Integrated App. Dev.learning Cen Curricula

8/12/2019 Integrated App. Dev.learning Cen Curricula

1/19

International Journal for Academic Development

Vol 9, No. 1, May 2004, pp. 5165

ISSN 1360144X (print)/ISSN 14701324 (online)/04/01005115

2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DOI 10.1080/1360144042000296053

An Integrated Approach to Developing and

Implementing Learning-centred Curricula

Harry Hubball*and Helen BurtUniversity of British ColumbiaTaylorand FrancisLtdRIJA100093.sgm10.1080/1360144042000296053InternationalJournalfor AcademicDevelopment0000-0000(print)/0000-0000(online)OriginalArticle2004Taylor& [email protected]

The purpose of this article is to provide a critical review of the motivating factors, processes and outcomes

pertaining to learning-centred curriculum reform in higher education. A case study example is provided from

the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of British Columbia. Although academic units on

university 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 into

similar implementation problems. A flexible framework, guiding principles and strategic approach to develop-

ing and implementing learning-centred curricula are provided to assist academic developers. Curricular

reform has implications for learning communities, planning, assessment and programming in higher

education.

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 university

campuses 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. Harry Hubball, Ph.D., Department of Curriculum Studies, 2125 Main Mall,

Faculty of Education, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Email:

[email protected]

RIJA100093.fm Page 51 Wednesday, September 29, 2004 4:42 PM


2/19

52 H. Hubball and Helen Burt

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

Trowler, 1996)

triggering opportunities (Ewell, 1997; Knight & Trowler, 2000). For example, university

initiatives 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 and

implementation. 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 subsequent

development of an Academic Plan (VP Academic and Provost, 2000), all academic units on

campus have been challenged to re-examine their curriculum and pedagogical practices in the

context of the Universitys explicit goals and commitment toward learning and undergraduate

education. Although academic units on university campuses tend to present many unique

contextual challenges, and are at different stages in curriculum re-design, useful lessons can be

learned 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, processes

and outcomes pertaining to curriculum reform within the UBC Faculty of Pharmaceutical

Sciences. A flexible framework, guiding principles and strategic approach to implementing

learning-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 to

curricular reform is part of a larger process of educational change (Hubball & Poole, in press).

In order to meet the diverse needs and circumstances of learning communities, no singular

curriculum model, implementation strategy, nor approach to learning will suit all academic

settings. The underlying assumptions about a learning-centred approach to curricular reform

are that: representative students, faculty, and stakeholders in the broader context should be

active participants in the curricular reform process; that academic units are at different stages

in curricular reform and progress at different rates; that curricular reform should honour

inclusion of a wide range of teaching and learning strategies; and that curricular reform within

an 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, curriculum

integration, diverse pedagogiesand clearly defined learning outcomes. Learning outcomes focus on

what students are expected to know and be able to do (for example, demonstrate critical

thinking, responsible use of ethical principles, problem-solving skills) in the context of a field

of study, and are designed to be assessable, transferable, and relevant to learners lives as

workers and citizens in a diverse world (Baron, 1996; Battersby, 1997; Clanchy & Ballard,

1995; Kanpol, 1995). In addition, the following benefits present a compelling rationale for

curricula developed from a learning-centred approach:



3/19

Learning-centred Curricula 53

1. informs learners of what they can expect to achieve from a program, so they can organise

their 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 to

make choices within a responsive (that is, to diverse learners needs, critical teaching and

learning issues and available resources) carefully structured, and guided learning environ-

ment. Thus, in the broader context of significant educational reform, and in order to respond

to the diverse needs and circumstances of students, faculty and society, the UBC Faculty of

Pharmaceutical 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 and

intricately inter-related, that cannot be treated as discrete entities, nor can they each be

considered 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 alleviate

faculty 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 curriculum

reform 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.Figure1. Anintegratedframework fordevelopingand implementinglearning-centredcurriculai nhighereducation: Implicationsfor learningcommunities,planning, assessmentandprogramming

