Program (Re)Design

Since 2007, Texas A&M University’s Center for Teaching Excellence has worked to develop, implement, and refine the Program (Re)Design (PRD) model. The model is a faculty-led, data-informed process aimed to assist programs in creating a more learner-centered curriculum. During the process, faculty conceptualize, design, and implement curriculum at both the program and course levels. A faculty-led program redesign team, supported by an educational developer, helps drive and sustain the iterative redesign process. This synergistic partnership is anchored by faculty input and engagement.

Click here for the Curriculum Development Template.

This model is a collaborative process aimed at systematic redesign that fosters critical dialogue and collegiality among its stakeholders resulting in a shared commitment to student learning and organizational change. Faculty are encouraged to guide and facilitate learning, explicitly teaching both disciplinary-specific knowledge and transferable skills, such as collaboration and critical thinking. Students are encouraged to take ownership and monitor their learning progress.

A (re)designed learner-centered curriculum enhances student learning and encourages a progressive mastery of knowledge, skills, and values. It includes meaningful and relevant learning experiences for students, provides opportunities for students to transfer and integrate knowledge, and intentionally incorporates student reflection and higher-order thinking. Experiences and courses are structured around measurable learning outcomes and use evidence-based teaching strategies to engage students. Assessments are aligned with learning outcomes, allowing opportunities for students to practice and receive formative feedback, with summative grades indicating mastery of the learning outcomes.

To reimagine and redesign a new more learner-centered curriculum, the faculty-led redesign team engages in an iterative eight-phase process. This can take programs anywhere from 12 to 24 months to complete. Each program’s curriculum redesign has its own unique characteristics; this model is adaptable to take into account each of those characteristics.

For additional details regarding each step in the PRD process, click on the corresponding links or contact Debra Fowler, Director, at dfowler@tamu.edu

Program ReDesign Model for Learner Centered Curriculum PDF

Form and Orient Team

Upon initiating a program (re)design project, one of the first tasks involves identifying your (re)design team. Typically, team members include a CTE educational developer, a program faculty leader(s) charged with overseeing the effort, an academic advisor, program teaching faculty, a graduate student, and current student representatives. Once the team is identified, an initial orientation meeting is held to introduce the team members to each other and to establish group dynamic expectations. Also during the orientation meeting, the team is presented the (re)design process’ goals, requirements, and general overview, along with determining the program’s readiness for change using a Readiness for Change Questionnaire. Results of the questionnaire are shared in subsequent meetings. Finally, the orientation meeting concludes with the team identifying the desired scope of curricular change and available project support, which inform the project’s timeline.

Gather Data

The data gathering phase is very important because the data obtained anchors support from your departmental leadership, as well as helps to inform and ensure the direction of your curriculum redesign is supported by evidence. Both internal and external data are collected from program stakeholders, such as current and former students, internal and external faculty, and industry leaders using methods such as surveys, interviews, focus groups, department demographics, peer institution reviews, and job descriptions. A discipline-specific literature review is also conducted focusing on educational trends. Data can be used to identify current curricular gaps, as well as ensure evidence-based decision making throughout the redesign process. The Center for Teaching Excellence, in collaboration with the graduate assistant, conduct the data collection, organizing and reporting the data for the redesign team to analyze. At this phase, IRB (Institutional Review Board) training is also completed to ensure that all team members can conduct scholarly investigations regarding the team’s curriculum efforts.

Create Program Learning Outcomes

Before your program is ready to define its program learning outcomes, we recommend that the faculty spend some time thinking about the discipline’s perspective – Why does your discipline exist? What are the theories, concepts, and methods that define your discipline? How is the discipline the same and/or different today than it was 10 or even 5 years ago? Are there new trends in the discipline? Next, the team refines this disciplinary definition, using collected stakeholder data, which guides the creation of new program learning outcomes. When writing your program learning outcomes, consider the following questions, "What knowledge, skills, and values does an ideal graduate possess?" Keep in mind that program learning outcomes are usually broad and should align with institutional outcomes, as well as accreditation and/or certification requirements. This page offers some resources for creating your measurable program learning outcomes.

Create Competency Rubrics

Once you have created your program learning outcomes (PLOs), the next step will be to create rubrics that outline the performance criteria for each outcome. Rubrics define a student’s developmental progression for each outcome throughout the degree program. They also serve as a means to evaluate student products at the overarching program level. Rubrics are a great tool for teaching and learning because they:

Support authentic assessment
Communicate the program's expectations to students
Offer an opportunity for students to self-assess
Provide informative feedback to program leadership and faculty
Provide a reliable means of program assessment

Create Curriculum Map

Curriculum mapping is the process of identifying where within the program (courses and/or experiences) the program learning outcomes (PLOs) are introduced (I), reinforced (R), strengthened (S), and/or demonstrated (D). It is an extremely useful tool that allows programs to “see” an accurate picture of the entire redesigned curriculum.

