This article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 05 October 2014, At: 16:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal for AcademicDevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rija20

An integrated approach to developing andimplementing learning‐centred curriculaHarry Hubball a & Helen Burt aa University of British Columbia , CanadaE-mail:Published online: 17 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Harry Hubball & Helen Burt (2004) An integrated approach to developing andimplementing learning‐centred curricula, International Journal for Academic Development, 9:1, 51-65, DOI:10.1080/1360144042000296053

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360144042000296053

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal for Academic DevelopmentVol. 9, No. 1, May 2004, pp. 51–65

ISSN 1360–144X (print)/ISSN 1470–1324 (online)/04/010051–15© 2004 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI 10.1080/1360144042000296053

An Integrated Approach to Developing and Implementing Learning-centred Curricula

Harry Hubball

*

and Helen Burt

University of British Columbia, Canada

Taylor and Francis LtdRIJA100093.sgm10.1080/1360144042000296053International Journal for Academic Development0000-0000 (print)/0000-0000 (online)Original Article2004Taylor & Francis Ltd91000000May 2004HarryHubballharry.hubball@ubc.ca

The purpose of this article is to provide a critical review of the motivating factors, processes and outcomespertaining to learning-centred curriculum reform in higher education. A case study example is provided fromthe Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of British Columbia. Although academic units onuniversity campuses tend to present many unique contextual challenges, and are at different stages in curric-ulum re-design, useful lessons can be learned across settings without “re-inventing the wheel,” or falling intosimilar implementation problems. A flexible framework, guiding principles and strategic approach to develop-ing and implementing learning-centred curricula are provided to assist academic developers. Curricularreform has implications for learning communities, planning, assessment and programming in highereducation.

Introduction: Curricular Reform as a Process of Transition in Higher Education

Over the past decade, in many parts of the world, universities, faculties, schools and depart-ments in higher education have been undergoing significant curricular reform (Ganderton,1996; Gibbons, 2000; Green, 1995; Mok, 1999). Globally, critical factors around universitycampuses influencing this process, include:

●

social and economic challenges which call for increasing efficiency and accountability,while responding to the pressures of increasing student enrolment, shrinking budgets,competition and “having to do more with less” in higher education (Daniel, 1993;Schneider & Shoenberg, 1999);

●

significant pedagogical shifts from teaching-centred to learning-centred approaches (Barr& Tag, 1995; Jansen & Christie, 1999);

●

increasing importance of Prior Learning Assessment (PLA), attributes of graduates and learn-ing outcomes, interdisciplinarity, interprofessionalism, internationalisation, work-based

*

Corresponding author. Department of Curriculum Studies, 2125 Main Mall, Faculty of Education, TheUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Email: harry.hubball@ubc.ca

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

43 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

52

H. Hubball and H. Burt

learning, educational technologies, and credit accumulation and transfer (Shulman, 1999;Trowler, 1996);

●

“triggering opportunities” (Ewell, 1997; Knight & Trowler, 2000). For example, universityinitiatives to re-define the purpose of undergraduate education, external reviews, staffing/funding/programming crisis.

The sheer nature and scope of these factors continue to pose considerable challenges to insti-tutions, curriculum committees and faculty members responsible for curricula design andimplementation. Not surprisingly, therefore, there have been a wide range of interpretations,practices and reactions to learning-centred curricula reform (Drummond, Nixon, & Wiltshire,1998; Green, 1999; Kemp & Seagraves, 1995). At the University of British Columbia (UBC),Canada, for example, prompted by a strategic institutional visioning process and subsequentdevelopment of an Academic Plan (VP Academic and Provost, 2000), all academic units oncampus have been challenged to re-examine their curriculum and pedagogical practices in thecontext of the University’s explicit goals and commitment toward learning and undergraduateeducation. Although academic units on university campuses tend to present many uniquecontextual challenges, and are at different stages in curriculum re-design, useful lessons can belearned across settings without “re-inventing the wheel,” or falling into similar implementa-tion problems. This paper provides a case study example of the motivating factors, processesand outcomes pertaining to curriculum reform within the UBC Faculty of PharmaceuticalSciences. A flexible framework, guiding principles and strategic approach to implementinglearning-centred curricula are provided to assist academic developers in higher education.

Learning-centred Curricula

Although not an entirely new concept in higher education, a learning-centred approach tocurricular reform is part of a larger process of educational change (Hubball & Poole, 2003).In order to meet the diverse needs and circumstances of learning communities, no singularcurriculum model, implementation strategy, nor approach to learning will suit all academicsettings. The underlying assumptions about a learning-centred approach to curricular reformare that: representative students, faculty, and stakeholders in the broader context should beactive participants in the curricular reform process; that academic units are at different stagesin curricular reform and progress at different rates; that curricular reform should honourinclusion of a wide range of teaching and learning strategies; and that curricular reform withinan academic unit is both an individual and social contextual process (Barab & Duffy, 2000;Barr & Tag, 1995; Gold, 1997; Kupperschmidt & Burns, 1997; Schneider & Schoenberg,1999; Shulman, 1999).