Practical strategies (Tables 14) for each component of the framework were drawn from a

combination of literature sources and specific experiences (focus group interviews, workshop

assignments, discussion fora) with curriculum committees from a wide range of UBC facul-

ties engaged in curriculum reform. Essentially, this framework provides (i) a benchmark for

an 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 strategiesrefer to critical implementation initiatives (for example, adequate

support; leadership qualities; teamwork; representative input; responsiveness, incentives and

sources of reward) that empower the learning community (collectively and individually) to



4/19


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 of

methods (for example, capstone projects, portfolios, student presentations, exams) and

procedures 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 course

work modules - learning technologies, problem-based learning, lectures, independent study

and field experiences) in which students can acquire, integrate and apply knowledge indiverse settings (Brandt, Clements, & Piascik, 1998; Clarke & Hubball, 2001; Raman-Wilms,

2001; Poindexter, 2003).

Stage-specific Intervention Strategies

While the curriculum development team was sensitive to addressing all components of the

curriculum re-design framework at all times during the reform process, it is important to note

that the UBC Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences (like various other UBC faculties, schools

and departments) progressed through critical stages of curriculum reform, albeit at different

rates. There was firstly an awareness stage (aware of groundswell of curricular reform in

Figure 1. An integrated framework for developing and implementing learning-centred curricula in higher

education: Implications for learning communities, planning, assessment and programming



5/19


alternative settings though no real energy or resources committed to curriculum change)

Secondly there was an initiative stage (interest and commitment toward curriculum reform,

initiate Chair and key personnel to spearhead process); then a mobilisation stage(mobilise and

empower learning community for curriculum reform, establish curriculum committee, and

sub-committee working groups for strategic planning). This was followed by an action plan

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-inownership. 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.



6/19


stage(buy-in readiness and integration of responsive outcomes, assessment strategies and

learning modules developed); and, finally apractice stage(on-going systematic analysis, refine-

ment, further development and dissemination of curriculum reform process). Figure 2

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

Planning strategies

(Developing clearly defined curriculum-wide learning outcomes)

Develop/brainstorm desirable learning outcomescompare 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 andintegrate 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.



7/19


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

Awareness Stagethrough to the Practice Stage.Figure2. Diagramshowingthe progressive,thoughcyclical andunpredictablerealities ofcurriculumreform

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 units readiness and stage of

curriculum reform. Generally, learning context strategies were especially important during the

Awareness, Initiative and MobilisationStages, whereas emphases on planning, assessment and

programming strategies tended to be more relevant during the Action PlanStage. Rigorous

reflection 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 processrevisit 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



8/19


9/19


Typically, university faculties and academic units embrace several sub-disciplines, each

with their own distinct sub-culture and perspective of the main discipline. Thus, during the

Mobilisation Stage, the entire faculty were engaged collectively, and through disciplinary

streams, in open-dialogue and needs analysis pertaining to the curriculum reform process.

This was particularly effective through Town hall meetings (that is, discussion fora about

curriculum 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 requires

specific attention to vertical and horizontal curriculum integration. During the Action Plan

Stage, 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 the

UBC Pharmaceutical Sciences program, disciplinary-based working groups were estab-

lished to develop course streams over the 4 years of the program and integrate (vertical

integration) 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 and

chair by designing case-based learning modules (entitled Cases in Pharmaceutical Sciences,

CAPS) which students take continuously throughout the four-year program. The goal of

CAPS modules is to give the students opportunities to apply and integrate knowledge, skills

and 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 as

the students progress through the program. Figure 3 is a model that conceptualises how

vertical and horizontal integration was conceived for student learning throughout the four-

year Pharmaceutical Sciences program. This model indicates the importance given to the

core CAPS courses in years 14. These CAPS courses not only draw upon the expertise and

issues of the sub-disciplines but they also build upon one another in each progressive year

throughout 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 learning

outcomes are connected to authentic methods of assessment and diverse learning modules

within the learning-centred curriculum.Figure3. Amodel conceptualizingverticaland horizontalintegrationthroughout thefour-yearPharmaceutical SciencesProgram

