110 likes | 137 Vues
Report on concerns with recent changes, committee overview, recommended improvement areas, fine-tuning of courses, and educational goals.
E N D
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 • Impact on ECE unclear
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?