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 PaduaPerez, 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 lowerlevel 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




Reevaluating prerequisite structure



Define what should incoming students should know
Determine why good students choose to pursue other majors
Fine tuning CMSC131 and CMSC132


with attention to effect on time-to-graduation
Analyzing recruitment & retention problems


What should we teach our students?
What level of mastery should we require?
How will we measure our success?
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:



Removed several topics


But some added from CMSC 131
Further paring down of topics necessary


Quantity & complexity of material
Teaching pace
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?