The Practice stageof curriculum reform is on-going and will result in a formal and detailed

review of the curriculum within a 3-year period. These data will be comprised of process,impact and follow-up evaluations. Such evaluations provide a broad and long perspective

through 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., 1996; Priest, 2001). Process evaluations focus on periodic assessments of issues of

importance that occur throughout the duration of a program (for example, to what extent are

program goals reflected in individual course learning experiences?). Impact evaluations focus

on issues of importance that occur as a result of a program (for example, how did students

apply 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



10/19


development as a professional pharmacist?). Prior to the 3-year review, disciplinary stream

leaders are charged with collecting informal evaluation data (for example, self-reflections,

feedback from colleagues, student evaluations of individual courses) and providing on-going

feedback 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 the

UBC Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, change was typically incremental and, at various

times 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 demanding

academic workload. As would be expected by experienced educational developers, initial

resistance was expressed by some individual faculty members who perceived student learning

in 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 more

clear to them that content and ability-based outcomes in a learning-centred curricula are

interdependent. Content is clearly that which differentiates one course from another,

however, in a learning-centred curriculum, content is integrated with ability-based outcomes

as the driving force for teaching and learning.

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

Pharmaceutical Sciences Program



11/19


The lack of release time for the committee chair contributed to periods of lost ground and

momentum during the process which had a significant effect on the time-lines for completion

of various stages of curriculum reform. The chairs leadership qualities, commitment, and

Table 5. Ability-based outcomes, assessment strategies and learning modules in the

four-year pharmacy curriculum

Outcome Assessment tools LEARNING MODULES

Crxitical thinking skills - In class, take home, exam cases

- Written reports

- Problem sets

- Case presentations

- Debates

- Self, peer, assessment

- Program Portfolio

TO ADDRESS OVERALL

ABILITY-BASED

OUTCOMES

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 PortfoliosCAPS (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 assessments- Program portfolio

Ethical behaviour & social

awareness

- Case studies

- Portfolio

- Self and peer assessments

Apply and integrate knowledge - Written cases

- Written problems to solve



12/19


ability to mobilise the faculty learning community, as well as the external program threat of

non-accreditation (and by extension to job security), were critical factors for developing and

implementing a learning-centred curriculum during this overly long (five-year) time frame. At

the Practice Stageof curriculum reform, however, the UBC Pharmaceutical Sciences program

was 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 are

inevitable, preliminary survey feedback data and focus group interviews suggest that the new

curriculum has been met very favourably by students and faculty members thus far. Table 6

identifies 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 by

many factors (social, political, economic, organisational, cultural and individual) and involves

people at various institutional levels (administrators, curriculum development committee

personnel, instructors and learners). Clearly, learning context factors play a central role in

curricular reform (Angelo, 2000). In the Pharmaceutical Sciences experience, the extent to

which a learning community (that is, the academic unit) was empowered, as well as the

commitment of adequate resources and the power to influence people required during this

process, had a significant effect on the outcome. Timing is also crucial, not only in terms of

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 is

responsible for achieving these goals.

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 facultys 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!



13/19


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 in

curriculum re-design can present significant pedagogical, as well as implementation chal-

lenges, for academic units in higher education. By implication, these challenges also extend to

individual faculty who need to re-examine their course design, assessment and learning strate-

gies to meet the objectives of the learning-centred curriculum (Adamcik et al., 1996; Beaudry

& Schaub, 1998; Diamond, 1998; Hubball & Levy, 2004; Lawler & King, 2000; Purkerson

Hammer & Paulsen, 2001). This article provides a flexible framework that takes into account

context and integrates comprehensive strategies to assist academic units with re-designing and

implementing 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 integrat-

ing appropriate stage-specific learning context, planning, assessment and programmingstrategies.

Note

This paper uses the term curriculum as referring to, the accredited program offered by an academic unit in

higher education.

Notes on Contributors

Harry Hubball PhD has provided curriculum development consultancy for multidisciplinary

units at The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. His research interests

include teacher education, curriculum development, and pedagogy in university settings.

He co-ordinates the UBC Faculty Certificate Program on Teaching and Learning in Higher

Education.