Essentially, learning-centred curricula place emphases on

learning communities

,

curriculumintegration, diverse pedagogies

and

clearly defined learning outcomes

. Learning outcomes focus onwhat students are expected to know and be able to do (for example, demonstrate criticalthinking, responsible use of ethical principles, problem-solving skills) in the context of a fieldof study, and are designed to be assessable, transferable, and relevant to learners’ lives asworkers and citizens in a diverse world (Baron, 1996; Battersby, 1997; Clanchy & Ballard,1995; Kanpol, 1995). In addition, the following benefits present a compelling rationale forcurricula developed from a learning-centred approach:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

43 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Learning-centred Curricula

53

1. informs learners of what they can expect to achieve from a program, so they can organisetheir time and efforts;

2. communicates curriculum/program goals in a meaningful way to a broader community;3. outcomes-based curriculum helps to determine the extent to which learning has been

accomplished;4. guides curriculum committees (within resource constraints) to determine program(s) of

study and course offerings;5. guides instructors when they are designing course objectives, content, delivery and assess-

ment strategies.

In practice, learning-centred curricula require a community of students/learners to be able tomake choices within a responsive (that is, to diverse learners’ needs, critical teaching andlearning issues and available resources) carefully structured, and guided learning environ-ment. Thus, in the broader context of significant educational reform, and in order to respondto the diverse needs and circumstances of students, faculty and society, the UBC Faculty ofPharmaceutical Sciences, embarked on a process to re-design and implement a learning-centred curriculum.

An Integrated Approach to Developing and Implementing Learning-centred Curricula

The processes of developing and implementing learning-centred curricula are complex andintricately inter-related, that cannot be treated as discrete entities, nor can they each beconsidered the responsibility of completely different people. Kupperschmidt and Burns(1997) suggested that focusing on curriculum revision as a process of transition (that is,requires a period of incremental adaptation) rather than radical change may help alleviatefaculty anxiety or resistance. An integrated approach to developing and implementing learn-ing-centred curricula combines both pedagogical and organisational change strategies(Diamond, 1997, 1998; Erickson, 2002; Fullan, 2001; Green & Kreuter, 1999; Murphy,1997; Perrier, Stinson, & Milter, 1996; Pietersen, 2002; Wiles & Bondi, 2002; Winslade,Pugsley, Lavack, & Strand, 1995).

A conceptual framework (Figure 1) and a strategic approach was applied to curriculumreform in the UBC Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences. This flexible and iterative organisa-tional framework takes into account the learning context, and integrates comprehensive strat-egies for curriculum reform in higher education.

Figure 1. An integrated framework for developing and implementing learning-centred curricula in higher education: Implications for learning communities, planning, assessment and programming

Practical strategies (Tables 1–4) for each component of the framework were drawn from acombination of literature sources and specific experiences (focus group interviews, workshopassignments, discussion fora) with curriculum committees from a wide range of UBC facul-ties engaged in curriculum reform. Essentially, this framework provides (i) a benchmark foran analysis of needs to determine the current status of curriculum within an academic unit,(ii) guidelines for direction and progression in the curriculum re-design process, and (iii)strategies for implementation.

Learning context strategies

refer to critical implementation initiatives (for example, adequatesupport; leadership qualities; teamwork; representative input; responsiveness, incentives andsources of reward) that empower the learning community (collectively and individually) to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

43 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

54

H. Hubball and H. Burt

engage in curriculum re-design (Baker, 1999; Barab & Duffy, 2000; Cox, 2001; Gold, 1997;Middendorf, 1999; Nolinske, 1999).

Planning strategies

refer to the development of global(overall curriculum) and specific (program-specialisation) learning outcomes (for example,critical thinking, responsible use of ethical principles, communication skills) which, in part,drive the curricula, teaching and learning process (Baird, 1996; Clanchy & Ballard, 1995;Lockhart & Borland, 2001).

Assessment strategies

refer to the development of a range ofmethods (for example, capstone projects, portfolios, student presentations, exams) andprocedures used to assess and evaluate student learning and curriculum effectiveness(processes, impact and outcomes) (Adamcik, Hurley, & Erramouspe, 1996; Brown, Bull, &Pendlebury, 1997; Diamond, 1998; Shavelson & Huang, 2003); and

programming strategies

refer to the development and integration of diverse learning strategies (for example, interdis-ciplinary/core learning modules, intra-program specialisation modules, and individual coursework modules—learning technologies, problem-based learning, lectures, independent studyand field experiences) in which students can acquire, integrate and apply knowledge indiverse settings (Brandt, Clements, & Piascik, 1998; Clarke & Hubball, 2001; Poindexter,2003; Raman-Wilms, 2001).

