Programme Educational Philosophy/Models

Is there a need for a new (or revision to existing) programme (data collection):

At the very initial stage in a programme’s existence, one might ask oneself: Is there a need for this new programme (or a significant change to an existing one)? Diamond (1998) among others, describes this as carrying out a ‘needs analysis’. He provides in his practical curriculum design book some useful question to consider in a needs analysis of a programme. For example:

What are the needs of society in which your educational programme exists? HEA website; IUA Website ; IUQB website
Is the programme a College/School priority?
Is there a solid base of academic expertise in the College/University to support the programme?
Are there sufficient resources to succeed with a new programme?
What feedback do you have from current students and other stakeholders about existing curricula? ….etc…
What information do you need to gather for the UCD Programme proposal form? (UCD Framework and guidelines on Programme)

As a resource, see also example of one of Diamond’s needs analysis forms (resource Needs Analysis Form)

What do we (programme team) believe and value about the student’s educational experience on this programme?

Having considered that there is indeed a need for a new (or revised) programme, it is important (Toohey, 2000; Stark, 2000; O’Neill, 2010) to draw together the programme team to consider/discuss your views on how students learn best in this context. Having an educational philosophy statement at the beginning of a programme can communicate to students and academic staff the rationale for particular teaching, learning and assessment approaches. A useful exercise for a team to carry out related to this can be seen in resource Educational Philosophy Exercise. The questions in this activity link with some of the educational philosophies (see below) and from these the learning theories and ideas for teaching/learning and assessment approaches can be developed (see graphic below). See Diamond (1998); Smith and Ragan (2005) and Carlile and Jordan (2002) for further readings on this.

What programme/curriculum models suit our context?

For ease of reading, please click here for a detailed resource on curriculum models.

Whereas as an educational philosophy, gives an overall statement of what we believe and value educational, a curriculum model gives more practical guidance on the approaches to take. Neary (2003a, p39) highlighted two commonly referred to, but polarised curriculum models, one which emphasises ‘plans and intentions (The Product Model) and one which emphasises activities and effects’ (The Process Model) (See Graphic below).

Programme models

However, there are a range of different models that individually or collectively could suit your programme. Identifying and being consistent with these models will help support cohesion and clarity of approaches in your programme. For example, it is typical in some programmes that the early years may have a more technical-scientific approach, whereas later years may have a more experiential approach. However, in relation to student engagement could these models be more integrated and streamlined across a programme? (For further details on other Curriculum Models, see resource Overview of Curriculum Models.

Are there any requirements for entry, or student support, that we should be considering in the planning of this programme?

At this early stage it is also useful to consider the needs of the students on this programme.
Do you need to develop particular pathways to accommodate students with different prior knowledge?
Do you need to develop a suite of electives in order to challenge students to achieve a range of different outcomes?
Should you consider a greater choice of assessment approaches, to be flexible with different students?
Consider how your programme links with entry and exit levels in the National Framework for Qualifications.

Printable Resources

References

Biggs, J (2004) Constructing Learning by Aligning Teaching: Constructive Alignment, in, Teaching for Quality Learning at University. pp11-33. 2nd Edition. Berkshire: SRHE and Open University Press.
Diamond, R.M. (1998) Designing and Assessing Courses and Curricula: A Practical Guide. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fink, L. D.. 2003. Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. See also: http://www.deefinkandassociates.com/GuidetoCourseDesignAug05.pdf
Knight, P.T. (2001). Complexity and Curriculum: a process approach to curriculum-making. Teaching in Higher Education, 6 (3), 369-381.
Lea, S.J., Stephenson, D., and Troy, J. (2003) Higher Education Students’ Attitudes to Student Centred Learning: Beyond ‘educational bulimia’. Studies in Higher Education, 28 (3): 321-34.
Land , R. et al (2005) Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (3): implications for course design and evaluation
http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsld/isl/isl2004/abstracts/conceptual_papers/ISL04-pp53-64-Land-et-al.pdf (accessed 11th January 2010)
Neary, M. (2003a). Curriculum concepts and research. In Curriculum studies in post-compulsory and adult education: A teacher’s and student teacher’s study guide. (pp33-56). Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd.
Neary, M. (2003b). Curriculum models and developments in adult education. In Curriculum studies in post-compulsory and adult education: A teacher’s and student teacher’s study guide. (pp57-70). Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd.
O’Neill, G. McMahon, T. (2005) Student-centred learning: What does it mean for student and lectures. In: Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching.
O’Neill, G. (2010) Initiating Curriculum Revision: Exploring the Practices of Educational Developers. The International Journal for Academic Development. 15(1), 61-71.
Ornstein A.C. & Hunkins, F.P. (2009). Curriculum foundations, principles and issues. (5th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Smith, P.L., Ragan, T.J. (2005) Foundations of Instructional Design. In, Instructional Design. NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. pp17-37.
Stark, J.S. (2000). Planning introductory college courses: Content, context and form, Instructional Science 28, 413–438.
Subic, A. & Maconachie, D. (1997). Strategic curriculum design: An engineering case study. European Journal of Engineering Education, 22(1), 19-33.
Toohey, S. (2000). Beliefs, values and ideologies in course design. In Designing courses for higher education. (pp44-69).
Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press