. (1997). Citizens of the world. In Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal education (pp. 50-84). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Berkowitz, P. (2009). Conservatism and the college curriculum. Wall Street Journal Online. Retrieved January 6, 2013 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124484718091311321.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle

Kiley, K. (2011, May 19). Decline of “Western Civ”? Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/05/19/national_association_of_scholars_report_finds_no_mandatory_western_civilization_courses_at_top_universities

Ricketts, G., Wood, P. W., Balch, S. H. & Thorne, A. (2011). The Vanishing West: 1964-2010. Princeton, NJ: National Association of Scholars.

EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014 9

Continued on next page

Curriculum Examples: Hatcher, R. (2007). Diversity and discipline: Approaching French literary studies. In J. Branche, J.

Mullennix, & Cohn, E. R. (Eds.), Diversity across the Curriculum: A Guide for Faculty in Higher Education, (pp. 88-93). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Also Terry et al. from Week 1 readings

CLASS 5 October 1 Accountability and Accreditation

CTools:

American Council on Education (2012). Assuring Academic Quality in the 21st Century: Self-Regulation in a New Era. Washington, DC: Author.

Scanlon, E., & McComis, M. S. (2010). Accreditation and accountability. In G. Hentsche, V. Lechuga, & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), For-Profit Colleges and Universities: Their Markets, Regulation, Performance, and Place in Higher Education (pp. 109-144). Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing.

Gaston, P. (2014). Accreditation's alchemy hour: Riding the wave of innovation. Liberal Education, 100(2). Retrieved 8.19.14 from http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-sp14/gaston.cfm

Gaston, P. (2014). Questions that should be frequently asked. In Higher education accreditation: how it's changing, why it must (pp. 5-25) Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Provezia, S. (2010). Regional Accreditation and Student Learning Outcomes: Mapping the Territory. University of Illinois: National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.

Shavelson, R. J. (2010). Higher-Education Accountability Outside the United States. In Measuring College Learning Responsibly: Accountability in a New Era (pp. 161-183). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

CLASS 6 October 8 Organizational Contexts

CTools:Lattuca & Stark (2009): Chapter 3, Internal Influences: College and University Contexts (NOTE: CSHPE students may find this chapter useful as a review; others will find it useful as a primer on how colleges and universities are structured and how they work.)

American Association of University Professors (2010). Tenure and Teaching Intensive Appointments. AAUP Bulletin, September 2010. Washington, DC: AAUP.

(NOTE: Please pay particular attention to pp. 89-92 and skim the rest.)

Tierney, W. G., & Lechuga, V. (2010). Differences in academic work at traditional and for-profit postsecondary institution. In G. Hentsche, V. Lechuga, & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), For-Profit Colleges and

EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014 10

Universities: Their Markets, Regulation, Performance, and Place in Higher Education (pp. 71-90). Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing.

Continued on next page

Chronicle of Higher Education Special Report on For Profit Education (see multiple articles in single file)

Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on Demand: Online Education in the United States, 2009. Boston: Babson Survey Research Group.

Wilson, R. (2012, October 14). 2 tracks for faculty. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved on 8.19.14 fro http://chronicle.com/article/2-Tracks-for-Faculty/135050/

If you are unfamiliar with the concept of academic freedom, please read this brief explanation: American Association of University Professors. 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic

Freedom and Tenure with 1970 Interpretive Comments. Washington, DC: AAUP.

CLASS 7 October 15 Disciplinary Contexts and Integrative Learning

DUE TODAY - Assignment 2: Proposal for Course Paper

CTools:Lattuca & Stark (2009), Chapter 4, Internal Influences: Academic Fields

Davis, J. R. (1995). The rationale for interdisciplinary courses: The problem of specialization. In Interdisciplinary Courses and Team Teaching: New Arrangements for Learning (pp. 23-44). Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press.

Nelson Laird, T. F., Shoup, R., Kuh, G. D. & Schwarz, M. J. (2008). The Effects of Discipline on Deep Approaches to Student Learning and College Outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 49, 469-494.

Labaree, D. F. (2006). Mutual Subversion: A Short History of the Liberal and the Professional in American Higher Education. History of Education Quarterly, 46(1), vi, 1-15.

Curriculum Example: Abbott, W. & Nantz, K. A. (2012). Building students’ integrative capacities: A case study in

economics and history. Issues in Integrative Studies, 19-47.