Stage-specific Intervention Strategies

While the curriculum development team was sensitive to addressing all components of thecurriculum re-design framework at all times during the reform process, it is important tonote that the UBC Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences (like various other UBC faculties,schools and departments) progressed through critical stages of curriculum reform, albeit atdifferent rates. There was firstly an

awareness stage

(aware of groundswell of curricular

Figure 1. An integrated framework for developing and implementing learning-centred curricula in higher education: Implications for learning communities, planning, assessment and programming

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

43 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Learning-centred Curricula

55

reform in alternative settings though no real energy or resources committed to curriculumchange) Secondly there was an

initiative stage

(interest and commitment toward curriculumreform, initiate Chair and key personnel to spearhead process); then a

mobilisation stage

(mobilise and empower learning community for curriculum reform, establish curriculumcommittee, and sub-committee working groups for strategic planning). This was followed by

Table 1. Implementing learning-centred curricula: Practical strategies for learning context

Learning context strategies

Curriculum redesign requires active support (financial, organisational, political) from Heads/administration. Effective leadership qualities of the Chair to engage the learning community are critical. Re-examine institutional visioning documents, accreditation requirements and/or expectations of the field regarding ability-based outcomes. Develop strong rationale and priority for curriculum re-design. Elevate status, reward and accountability for effective teaching within the academic unit.

Chair should seek input from stakeholders and conduct a comprehensive “needs assessment” to record current status of curriculum, available resources, vision, challenges, and input regarding expected learning outcomes on completion of a program of study. The “buy-in”—ownership. Ensure curriculum re-design is an open and inclusive process versus closed process administered by a select few. If necessary, consider a new, interactive and influential committee (inclusive of stakeholders), provide adequate support/time & workshop assistance. Develop short, intermediate and long-term curriculum goals.

Develop overall integration (vertical and horizontal) model for program “specializations”, as well as provide autonomy for specialisations to develop appropriate course offerings within curriculum. Reinforce learning-centred principles and benefits for graduates of faculty. Acknowledge complexity/challenge of curriculum re-design. Make visible available resources, constraints, and progress (e.g., notice board in lobby, website, e-mail communications, verbal presentation at faculty meetings). Provide adequate assistance/support for change.

Address unit-specific factors that influence well-being in the university workplace. Provide collective strategies and individual opportunities to enhance a healthy academic workplace environment.

Acknowledge past history and efforts regarding curriculum development. Engage faculty in dialogue regarding a rationale, benefits, significant differences and examples of real changes that occur from a learning-centred approach to curriculum re-design

“Making Teaching Count.” Convey commitment of academic unit toward teaching excellence (e.g., hiring priorities, reward system). Provide informational resources and open meetings/workshop support.

Provide faculty with interactive communication access to curriculum reform process (e.g., web-site, e-mail, suggestion boxes in key locations, interactive curriculum committee representatives).

Engage faculty in identifying and acknowledging barriers (individual and collective) and developing potential solutions for curricular reform. Provide adequate support and on-going workshop assistance for faculty regarding learning-centred approaches to course design, assessment of student learning, and teaching methods in higher education.

Integrate curriculum development and scholarship of teaching into tenure/promotion process.

Use multiple communications to update and to elicit faculty input. Provide visible curriculum notice-board with flow chart events, progress reports, challenges/issues etc.

Consider curriculum development as an on-going multifaceted process. Revisit and utilise faculty input, monitor progress, critically evaluate, refine.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

43 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

56

H. Hubball and H. Burt

an

action plan stage

(‘buy-in’ readiness and integration of responsive outcomes, assessmentstrategies and learning modules developed); and, finally a

practice stage

(on-going systematicanalysis, refinement, further development and dissemination of curriculum reform process).

Table 2. Implementing learning-centred curricula: Practical strategies for planning

Planning strategies

(Developing clearly defined curriculum-wide learning outcomes)

●

Develop/brainstorm desirable learning outcomes—compare with other departments. Adapt learning outcome templates to suit needs and circumstances, versus “re-invent wheel” or rigid compliance.

●

Develop responsive, higher order and accountable learning outcomes versus narrow/simplistic measurement-driven outcomes or, in contrast, lofty outcomes without due consideration for assessment and evaluation. Consider global (related to core program) and specific (related to program streams) learning outcomes from the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains. For example, nine ability-based global outcomes in the faculty of pharmaceutical sciences included: critical thinking, scientific inquiry, mathematical skills, independent learning skills, information access and evaluation skills, ethical behaviour, communication skills, social awareness, interpersonal and teamwork skills, and apply and integrate knowledge.

●

Overly rigid, narrow or prescriptive curriculum learning outcomes are often undesirable, and unlikely to be faithfully implemented in practice. Curricular learning outcomes, therefore, should be developed in response to the needs of faculty, students and society, and be sufficiently flexible so that they can be realistically accountable and adapted to local situations and changing circumstances (Battersby, 1997; Green & Kreuter, 1991; Kanpol, 1995).

