1 / 10

Undergraduate Curriculum Review Committee

Undergraduate Curriculum Review Committee. Updated Report. Background. Some concerns about recent changes to lower level courses, such as Content overlap between 212 and 311, Concerns about the intellectual content of 212 Uncertainties as to what students entering 400-level know

bmarcella
Download Presentation

Undergraduate Curriculum Review Committee

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Undergraduate Curriculum Review Committee Updated Report

  2. Background • Some concerns about recent changes to lower level courses, such as • Content overlap between 212 and 311, • Concerns about the intellectual content of 212 • Uncertainties as to what students entering 400-level know • Impact on ECE unclear

  3. The Committee & its Charter • Committee Members • Adam Porter (chair), Ben Bederson, P.J. Dickerson, Fawzi Ewad, Michael Hicks, Michelle Hugue, Bruce Jacob (ECE), Nelson Padua-Perez, Jan Plane, Jim Reggia, Hanan Samet & Alan Sussman • General Charter • Evaluate success of the new introductory sequence • Examine curriculum up through 300-level. See how its supports 400-level courses • If necessary, suggest modifications for further discussion

  4. Specific Instructions • Talk with field committees & faculty to capture well defined expectations of what knowledge, experiences & skills students entering the 400-level courses should have • Map these expectations to the material taught in lower-level courses • Use this map to ground further discussion & suggestions for curriculum changes

  5. Executive Summary • Lots of work directed at individual courses • In specific cases, outcomes have been poor • Poor fit with overall educational mission • Excessive content overlap and inadequate information flows • Inappropriate quantity and complexity of concepts • Unrealistic scheduling constraints

  6. Recommended Improvement Areas • Defining curriculum-wide educational goals • What should we teach our students? • What level of mastery should we require? • How will we measure our success? • Reevaluating prerequisite structure • with attention to effect on time-to-graduation • Analyzing recruitment & retention problems • Define what should incoming students should know • Determine why good students choose to pursue other majors • Fine tuning CMSC131 and CMSC132 • Clarifying teaching schedule & approach, content, appropriate student work load & interface to CMSC212 • Fine tuning CMSC212 and CMSC311 • Clarifying purpose & content

  7. Fine Tuning: CMSC 131 • Major concerns: • Quantity & complexity of material • Teaching pace • Removed several topics • Reallocated time to remaining topics • Course still moves quickly, but seems more accessible to students with weaker backgrounds • No further recommendations at this time

  8. Fine Tuning: CMSC 132 • Major concerns: • Quantity & complexity of material • Teaching pace • Removed several topics • But some added from CMSC 131 • Further paring down of topics necessary • Currently under way • Recommend further monitoring

  9. Fine Tuning: CMSC 212 & 311 • Major concerns • Topic overlap • Subcommittee re-analyzed initial observations • Some previously overlapping lessons are now covered in a single course • Moving one project from 311 to 212 • No further recommendations at this time

  10. Wrap up • Committee raised awareness concerning actual strengths & weaknesses of our “educational system” • But unable to fully address our mission • Dept. educational goals & expectations unclear • Limited data & in-process measurement • Dept. needs to better articulate fundamental strategies • What should/do students learn in our program? • How do we deliver this in a 4-year timeframe? • What should we do to prepare, attract & retain good students?

More Related