CLASS 8 October 22 Creating Academic Plans: Instructors’ Planning and Decision-Making

CTools:Lattuca & Stark: (2009), Chapter 5, Creating Academic Plans

Amundsen, C., Weston, C. & McAlpine, L. (2008). Concept mapping to support university academics’ analysis of course content. Studies in Higher Education, 33(6), 2008, 633–652.

EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014 11

Berrett, D. (2012, May 4). The imperfect art of designing online courses. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B11-B12. Retrieved on 8.19.14 from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Imperfect-Art-of-Designing/131671/

Continued on next page

Hora, M. T. (2012) Organizational Factors and Instructional Decision-Making: A Cognitive Perspective. Review of Higher Education, 35(2), 207–235.

Ferrare, J. J., & Hora, M. T. (2012). Cultural Models of Teaching and Learning: Challenges and Opportunities for Undergraduate Math and Science Education (WCER Working Paper No. 2012-8). Retrieved from University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research website:http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/papers.php

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Backward design. In, Understanding by design (expanded 2nd ed.) (pp. 13-34). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Jaschik, S. (2010, November 8). Constant Curricular Change. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2010/11/08/pod

CLASS 9 October 29 Learning, Part I: Learner as Individual

Required Text:Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (1998). Behaviorism. In Perspectives on Learning (5th ed.) (pp. 21-32). New York: Teachers College Press.

Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (1998). Problem solving, insight, and activity. In Perspectives on Learning (5th ed.) (pp. 33-40). New York: Teachers College Press.

Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (1998). Piagetian Structures and Psychological Constructivism. In Perspectives on Learning (5th ed.) (pp. 41-51). New York: Teachers College Press.

Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (1998). The Cognitive Science Approach. In Perspectives on Learning (5th ed.) (pp. 76-89). New York: Teachers College Press.

Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (1998). Transfer of learning. In Perspectives on Learning (5th ed.) (pp. 76-86). New York: Teachers College Press.

CTools:Entwistle, N. J., & Peterson, E. R. (2005). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: Relationships with study behavior and influences of learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 407-428.

Curriculum Example: Glenn, D. (2010, February 7). How students can improve by studying themselves. Chronicle of

Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Struggling-Students-Can/64004/

EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014 12

CLASS 9 November 5 Learning, Part II: The Learner in Context

Text:Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (1998). Social Aspects of Learning. In Perspectives on Learning (4th ed.) (pp.

53-66). New York: Teachers College Press.

CTools:Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaboration, conversation, and reacculturation. In Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge (pp. 3-20). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.

Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Education as conversation. In Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge (pp. 133- 148). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

Paris, J. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97.

Bailey, F. & Pranksy, K. (2003). Are “Other People’s Children” constructivist learners too? Theory into Practice 44(1), 19-26.

Rose, M. (1989). The Politics of Remediation. Lives on the Boundary: A Moving Account of the Struggles and Achievements of America’s Educationally Underprepared (pp. 167-204). NY: Penguin Books.

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of Research in Education, 23, 1-24.

For a critique of claims made regarding situated learning, see: Anderson, J. R, Reder, L. M., & Simon H.A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational

Researcher, 25(4), 5-11.

CLASS 10 November 12 Instructional Processes

Due on Friday, 11/14 - Assignment 4: Course Paper Component: Annotated Bibliography

CTools: Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Experiencing a paradigm shift through assessment. In M. E. Huba & J. E. Freed, Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning (pp. 1-31). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Freeman, S. Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performances in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111

EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014 13

Prince, M. J. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93 (3), 223 231. ‐

Continued on next page

CHOOSE to TWO of the following SETS of articles: 1) Decoding the disciplines, 2) SCALE-UP, or 3) Universal Design

Decoding the Disciplines: Middendorf, J. & Pace, D. (2004). Decoding the disciplines: A model for helping students learn

disciplinary ways of thinking. In D. Pace & J. Middendorf (Eds.), Decoding the Disciplines: Helping Students Learn Disciplinary Ways of Thinking (pp. 1-12). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Vol. 98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pace, D. (2004). Decoding the reading of history: An example of the process. In D. Pace & J. Middendorf (Eds.), Decoding the Disciplines: Helping Students Learn Disciplinary Ways of Thinking (pp. 13-21). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Vol. 98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

SCALE-UP: Beichner, R. J. Saul, J. M., Abbott, D. S., Morse, J. J., Deardorff, D.L., Allain, R. J., Bonham, S. W.,

Dancy, M. H., & Risley, J. S. The Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) Project. Retrieved December 21, 2009 from http://www.compadre.org/PER/per_reviews/media/volume1/SCALE-UP-2007.pdf

Beichner, R. J. (2008). The SCALE-UP Project: A Student-Centered, Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs. Invited white paper for the National Academy of Sciences.