●

Integrate learning outcomes with evaluation, programming and contextual factors.

●

Seek workshop support if required.

Table 3. Implementing learning-centred curricula: Practical strategies assessment

Assessment strategies

(Range of methods used to assess curriculum-wide learning outcomes)

●

Integrate learning outcomes with evaluation, programming and contextual factors.

●

Consider a variety of authentic assessment techniques (e.g., presentations, portfolios, projects, exams).

●

Develop criteria and standards to differentiate levels of achievement.

●

Develop formative and summative evaluations, informal and formal evaluations, teacher-centred and learner-centred evaluations.

●

Develop an assessment and evaluation framework to monitor curriculum learning outcomes. For example, in the faculty of pharmaceutical sciences all courses are required to implement curriculum learning outcomes; course syllabi is required for submission to curriculum committee; formal feedback is elicited from students, faculty and external peer-review at key stages of the curriculum; core learning modules are placed strategically in the curriculum (i.e., interdisciplinary caps courses, capstone project, portfolio module).

●

Provide time/workshop support for faculty regarding learning-centred approaches to assessment and evaluation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

43 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Learning-centred Curricula

57

Figure 2 illustrates the progressive, though cyclical and messy realities of curriculum reform,from the

awareness stage

through to the

practice stage

.

Figure 2. Diagram showing the progressive, though cyclical and unpredictable realities of curriculum reform

In addition to understanding the unique context in which an academic unit operates, there-fore, it is also important for academic developers to recognise the unit’s readiness and stage ofcurriculum reform. Generally, learning context strategies were especially important during the

awareness, initiative and mobilisation

stages

, whereas emphases on planning, assessment andprogramming strategies tended to be more relevant during the

action plan

stage

. Rigorousreflection and feedback strategies, in the form of program evaluation data, is most informative

Table 4. Implementing learning-centred curricula: Practical strategies for programming

Programming strategies

(Program streams, teaching methods/learning experiences driven by curriculum-wide learning outcomes)

●

Integrate learning outcomes and evaluation strategies to overall program(s) of study.

●

Develop program(s) of study including: sequencing, time phases, core courses, pre-req./electives.

●

Apply learning outcomes and evaluation strategies to program(s) of study.

●

Consider a variety of teaching/delivery strategies (teacher-centred, learner-centred, combined).

●

Consider innovative learning modules and broad-based pedagogies (e.g., cohort learning experiences, interdisciplinary study, portfolio development, problem-based and case-based learning, lecture /lab, self-directed research, collaborative research, web-based learning, community-based and field experiences, peer-teaching modules, student conferences) that are applied in an integrated manner.

●

Develop individual course offerings and apply learning outcomes and evaluation strategies.

●

Provide time/workshop support for faculty regarding learning-centred approaches to course design, assessment and instructional skills.

●

Curriculum development is an on-going process—revisit data, encourage input, monitor effectiveness, refine, seek workshop support if required.

Figure 2. Diagram showing the progressive, though cyclical and unpredictable realities of curriculum reform

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

43 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

58

H. Hubball and H. Burt

during the

practice

stage. Stage-specific intervention strategies, however, were particularlyuseful for assisting this academic unit through each of the stages of curriculum reform.

During the

awareness stage

, curriculum leaders (Deans, committee personnel) across campuswere exposed to a wide range of resources and current literature about the benefits of learning-centred curricula and best practice models, and encouraged to identify internal and externalmotivation (contextual) factors for curriculum reform. For example, the learning context in theUBC Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences includes 30 full-time equivalent faculty and 550undergraduate students in a four-year B.Sc. (Pharm) Program. Within the PharmaceuticalSciences program, there are five sub-disciplinary streams: Pharmaceutics, Pharmacology,Pharmaceutical Chemistry and Drug Metabolism, Clinical Pharmacy, and Pharmacy Practice.Students are required to complete at least one year of general sciences prior to admission tothe B.Sc. program. In conjunction, and influenced by the institutional Academic Plan, theUBC Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences in 1997/98 faced additional pressures for a majorcurriculum reform. These pressures originated from several sources:

●

Accreditation

—the current curriculum did not meet the requirements of the CanadianCouncil on Accreditation of Pharmacy Programs (CCAPP) that Pharmacy curricula bestructured around ability-based outcomes.

●

Students and Pharmacy Practitioners

—excessive student workload and general dissatisfactionwith a content-driven curriculum that did not prepare them well for Pharmacy practice.

●

Faculty

—faculty dissatisfaction with a highly traditional curriculum. The traditionalapproach to curriculum development within the faculty (not unlike most other faculties oncampus) tended to focus on a teaching-centred model driven by content and instructionalobjectives with very tenuous links between these objectives, curriculum integration, andad-hoc “evolved” course offerings. The overloaded, fragmented, and inflexible curriculumprovided very limited opportunity for different teaching and learning strategies to beemployed, and did not meet the learning needs and required abilities for graduates of theprogram.