Introduce (I) – This is typically the first time a student is seeing this concept. Assessments within the course specifically address this outcome.
Reinforce (R) – After an outcome is introduced, it is reinforced. Students build on what they already know to learn about the outcome in depth. Assessments within the course specifically address this outcome.
Strengthen (S) – After an outcome has been both introduced and reinforced, it can be classified as ‘Strengthened’. In this category, students will be asked to strengthen their skill and knowledge of the concept through both course-level and program-level assessments.
Demonstrate (D) – After an outcome has been introduced, reinforced and strengthened, it can be classified as ‘Demonstrate’. In this category, students will be asked to show that they have mastered the concept through both course-level and program-level assessments. The program level assessment data will be used for program assessment and accreditation requirements.

In a typical curriculum map, both required and elective courses, as well as experiences such as internships and/or study abroad, run horizontally across the top of the map. The program learning outcomes and related performance indicators identified in the competency rubrics run vertically down the map. The map is completed by determining which courses/experiences will support each PLO’s performance indicators I, R, S, and/or D.

Create Curriculum Materials

The curriculum redesign team creates Student Learning Experience Guides outlining how the program learning outcomes will be addressed in each course or experience, as well as to determine appropriate outcome assessments. The program (re)design graduate student works in collaboration with teaching faculty to complete the guides. The Guide provides standardization across the curriculum to support sustainability, benefiting all course instructors, especially new faculty who may not be familiar with the course expectations and how it fits within the entire curriculum. This phase of the process also includes an opportunity to embed active learning strategies in courses to encourage students to apply what they are learning in various contexts.

The guide also includes what technology and/or inclusive learning techniques will be utilized in the course or experience. As a means for fostering lifelong and integrative learning habits in students, a program ePortfolio is also recommended. The Center for Teaching Excellence provides support in the design and implementation of instructional strategies at the course level as well as ePortfolio implementation at the program level.

Implement and Assess

An implementation and assessment plan ensures your program will be prepared to effectively implement curricular change. Ultimately, the implementation plan answers the following questions—who will do what, with whom, and by when?

The Center for Teaching Excellence collaborates with the redesign team to create a plan aligned with both institutional assessment requirements and accreditation standards. The implementation plan includes how information will be communicated and disseminated. It also includes resources to help support instructor professional development and reflection, as well as establish procedures to ensure consistency and seamless onboarding of new faculty. Identification of gaps in content expertise and the phasing out of the prior curriculum, as appropriate, are also part of this implementation plan.

The assessment plan details the incorporation of curriculum competencies into assessment, outlining and scheduling the student learning evidence (products/artifacts) that will be collected. It also details mechanisms of how and when to periodically review the curriculum to ensure competencies align with current industry demands. Finally, the assessment plan includes a framework of internal and external data gathering to ensure the curriculum is meeting student and stakeholder needs.

Refine

When the redesigned curriculum has been approved at all levels (department, college, and university), the next step involves implementing the proposed changes. Ongoing assessment is important at this stage to ensure that curriculum decisions are implemented effectively in courses. Peer review of teaching offers faculty an opportunity to collaborate and provide each other feedback with enhancing student learning as the goal. Sustained collaborations centered on teaching also promote curricular integration, both horizontally and vertically. This integration encourages students to make connections among their courses and experiences, leading to deep and integrative learning.

Appendix

Fowler, D., *Bakenhus, C., Kothmann, *M., Macik, M., Poling, N., & *MacWillie, S. (2016). Redesigning natural resources curricula: A redesign process model at Texas A&M University. Natural Sciences Education.

Rogers, K., Green, E., Chaney, K., Macik, M., Turner, J., Keefe, L., Scallan, B., Korich, J., & Fowler, D. (2016). Beyond the AVMA-COE clinical competencies: Preparing future veterinarians. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

Fowler, D. A., & *Macik, M. L., & Kaihatu, J., & *Bakenhus, C. A. H. (2016). Impact of Curriculum Transformation Committee Experience on Faculty Perspectives of their Teaching and its Influence on Student Learning Paper presented at 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana. 10.18260/p.25538

Fowler, D., *Macik, M. L., Sandoval, S., *Bakenhus, C., & *MacWillie, S. (2016). Program (re)design model: A sustainable, system-level approach to faculty development. Journal of Faculty Development.

Fowler, D., *Lazo, M., *Turner, J., *Hohenstein, J (2015). Facilitating Program, Faculty, And Student Transformation: A Framework For Curriculum Redesign. Journal of Transformational Learning. 3(1).

Brumbelow, J., Fowler, D., Morgan, J., & Anthony, W. (2015) Transformation of a Large Civil Engineering Department Curriculum Using the ASCE BOK2. 122^nd Annual Conference and Expedition, Seattle, WA.

Fowler, D., Anthony, W., Poling, N., Morgan, J., and Brumbelow, J. (2014). Data-driven Curriculum Redesign in Civil Engineering. Paper accepted for 44th American Society for Engineering/Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (ASEE/IEEE) Frontiers in Education Conference, Madrid, Spain.

Jarvis, H. D., Collett, R., Wingenbach, G., Heilman, J. L., & Fowler, D. A. (2012). Developing a foundation for constructing new curricula in Soil, Crop and Turfgrass Sciences. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 41, 7-14. doi: 10.4195/jnrlse.2011.0015u

Fowler, D. A., Froyd, J. E., & Layne, J. (2010). Curriculum redesign: Concurrently addressing content mastery and development of cognitive abilities. Proceedings of the 40^th American Society for Engineering/Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (ASEE/IEEE) Frontiers of Education Conference, Washington, D.C.