Curriculum in Higher Education/HIED 762
Fall 2014
Wednesdays 1:00 - 4:00 pm
School of Education, Room 2340
INSTRUCTOR:
OFFICE:
OFFICE PHONE:
EMAIL:
OFFICE HOURS:
Lisa R. Lattuca
Professor
Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education (CSHPE)
University of Michigan
SEB Room 2117D
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
(734) 647-1979
llatt@umich.edu
Contact me for an appointment
OVERVIEW OF THE COURSE:
The course is designed for individuals who wish to plan, design, evaluate, and/or study learning
experiences in higher education. To enhance your work as an instructor, researcher, or
administrator, we will explore practices, theory, and research related to course and program
planning, development, and implementation; teaching and assessment; student learning;
faculty and administrators’ educational roles and responsibilities; curricular innovation and
curricular change; and quality assurance.
During the term we will consider key questions facing higher education institutions and
educators in the United States, focusing primarily, but not exclusively, on undergraduate
curricula in two- and four-year colleges. Our discussions of curricula will be multidimensional,
following the definition of curriculum as an academic plan that requires deliberate decisions
about educational goals, content, instructional materials and methods, and assessment.
Accordingly, we will examine various ideas about the purpose of higher education and the
implications of those beliefs for curricular content, teaching, and student outcomes. We’ll also
read and discuss theories about how people learn and think about how these theories shape -or should shape -- curricular decisions. As we analyze processes of curricular decision making,
innovation, and change, we will consider the influences of institutional missions, instructors’
beliefs about education, their affiliation with academic fields, and the impact of diverse learners
on instructional decisions. Throughout the term, we will reflect on how social, cultural,
economic and political influences affect higher education curricula in the U.S.
Course Objectives:
The primary goal of this course is to enhance your understanding of effective curricular decision
making. This course will also help you:

identify and evaluate the varied assumptions that have shaped American postsecondary
curricula in the past and present;
EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014
1

recognize and understand the philosophical and epistemological underpinnings of various
perspectives on curricula;

understand curricular components such as general education and the major and their
historical evolution;

understand the roles of faculty and administrators in developing curricula and how these
vary by type of position (e.g., lecturer, associate professor, chairperson) and in different
types of institutions;

understand disciplinary influences on curricular planning and instruction;

develop basic understanding of prominent theories of learning and their main assumptions;

understand how instruction and instructional environments can influence students and
their learning;

examine assumptions, processes, and implications of various kinds of assessment and
evaluation processes at the course, program, and institutional level; and