During the

initiative stage

, a chair was elected to assemble a committee, to engage the wholeFaculty through open-dialogue and various communications, and to spearhead the re-designand implementation of a learning-centred curriculum to enable undergraduate students toacquire, integrate and apply knowledge, abilities and skills. To ensure that the curriculum re-design process in the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences was grounded in pedagogy and bestpractices, the curriculum Chair sought the assistance of a faculty member from Educationwith research and practical expertise in curriculum development, and teaching and learning inhigher education. The curriculum consultant had worked with a variety of multidisciplinaryunits on the UBC campus (for example, Agricultural Sciences, Dentistry, Forestry, HumanKinetics, Law, Integrated Life Sciences, Pharmaceutical Sciences, Plant Sciences, SenateCurriculum Committee,

UBC Faculty Certificate Program on Teaching and Learning in HigherEducation

, Wood Sciences). The consultant’s role in this context was not to tell the curricu-lum committee how to re-design its curriculum (neither would this have been possible, espe-cially in terms of content). Rather, by working collaboratively with the chair and curriculumcommittee, a conceptual framework and strategic approach was applied to engage theacademic unit in creating a learning community, to determine analysis of needs and collec-tively define, rationalise, re-design and implement a learning-centred curriculum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

43 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Learning-centred Curricula

59

Typically, university faculties and academic units embrace several sub-disciplines, eachwith their own distinct sub-culture and perspective of the main discipline. Thus, during the

mobilisation stage,

the entire faculty were engaged collectively, and through disciplinarystreams, in open-dialogue and needs analysis pertaining to the curriculum reform process.This was particularly effective through “Town hall” meetings (that is, discussion fora aboutcurriculum issues for faculty, administrators, students and professionals in the field), notice-board information about on-going issues and progress with the curriculum reform process,individual and focus group interviews with faculty members, and e-mail surveys and consulta-tion with student and professional groups.

To ensure a well-designed and cohesive program among various sub-disciplines requiresspecific attention to vertical and horizontal curriculum integration. During the

action planstage

, therefore, faculty members were organised by specific groupings and challenged todevelop flexible and responsive learning modules within the curriculum. For example,following development of the global (and specific) learning outcomes document within theUBC Pharmaceutical Sciences program, disciplinary-based ‘working groups’ were estab-lished to develop course streams over the four years of the program and integrate (verticalintegration) outcomes with learning experiences and assessment strategies within the sub-disciplinary field (Purkerson Hammer & Paulsen, 2001). Horizontal integration of knowl-edge and skills across the disciplines was co-ordinated by the curriculum committee andchair by designing case-based learning modules (entitled Cases in Pharmaceutical Sciences,CAPS) which students take continuously throughout the four-year program. The goal ofCAPS modules is to give the students opportunities to apply and integrate knowledge, skillsand attitudes being learned in the individual disciplinary streams to the solving of multidisci-plinary cases and problems. The complexity of the cases and problems in CAPS increases asthe students progress through the program. Figure 3 is a model that conceptualises howvertical and horizontal integration was conceived for student learning throughout the four-year Pharmaceutical Sciences program. This model indicates the importance given to thecore CAPS courses in years 1–4. These CAPS courses not only draw upon the expertise andissues of the sub-disciplines but they also build upon one another in each progressive yearthroughout the program. In addition, all nine ability-based outcomes are assessed through-out all four years of the curriculum. Table 5 provides examples of how ability-based learningoutcomes are connected to authentic methods of assessment and diverse learning moduleswithin the learning-centred curriculum.

Figure 3. A model conceptualizing vertical and horizontal integration throughout the four-year Pharmaceutical Sciences Program

The

practice stage

of curriculum reform is on-going and will result in a formal and detailedreview of the curriculum within a three-year period. These data will be comprised of process,impact and follow-up evaluations. Such evaluations provide a broad and long perspectivethrough which to investigate contextually-bound program processes and outcomes (Fullan,2001; Green & Kreuter, 1999; Hubball & Clarke, 2004; Kreber & Brook, 2001; Mills, 2000;Stark et al., 1997; Priest, 2001). Process evaluations focus on periodic assessments of issues ofimportance that occur throughout the duration of a program (for example, to what extent areprogram goals reflected in individual course learning experiences?). Impact evaluations focuson issues of importance that occur as a result of a program (for example, how did studentsapply their learning? What were the main strengths and weaknesses of the program?). Follow-up evaluations focus on issues of importance that occur as a result of the longer term (months,year) impact of a program (for example, how did the program contribute to your current

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

43 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

60

H. Hubball and H. Burt

development as a professional pharmacist?). Prior to the three-year review, disciplinary streamleaders are charged with collecting informal evaluation data (for example, self-reflections,feedback from colleagues, student evaluations of individual courses) and providing on-goingfeedback to the curriculum chair. In this way, progress with the whole program is co-ordinated and continually monitored.