Universal Design for Inclusion: Mino, J. J. (2004). Planning for inclusion: Using universal instructional design to create a learner-

centered community college classroom. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37(2), 154-160. Hackman, H. W. & Rauscher, L. (2004) A pathway to access for all: Exploring the connections

between universal instructional design and social justice education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37 (2), 114–123.

Recommended Reading to expand understanding of instructional approaches: Lattuca & Stark (2009) Chapter 7, Instructional Processes

November 19 NO CLASS - ASHEDue on Wednesday, 11/19 - Assignment 4: Course Paper Component: Critical Review

CLASS 11 November 26 Institutional Improvement: Assessment and Program Review

CTools:

Case Study: Assessment of student learning at Olin College of Engineering Case Study: The Core Council at The Pennsylvania State University

EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014 14

Astin, A. W. (2013, September 6). The promise and peril of outcomes assessment. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A53-A54. . Retrieved 8.19.14 from http://chronicle.com/article/The-PromisePeril-of/141337/

Continued on next page

Berrett, D (2014, April 21). Colleges back away from using tests to assess student learning. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 8.19.14 from http://chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Back-Away-From-Using/146073/

Ewell, P., Paulson, K., and Kinzie, J. (2011). Down and in: Assessment practices at the program level. University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign: National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.

Hutchings, P. (2010, April). Opening doors to faculty involvement in assessment. Occasional Paper #4. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.

Sternberg, R. J., Penn, J. & Hawkins, C (2009). Assessing college student learning: Evaluating alternative models, using multiple methods. Washington, DC: AAC&U.

Kolowich. S. (2014, August 15). Can universities use data to fix what ails the lecture? Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A20-A23. Retrieved 9.2.14 from http://chronicle.com/article/Can-Colleges-Use-Data-to-Fix/148307/ (Link if you want to read the 245 comments!)

Curriculum Examples: Burnett, M. N. & Williams, J. W. (2009). Institutional uses of rubrics and e-portfolios: Spelman

College and Rose-Hulman Institute. Peer Review, pp. 24-27.

Recommended Reading to expand understanding of evaluation of academic plans:

Lattuca & Stark (2009) Chapter 8, Evaluating and Adjusting Academic Plans

Class 12 December 3 Curricular Change

CTools:

Lattuca & Stark (2009) Chapter 10, Models and Strategies for Curricular Change

Graham, R. (2012). Achieving excellence in engineering education: the ingredients of successful change. London: Royal Academy of Engineering. (Read through page 25)

Henderson, C., Finkelstein, N. & Beach A. (2009). Beyond Dissemination in College Science Teaching: An Introduction to Four Core Change Strategies. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(5), 18-25.

Kezar, A. (2012). The Path to Pedagogical Reform in the Sciences: Engaging Mutual Adaptation and Social Movement Models of Change. Liberal Education, 98(1). Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-wi12/kezar.cfm

EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014 15

Adelman, C., Ewell, P. T., Gaston, P., & Schneider, C. G. (2014). The Degree Qualifications Profile 2.0: Defining US Degrees through Demonstration and Documentation of College Learning. Liberal Education, 100(2). Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-sp14/adelman.cfm

Wright, Cook, & O’Neal. (2010). Developing and renewing department chair leadership. In L. B. Nilson & J. E. Miller (Eds.). To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional, and Organizational Development (pp. 278-291). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

CLASS 13 December 10 Present and Future Faculty: Instructional Development

Course Paper Due on Friday, December 12 at 4 pm

CTools:

June, A. W. (2011, May 15). Universities turn to graduate instructors to clear course bottlenecks. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Grad-Students-Take-the-Podium/127542/

Bok, D. (2013, November 15). We must prepare Ph.D. students for the complicated art of teaching. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A36-A37. Retrieved 8.19.14 from http://chronicle.com/article/We-Must-Prepare-PhD-Students/142893/

Pruitt-Logan, A. S., & Gaff, J. G. (2004). Preparing future faculty: Changing the culture of doctoral education (pp. 177-193). In D. H. Wulff & A. E. Austin (Eds.), Paths to the Professoriate: Strategies for Enriching the Preparation of Future Faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

June, A. W. (2014, May 9). Navigating culture shock: Ph.D. students at Stanford learn about faculty life at San Jose State U., a campus quite unlike their own. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A26-A29. Retrieved on 8.19.14 from http://chronicle.com/article/Navigating-Culture-Shock/146365/

EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014 16