Helen Burt PhD chaired the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences Curriculum Review

Committee from 19972001 to design and develop an outcomes-based curriculum. Her

research 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 and

problem-solving abilities.American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 60,256265.

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. 7489). 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, 92,7787.

Baker, P. (1999). Creating learning communities: The unfinished agenda. In B. A. Pescosolido & R. Aminzade

(Eds.),The social worlds of higher education(pp. 95109). 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. 2556). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Associates.

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

574576.



14/19


Barr, R. B. & Tag, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education.

Change, 27(6), 1325.

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

1,611.

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, 62,450457.

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, 14,155166.

Clarke, A. & Hubball, H. T. (2001). Physical Education Methods Course as an Immersion Experience in an

Elementary Setting.Avante, 7(2), 1127.

Cox, M. (2000). Faculty learning communities. Change agents for transforming institutions into learningorganisations. In D. Lieberman & C. Wehlburg (Eds.),To Improve the Academy, 19(pp. 6993). Boston,

MA: Anker.

Daniel, J. (1993). The challenge of mass education.Studies in Higher Education, 18,197203.

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, 6,4458.

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,December 1997.

Fullan, M. G. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. (3rd Edn). New York: Teachers College,

Columbia 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,

393405.

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 education

in South Africa.Pretoria: HSRC.

Gold, P. (1997). Faculty collaboration for a new curriculum.Liberal Education, 83,4649.

Green, A. (1999). Education and globalisation in Europe and E.Asia: Convergent and divergent trends.

Journal of Educational Policy, 14,5571.

Green, M. F. (1995). Transforming British higher education: A view from across the Atlantic.Higher Educa-

tion, 29,225239.

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

Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing.

Hubball, H. T. & Poole, G. (in press). A learning-centred course on university teaching.International Journal

for Academic Development.

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),

97,87100.

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 South

Africa.Cape Town: Juta.

Kanpol, B. (1995). Outcomes-based education and democratic commitment hopes and possibilities.Educa-

tional Policy, 9,359374.

Kemp I. J. & Seagraves L. (1995). Transferable Skills - can higher education deliver?Studies in Higher Educa-

tion, 20,315328.

Knight, P. T. & Trowler, P. R. (2000). Department level cultures and the improvement of learning and

teaching.Studies in Higher Education, 25,69-83.

AQ2

AQ3



15/19


Kreber, C. & Brook, P. (2001). Impact evaluation of educational development programs. International

Journal for Academic Development, 6,96108.

Kupperschmidt, B. R. & Burns, P. (1997). Curriculum revision isnt just change: Its transition! Journal of

Professional Nursing, 13,9098.

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 capstone

courses.The Journal of Faculty Development, 18,1925.

Middendorf, J. K. (1999). Finding key faculty to influence change.To Improve the Academy, 18,8393.

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,

37,133158.

Murphy, S. E. (1997). Eight components of program implementation.Performance Improvement, 36,68.Nolinske, T. (1999). Creating an inclusive learning environment.Teaching Excellence, 11(4), 13.

Ottoson, J. M. & Green, L. W. (1987). Reconciling concept and context: Theory of implementation.

Advances in Health Education and Promotion, 2,353382.

Perrier, D. G., Winslade, N., Pugsley, J., Lavack, L., & Strand, L. M. (1995). Designing a pharmaceutical

care curriculum.American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 59,113125.

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,2530.

Priest, S. (2001). A program evaluation primer.Journal of Experiential Education, 24,3440.

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,

7785.

Raman-Wilms, L. (2001). Innovative enabling strategies in self-directed, problem-based therapeutics:

Enhancing student preparedness for pharmaceutical care practice.American Journal of Pharmaceutical

Education, 65,5664.

Schneider, C. G. & Shoenberg, R. (1999). Habits hard to break: How persistent features of campus life frus-

trate curricular reform.Change,March/April,3035.

Shulman, L. (1999). Taking Learning Seriously.Change,1117.

Shavelson, R. & Huang, L. (2003). Responding responsibly to the frenzy to assess learning in higher educa-

tion.Change,January/February,1118.