Early Reflections on the Process of Learning-centred Curriculum Reform

Despite a thorough, well-coordinated and systematic approach to curriculum reform in theUBC Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, change was typically incremental and, at varioustimes throughout each stage created a great deal of anxiety for many faculty members as theyintermittently engaged with this challenging process, in addition to an otherwise demandingacademic workload. As would be expected by experienced educational developers, initialresistance was expressed by some individual faculty members who perceived student learningin the curriculum to be driven exclusively by exposure to required content (usually quantity),versus adopt general ability-based outcomes (divorced of content) to drive the curriculum.Through various faculty meetings, discussions and workshop experiences, it became moreclear to them that content and ability-based outcomes in a learning-centred curricula areinterdependent. Content is clearly that which differentiates one course from another,however, in a learning-centred curriculum, content is integrated with ability-based outcomesas the driving force for teaching and learning.

Figure 3. A model conceptualizing vertical and horizontal integration throughout the four-year Pharmaceutical Sciences Program

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

43 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Learning-centred Curricula

61

Table 5. Ability-based outcomes, assessment strategies and learning modules in the four-year pharmacy curriculum

Outcome Assessment tools

Critical thinking skills - In class, take home, exam cases- Written reports- Problem sets- Case presentations- Debates- Self, peer, assessment- Program Portfolio

LEARNING MODULES TO ADDRESS OVERALLABILITY-BASEDOUTCOMES

Information access and evaluation - Library assignments- Critical review of literature- Debate of literature- Mini lecture

Communication skills - Written exams- Written reports- Oral presentations- Videotape counseling- Practical lab exams- Essays- Self, peer evaluations- Program portfolio

Problem-based Learning

Web-based Learning

Lectures

Laboratories

Scientific inquiry skills - Analysis of evidence and data

- Laboratory results and reports

- Written evaluations of literature

Practica

Learning Portfolios

CAPS (case-based learning)

Self-directed learning skills - Program Portfolio- Quizzes, exams, reports,

assignments- Self, peer evaluation- Case analysis

Mathematical skills - Quizzes- Problem sets- Lab reports- Assignments- Exams

Interpersonal and teamwork skills Self and peer assessmentsProgram portfolio

Ethical behaviour & social awareness

- Case studies- Portfolio- Self and peer assessments

Apply and integrate knowledge - Written cases- Written problems to solve

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

43 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

62

H. Hubball and H. Burt

The lack of release time for the committee chair contributed to periods of lost ground andmomentum during the process which had a significant effect on the time-lines for completionof various stages of curriculum reform. The chair’s leadership qualities, commitment, andability to mobilise the faculty learning community, as well as the external program threat ofnon-accreditation (and by extension to job security), were critical factors for developing andimplementing a learning-centred curriculum during this overly long (five-year) time frame. Atthe

practice stage

of curriculum reform, however, the UBC Pharmaceutical Sciences programwas granted accreditation by the Canadian Council on Accreditation of Pharmacy Programs(CCAPP), as well as being successfully approved by the university senate curriculum commit-tee. Although it is recognised that on-going refinements and adjustments to the curriculum areinevitable, preliminary survey feedback data and focus group interviews suggest that the newcurriculum has been met very favourably by students and faculty members thus far. Table 6identifies the critical lessons learned from the UBC Pharmaceutical Sciences experience.

Conclusion

Curriculum reform is a complex, multifaceted, and iterative process, in which ideas,expressed as policy, are transformed into behaviour, expressed as a social action (Ottoson &Green, 1987; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). Thus, curriculum reform is shaped bymany factors (social, political, economic, organisational, cultural and individual) and involvespeople at various institutional levels (administrators, curriculum development committeepersonnel, instructors and learners). Clearly, learning context factors play a central role incurricular reform (Angelo, 2000). In the Pharmaceutical Sciences’ experience, the extent towhich a learning community (that is, the academic unit) was empowered, as well as thecommitment of adequate resources and the power to influence people required during thisprocess, had a significant effect on the outcome. Timing is also crucial, not only in terms of

Table 6. Implementing learning-centred curricula: Lessons learned in the UBC Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences

●

Strong leadership qualities required

●

Release time and support required for committee chair

●

Inclusive committee design required

●

Outside expertise and professional development required

●

Open-mind and flexibility toward a broad range of pedagogies and integration of program specialisations and fields required (i.e., maintain faculty’s comfort-level with disciplinary knowledge, as well as focus on pedagogical implications of ability-based outcomes)

●

Integrated approach to curriculum redesign AND implementation process required

●

Continuous reporting of progress and open dialogue required with faculty and students (e.g., town hall meetings, faculty retreats, faculty meetings, notice board/website displays)

●

Individual faculty required to implement ability-based outcomes within individual courses

●

Conduct action research, on-going monitoring, and dissemination

●

Endurance!

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

43 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Learning-centred Curricula

63

the urgency, or the stimulus and support for curriculum reform, but also in terms of an analy-sis of long-term, intermediate and short-term goals and clarifying when, where, and who isresponsible for achieving these goals.

Implementing learning-centred curricula cannot be considered simply as a series of non-problematic and discrete steps. It is not surprising, therefore, that inherent complexities incurriculum re-design can present significant pedagogical, as well as implementation challenges,for academic units in higher education. By implication, these challenges also extend to individ-ual faculty who need to re-examine their course design, assessment and learning strategies tomeet the objectives of the learning-centred curriculum (Adamcik et al., 1996; Beaudry &Schaub, 1998; Diamond, 1998; Hubball & Levy, 2004; Lawler & King, 2000; PurkersonHammer & Paulsen, 2001). This article provides a flexible framework that takes into accountcontext and integrates comprehensive strategies to assist academic units with re-designing andimplementing learning-centred curricula. Ultimately, the success of re-designing and imple-menting a learning-centred curriculum, is contingent on the attention that is paid to integratingappropriate stage-specific learning context, planning, assessment and programming strategies.

Note

This paper uses the term “curriculum” as referring to the accredited program offered by an academic unit inhigher education.

Notes on Contributors

Harry Hubball PhD has provided curriculum development consultancy for multidisciplinaryunits at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. His research interestsinclude teacher education, curriculum development, and pedagogy in university settings.He co-ordinates the UBC Faculty Certificate Program on Teaching and Learning in HigherEducation.

Helen Burt PhD chaired the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences Curriculum ReviewCommittee from 1997–2001 to design and develop an outcomes-based curriculum. Herresearch interests include the development of novel polymer-based drug delivery systems.

References

Adamcik, B., Hurley, S., & Erramouspe, J. (1996). Assessment of pharmacy students’ critical thinking andproblem-solving abilities. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 60, 256–265.

Angelo, T. A. (2000). Transforming departments into productive learning communities. In A. F. Lucas &Associates (Eds.), Leading academic change: Essential roles for department chairs (pp. 74–89). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Baird, L. L. (1996). Documenting student outcomes in graduate and professional programs. In A. E. Bilder& C. F. Conrad (Eds.), Challenges in assessing outcomes in graduate and professional education, New Direc-tions For Institutional Research, 92, 77–87.

Baker, P. (1999). Creating learning communities: The unfinished agenda. In B. A. Pescosolido & R. Aminzade(Eds.), The social worlds of higher education (pp. 95–109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Barab, S. A. & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. Jonassen & S.M.Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25–56). Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumAssociates.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

43 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

64 H. Hubball and H. Burt

Baron, M. A. (1996). Dispelling the myths surrounding outcome-based education. Phi Delta Kappan, 77,574–576.

Barr, R. B. & Tag, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education.Change, 27(6), 13–25.

Battersby, M. (1997). Outcomes-based education: A college faculty perspective. Learning Quarterly, February,1, 6–11.

Beaudry, M. L. & Schaub, T. (1998). The learning-centred syllabus. The Teaching Professor, 12(2), 5.Brandt, B. F., Clements, M., & Piascik, P. (1998). Problem-solving activities for first-year pharmacy

students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 62, 450–457.Brown, G., Bull, J., & Pendlebury, M. (1997). Assessing student learning in higher education. London: Rout-

ledge.Clanchy, J. & Ballard, B. (1995). Generic skills in the context of higher education. Higher Education Research

and Development, 14, 155–166.Clarke, A. & Hubball, H. T. (2001). Physical education methods course as an immersion experience in an

elementary setting. Avante, 7(2), 11–27.Cox, M. (2000). Faculty learning communities. Change agents for transforming institutions into learning

organisations. In D. Lieberman & C. Wehlburg (Eds.), To improve the academy, (vol. 19, pp. 69–93).Boston, MA: Anker.

Daniel, J. (1993). The challenge of mass education. Studies in Higher Education, 18, 197–203.Diamond, R. M. (1998). Developing and assessing courses and curricula. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Drummond, I., Nixon, I., & Wiltshire, J. (1998). Personal transferable skills in higher education: The prob-

lems of implementing good practice. Quality Assurance in Education, 6, 44–58.Erickson, L. (2002). Concept-based curriculum and instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Sage

Publications.Ewell, P. T. (1997). Organizing for learning: A new imperative. AAHE Bulletin, 50(4), 3–6.Fullan, M. G. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College, Colum-

bia University.Ganderton, P. S. (1996). Concepts of globalisation and their impact upon curriculum policy making:

Rhetoric and reality a study of Australasian reform. International Journal of Educational Development, 16,393–405.

Gibbons, M. (2000). Universities of the new production of knowledge: Some policy implications for govern-ment. In A. Kraak (Ed.), Changing modes: New knowledge production and its implications for higher educationin South Africa. Pretoria: HSRC.