Stark, J. S., et al. (1996). Program-level curriculum planning: An exploration of faculty perspectives on two

different campuses.Research in Higher Education, 38,99130.

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 to

higher education: Theory and practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 68,3342.

Trowler, P. R. (1996). Angels in marble? Accrediting prior experiential learning in higher education. Studies

in Higher Education, 21,1730.VP Academic and Provost (2000). UBC Academic Plan: Trek 2000.Strategic visioning document developed

by the Academic Plan Advisory Committee, The University of British Columbia.

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

University Press.

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

Merrill Prentice Hall.

AQ4

AQ1



16/19

Author Query SheetJournal: iJAD MSID:

Title: An Integrated Approach to Developing and Implementing Learning-centredCurricula

Authors: Harry Hubball and Helen Burt

QA1: Please provide all authors for the Stark, J. S., et al. (1996) reference.QA2: Please provide page numbers for the Ewell, P. T. (1997) reference.

QA3: Please provide page numbers for the Hubball, H. T., & Levy, A (2004)reference.

QA4: Please provide issue/month details for Shulman, L. (1999).


17/19


18/19

AN AGREEMENT FOR THE TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT

IN RELATION TO THE CONTRIBUTION OF YOUR ARTICLE (THE ARTICLE) ENTITLED:

BY:

WHICH WILL BE PUBLISHED IN R-IJA

In order to ensure both the widest dissemination and protection of material published in our Journal,we ask authors to assign the rights of copyright in the articles they contribute. This enables Taylor &Francis Ltd ('us' or 'we') to ensure protection against infringement. In consideration of the publicationof your Article, you agree to the following:

1. You assign to us with full title guarantee all rights of copyright and related rights in yourArticle. So that there is no doubt, this assignment includes the assignment of the right topublish the Article in all forms, including electronic and digital forms, for the full legal term ofthe copyright and any extension or renewals. Electronic form shall include, but not be limitedto, microfiche, CD-ROM and in a form accessible via on-line electronic networks. You shallretain the right to use the substance of the above work in future works, including lectures,press releases and reviews, provided that you acknowledge its prior publication in the journal.

2. We shall prepare and publish your Article in the Journal. We reserve the right to make sucheditorial changes as may be necessary to make the Article suitable for publication, or as wereasonably consider necessary to avoid infringing third party rights or law; and we reserve theright not to proceed with publication for whatever reason.

3. You hereby assert your moral rights to be identified as the author of the Article according tothe UK Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988.

4. You warrant that you have at your expense secured the necessary written permission fromthe appropriate copyright owner or authorities for the reproduction in the Article and theJournal of any text, illustration, or other material. You warrant that, apart from any such thirdparty copyright material included in the Article, the Article is your original work, and does notinfringe the intellectual property rights of any other person or entity and cannot be construedas plagiarising any other published work. You further warrant that the Article has not beenpreviously assigned or licensed by you to any third party and you will undertake that it will notbe published elsewhere without our written consent.

5. In addition you warrant that the Article contains no statement that is abusive, defamatory,libelous, obscene, fraudulent, nor in any way infringes the rights of others, nor is in any otherway unlawful or in violation of applicable laws.

6. You warrant that wherever possible and appropriate, any patient, client or participant in anyresearch or clinical experiment or study who is mentioned in the Article has given consent tothe inclusion of material pertaining to themselves, and that they acknowledge that they cannotbe identified via the Article and that you will not identify them in any way.

7. You warrant that you shall include in the text of the Article appropriate warnings concerningany particular hazards that may be involved in carrying out experiments or proceduresdescribed in the Article or involved in instructions, materials, or formulae in the Article, andshall mention explicitly relevant safety precautions, and give, if an accepted code of practiceis relevant, a reference to the relevant standard or code.

8. You shall keep us and our affiliates indemnified in full against all loss, damages, injury, costsand expenses (including legal and other professional fees and expenses) awarded against or

incurred or paid by us as a result of your breach of the warranties given in this agreement.


19/19

Documents

Integrated App. Dev.learning Cen Curricula