Gold, P. (1997). Faculty collaboration for a new curriculum. Liberal Education, 83, 46–49.Green, A. (1999). Education and globalisation in Europe and E. Asia: Convergent and divergent trends.

Journal of Educational Policy, 14, 55–71.Green, M. F. (1995). Transforming British higher education: A view from across the Atlantic. Higher

Education, 29, 225–239.Green, L. W. & Kreuter, M. (1999). Health promotion planning: An educational and ecological approach. Palo

Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing.Hubball, H. T. & Poole, G. (2003). A learning-centred faculty certificate programme on university teaching.

International Journal for Academic Development, 8, 11–24.Hubball, H. T. & Clarke, A. (2004). Assessing faculty learning communities. In M. D. Cox and L. Richlin

(Eds.), Building Faculty Learning Communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning (the “Journal”),97, 87–100.

Hubball, H. T. & Levy, A (2004). Graduate course design in Health Care and Epidemiology: A learning-centred approach. Journal for Faculty Development, 20(1).

Jansen, J. & Christie, P. (Eds.) (1999). Changing curriculum: Studies on outcomes-based education in SouthAfrica. Cape Town: Juta.

Kanpol, B. (1995). Outcomes-based education and democratic commitment hopes and possibilities.Educational Policy, 9, 359–374.

Kemp I. J. & Seagraves L. (1995). Transferable skills - can higher education deliver? Studies in HigherEducation, 20, 315–328.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

43 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Learning-centred Curricula 65

Knight, P. T. & Trowler, P. R. (2000). Department level cultures and the improvement of learning andteaching. Studies in Higher Education, 25, 69-83.

Kreber, C. & Brook, P. (2001). Impact evaluation of educational development programs. InternationalJournal for Academic Development, 6, 96–108.

Kupperschmidt, B. R. & Burns, P. (1997). Curriculum revision isn’t just change: It’s transition! Journal ofProfessional Nursing, 13, 90–98.

Lawler, P. A. & King, K. P. (2000). Planning for effective faculty development: Using adult learning strategies.Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.

Lockhart, M. & Borland, K.W. (2001). Critical thinking goals, outcomes, and pedagogy in senior capstonecourses. The Journal of Faculty Development, 18, 19–25.

Middendorf, J. K. (1999). Finding key faculty to influence change. To Improve the Academy, 18, 83–93.Mills, G. E. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice

Hall.Mok, K. H. (1999). Education and the market place in Hong Kong and mainland China. Higher Education,

37, 133–158.Murphy, S. E. (1997). Eight components of program implementation. Performance Improvement, 36, 6–8.Nolinske, T. (1999). Creating an inclusive learning environment. Teaching Excellence, 11(4), 1–3.Ottoson, J. M. & Green, L. W. (1987). Reconciling concept and context: Theory of implementation.

Advances in Health Education and Promotion, 2, 353–382.Perrier, D. G., Winslade, N., Pugsley, J., Lavack, L., & Strand, L. M. (1995). Designing a pharmaceutical

care curriculum. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 59, 113–125.Pietersen, W. G. (2002). Re-inventing strategy: Using strategic learning to create and sustain breakthrough

performance. London: John Wiley and Sons.Poindexter, S. (2003). Holistic learning. Change, January/February, 25–30.Priest, S. (2001). A program evaluation primer. Journal of Experiential Education, 24, 34–40.Purkerson Hammer, D., & Paulsen, S. M. (2001). Strategies and processes to design an integrated, longitudi-

nal professional skills development course sequence. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 65,77–85.

Raman-Wilms, L. (2001). Innovative enabling strategies in self-directed, problem-based therapeutics:Enhancing student preparedness for pharmaceutical care practice. American Journal of PharmaceuticalEducation, 65, 56–64.

Schneider, C. G. & Shoenberg, R. (1999). Habits hard to break: How persistent features of campus life frus-trate curricular reform. Change, March/April, 30–35.

Shulman, L. (1999). Taking learning seriously. Change, 31(4), 11–17.Shavelson, R. & Huang, L. (2003). Responding responsibly to the frenzy to assess learning in higher educa-

tion. Change, January/February, 11–18.Stark, J. S., Lowther, M. A., Sharp, S., & Arnold, G.L. (1997). Program-level curriculum planning: An

exploration of faculty perspectives on two different campuses. Research in Higher Education, 38, 99–130.Stinson, J. E. & Milter, R.G. (1996). Problem-based learning in business education: Curriculum design and

implementation issues. In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning tohigher education: Theory and practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 68, 33–42.

Trowler, P. R. (1996). Angels in marble? Accrediting prior experiential learning in higher education. Studiesin Higher Education, 21, 17–30.

VP Academic and Provost. (2000). UBC Academic Plan: Trek 2000. Strategic visioning document developedby the Academic Plan Advisory Committee, The University of British Columbia, Canada.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Wiles, J. & Bondi, J. (2002). Curriculum development: A guide to practice (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, OH:Merrill Prentice Hall.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

43 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014