understand the scope, processes, and complexity of decision-making about postsecondary
curricula.
TEXTS AND REQUIRED READINGS:
Required Text:
 Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (2009). Perspectives on learning (5th ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Additional Readings:
 CTools course site and Internet websites
Recommended Text:
NB: We will use several chapters from this book; these will be on CTools but you may want to
buy a used copy online. Please do not purchase the 1997 Edition; it is significantly different than
the 2009 edition.
 Lattuca, L. R., and Stark, J. S. (2009). Shaping the College Curriculum: Academic Plans in
Context. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
EXPECTATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS:
Class Participation: This is a discussion-based course. Our class discussions are an opportunity
to raise questions, clarify understandings, challenge ideas and opinions constructively, consider
how ideas can be translated into practice in different higher education settings, and learn about
others’ perspectives. Effective discussions are marked by attentive listening to and thoughtful
consideration of ideas that are circulating. Good discussions ensue when we critically assess the
arguments, practices, or ideas in the assigned texts and that we bring to the conversation.
Noting key points, posing questions, and connecting ideas and concepts as you read enable us
EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014
2
to actively participate in class. Your comments, whether fully developed or still under
construction, are welcome as we work together to understand the strengths and limitations of
specific ideas and their utility for guiding higher education practice and scholarship.
Please review the schedule of readings in advance so that you will have time to fully prepare for
each class meeting. The quality of our discussions relies on your ability to talk and think about
the ideas we encounter. Class participation will contribute 20 percent of your final grade. A
rubric explaining the grading criteria is posted on CTools (Rubric Folder: Class Participation
Rubric).
Written Assignments: The written assignments for this course are described below. Please note
that all written assignments should conform to – and include – APA (American Psychological
Association) style for citations and references. Assignment 1 asks you to consider the readings
in the first section of the course. Assignments 2 through 4 are related to the development of
the course paper that will contribute 65% of your course grade.
Assignment 1: Purposes of Higher Education
The nature of the first assignment varies based on whether you were enrolled in EDUC 561,
Introduction to Higher Education, in fall 2012.
For students who took EDUC 561: Intro to Higher Education
The readings and discussions in the first few weeks of this course delve more deeply into a topic
that you considered in Introduction to Higher Education last term. These readings present and
critique a wide variety of perspectives regarding the purposes of higher education. In your first
paper for the Intro course, you argued for the purpose(s) of higher education that you thought
most appropriate. This paper will ask you to take your thinking a step further. For this paper
you develop a memo to the academic dean of your college (you decide what “college” means
here -- the college of education, a liberal arts college, etc.) that will recommend a design for an
academic program that will 1) help new undergraduate students understand the origins and
purposes of general education and its (desired) relationship to the major program, and 2)
encourage them to be intentional and reflective as they make their academic choices. Assume
that the dean has given you permission and some funding to create or revise part or all of a
program -- for example, new student orientation, advising, first-year seminar -- for this
program.
In designing and defending your program, you must provide information on the mission of your
college and its stated learning outcomes as well as provide explanations/support for key ideas
using readings from the course. You may also use supporting literature from other courses.
FOR All other students: Response Paper – Purposes of Higher Education
The readings and discussions in the first few weeks of this course introduce and critique
different perspectives regarding the purposes of higher education, the assumptions that
underlie various purposes, and the content and pedagogy viewed as suitable for achieving
those purposes. Your first assignment is to write a paper that presents, explains, and defends
your personal view of the purpose(s) of higher education. How do your ideas reflect,
EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014
3
challenge, or extend the ideas about the purposes of higher education -- and how they should
be achieved -- that we have read to date. What do your personal commitments suggest to you
about the types of educational settings that you might choose as a faculty member,
administrator, or professional working in government, policy or advocacy organizations?
Details: Your paper should reflect your understandings of the course readings assigned up to
and including the readings assigned for September 24. This paper may not exceed 8 pages in
length and is due on Monday, September 29 at 4 pm. It will contribute 20% to your course
grade. Consult the Assessment Rubric on CTools before you write to understand the evaluation
criteria I will use in grading.
Assignments 2 - 5: Course Paper Components
Your course paper will focus on a specific instructional practice or learning theory. You are not
writing a literature review although you will be systematically reviewing a small set of articles
that you identify on the topic of your choice. Instead, your paper will examine a set of readings
through the curricular and learning perspectives that we will be discussing throughout this
course. This conceptual review will identify, examine, and evaluate the assumptions and
implicit understandings of curriculum, teaching, and learning that authors who write on this
topic espouse explicitly or implicitly, and identify directions for future research and/or practice.
Assignment 2: Proposal for Course Paper (DUE 10/15)
Each student will submit a proposal for a course paper that focuses on a specific instructional
practice or learning theory. In this two page proposal you will describe the instructional
practice or theory that you wish to study and provide 5 sources directly related to the practice
or theory that you have identified to date. You must identify an instructional practice or
learning theory for which there is a focused and significant empirical or theoretical literature
base. Examples of potential topics include: design learning in engineering, field experiences in
teacher education, cultural-historical activity theory, civic learning, teaching for transfer in
science courses. Your proposal is due on Wednesday, October 15, and will not be graded.
Instead, I will provide feedback on your choice of topic.
Assignment 3: Annotated Bibliography for Course Paper (DUE 11/14)
To help you prepare your course paper, you have two interim assignments. The first, an
annotated bibliography, is due on Friday, November 14 at 4 pm. It is worth 10% of your course
grade; doing it well will ensure you get a good start on your course paper.
Your annotated bibliography will consist of 6 - 10 key resources. You will add to this list of
references as you develop and complete your course paper. Your annotations should briefly
but carefully describe each article and why you selected it. If each of your annotations sounds
the same, you haven’t been specific enough in your discussion of the key ideas in the article or
chapter and how they will contribute to your final paper.
Assignment 4: Critical Review (DUE 11/19)
You will select two or three resources included in your annotated bibliography for a critical
review. This paper should include a) a brief but substantive summary of the arguments made in
EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014
4
the articles and/or chapters selected, and b) your critical assessment of the major ideas or
claims that are relevant to your course paper. Be sure to make clear the specific questions or
issues that these resources raise for your paper and why you think these ideas or issues will be
important in your final paper. Your review must provide a balanced discussion of the strengths
and weaknesses of these ideas and should make good use of the readings from the course in
supporting your review. A rubric for the review will be posted on CTools.
This paper (6 -10 pages) is due on Wednesday, November 19 at 4 pm and will constitute 20%
of your final grade. Consult the Assessment Rubric for the assignment before you write.
Assignment 5: Final Course Paper
Review the description of this paper in the section that introduces the Course Paper.
Remember, your final paper is not a literature review; rather it explores the implicit and explicit
ideas about curriculum, teaching, and learning in a set of readings on a type of instruction or
learning. Thus, your paper should reflect not only your understanding of the articles you have
identified, but your knowledge and understanding of the ideas, theories, concepts, and
research literature we have read, discussed, and analyzed throughout the course.
Be judicious in your choice of topics to explore as you write your paper, selecting those aspects
of the topic that are most relevant to this course. You do not have to use everything you
learned; rather, you will gain most if you explore particular connections in depth and detail. For
example, you might consider how “learners” are conceptualized in the literature you have
reviewed. What assumptions about learners are embedded in the different articles you read?
How do these assumptions influence the research design or interpretation of the findings? Are
there patterns across studies or do different researchers espouse different views? What
implications do you see for research or practice? In addition to this kind of analysis, you will
want to evaluate what you have read and learned and, consider the implications of what you
have learned for future research and practice
Details: Your final paper must be double-spaced, 12-point Times Roman, with one-inch
margins. It may be no longer than 25 pages in length, excluding the title page, references, and
any figures or appendices. This completed assignment will contribute 35% of your final grade
and is due on Friday, December 12 at 4 pm. An Assessment Rubric for the assignment will be
posted to guide you as you write.
EVALUATION CRITERIA:
In general, written assignments will be evaluated using the following criteria:






demonstration of complex understanding of subject, indicated by quality of research,
analysis, argumentation, and elaboration of important ideas;
knowledgeable and effective use of relevant literature to support claims;
organization (logical progression of ideas and arguments);
clear and engaging writing;
balanced and critical discussion of ideas or arguments; and
Compelling conclusions supported by strong rationales.
EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014
5
An assessment rubric that specifies additional evaluation criteria will be posted on the CTools
course website for each course assignment in advance of the due date.
Grading Scale: The scale used for determining final course grades will be:
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
D
F
3.7 - 4.0
3.4 - 3.69
3.1 - 3.39
2.8 - 3.09
2.5 - 2.79
2.2 - 2.49
2.0 - 2.19
1.1 - 1.99
0 - 1.0
Rewrite Policy: Students who receive grades of less than a B on the first assignment have the
option to rewrite this paper. (Credit lost due to lateness cannot be regained through rewriting.)
There is no grade limit for a voluntary rewrite. A rewrite does not guarantee an increase in your
grade. To improve your grade, you must demonstrate significant improvement by addressing
my comments. Rewriting typically requires attention to the conceptualization, content, and
organization of a paper. It may also require attention to synthesis, evaluation, and/or analysis.
Please submit the original copy of your paper with your rewrite. Rewrites will be accepted
until Friday, October 31. Please inform me if plan to do a rewrite. It may be useful to set up a
time to discuss my comments before begin your rewrite.
DUE DATES:
All assignments for the course are due on the dates posted in this syllabus. If you have a
pressing commitment, you must negotiate an alternative date with me in advance of the due
date. Deferred grades for the course (incompletes) will be awarded under extraordinary
circumstances; you must discuss the need for a deferred grade, and the due date for
completion of the course, with me in advance.
Requirements
Due Dates
Participation
Assignment 1: Response Paper – Purposes
Assignment 2: Proposal for Course Paper
Assignment 3A: Course Paper Component: Annotated Bibliog.
Assignment 4: Course Paper Component: Critical Review
Assignment 5: Course paper: Final Paper
ongoing
Mon. 9/29 (4 pm)
Wed. 10/15 (1 pm)
Fri., 11/14 (4 pm)
Wed., 11/19 (4 pm)
Fri., 12/12 (4 pm)
EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014
% of Grade
15%
20%
credit
10%
20%
35%
6
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY:
Students are expected to comply with the Rackham Policy on Academic Integrity
(http://www.rackham.umich.edu/policies/academic_and_professional_integrity/statement_on_academic_integrit
y/).
Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, falsifying or fabricating information,
plagiarizing the work of others, facilitating or failing to report acts of academic dishonesty by
others, submitting work done by another as your own, submitting work done for another
purpose to fulfill the requirements of a course, or tampering with the academic work of other
students. If you are unsure what constitutes a violation of academic integrity, please come talk
with me.
ACCOMMODATION FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES:
If you need an accommodation for a disability, please let me know at your earliest convenience. Some
aspects of this course, the assignments, the in-class activities, and the way I teach may be modified to
facilitate your participation and progress. As soon as you make me aware of your needs, we can work
with the office of Services for Students with Disabilities to help us determine appropriate
accommodations. I will treat any information you provide as private and
confidential. See http://www.umich.edu/~sswd/<http://www.umich.edu/~sswd/> for more
information about services for students with disabilities.
RELIGIOUS OBSERVATION:
This class observes University defined holidays (such as Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Fall
break). Because other days may be of more significance than a University-designated holiday,
please inform me as soon as possible if a class day or due date for a class assignment conflicts
with your observance of a holiday important to you. I will work with you to accommodate your
needs.
TOPICS AND READING ASSIGNMENTS BY CLASS SESSION
CLASS 1 September 3 Introduction to Curricula in Higher Education
On CTools:
Lattuca, L. R & Stark. J.S. (2009). Chapter 1, Defining Curriculum: An Academic Plan. In Shaping the
College Curriculum: Academic Plans in context (pp. 1 – 22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Course-Level Plan:

Berrett, D. (2012). 3 colleges’ different approaches shape learning in Econ 101. Chronicle of
Higher Education, A6-A9.
Program-Level Plan:

Terry, M.A., Goodman, R. M., Sharma, RA. K. & Jaros, K. J. (2007). Transforming a public health
curriculum for the 21st century. In J. Branche, J. Mullennix, & Cohn, E. R. (Eds.) Diversity across
the Curriculum: A Guide for Faculty in Higher Education, (pp. 136-144). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Continued on next page
EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014
7
College- Level Plans:

St. Johns College, Program overview video: http://www.youtube.com/stjohnscollege and Four
Year Reading List: http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/academic/ANreadlist.shtml

Kliewer, R. (1999). Interdisciplinary Education at Hampshire College: Bringing People Together
Around Ideas,” in Reinventing Ourselves: Interdisciplinary Education, Collaborative Learning, and
Experimentation in Higher Education.
 Hampshire Program Overview
 Hampshire College Curriculum Roadmap
Class 2 September 10 Sociocultural Influences: Changing Views of Knowledge
CTools:
Willis, J. W. (2007). History and the context of paradigm development. In Foundations of Qualitative
Research: Interpretive and Critical Approaches, (pp. 27-65). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reuben, J. A. (1996). Chapter 1: The Unity of Truth. In The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual
Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality (p. 17-35). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Reuben, J. A. (1996). Chapter 2: Science and Religion Reconsidered. In The Making of the Modern
University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality (p. 36-60). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Reuben, J. A. (1996). Conclusion. In The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation
and the Marginalization of Morality (p. 267-269). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Best, S. & Kellner, D. (1997). The time of the posts. In The Postmodern Turn, (pp. 3 – 37). New York: The
Guilford Press.
CLASS 3 September 17 Curricular Purposes and Content: Diversification, Part I
CTools:
Review curriculum examples discussed in first class; they will help us ground this discussion.
Hutchins, R. M. (1936). Grammar, rhetoric, and Mr. Dewey. The Social Frontier, 3 (23), 137-139.
http://www.ditext.com/hutchins/hut-r1.html
Dewey, J (1936). Rationality in education. The Social Frontier, 3 (21), 71-73.
http://www.ditext.com/dewey/dewey1.html
Dewey, J (1936). President Hutchins’ proposal to remake higher education. The Social Frontier, 3 (22),
103-104. http://www.ditext.com/dewey/dewey2.html
Hutchins, R. M. (1936). The dilemmas of the higher learning. In The higher learning in America, (pp. 3358). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Continued on next page
EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014
8
Hutchins, R. M. (1936). General education. In The higher learning in America, (pp. 59-87). New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Traditional vs. progressive education (pp. 17-23); The need of a theory of experience
(pp.25-31); Criteria of experience (pp. 33-50); The meaning of purpose (app. 67-72). In Experience and
Education. New York: Simon and Schuster. (NOTE: divided into 2 pdfs)
The Harvard Committee on the Objectives of a General Education in a Free Society. (1945). Theory of
general education. In General education in a free society: Report of the Harvard Committee (pp. 42-78).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (NOTE: the entire book is on CTools)
Lagemann, E. C. (2003). The Challenge of Liberal Education: Past, Present, and Future, Liberal Education.
Retrieved from www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-sp03/le-sp03feature.cfm
Humphreys, D. (2009). College outcomes for work, life, and citizenship. Liberal Education, 14 – 22.
Curriculum Example:

Connecting Work and Learning at the University of Iowa (2014, March). AAC&U News.
CLASS 4 September 24 Curricular Purposes and Content: Diversification, Part II
DUE - Assignment 1 is due on Monday, Sept. 29 at 4 pm (hard copy and upload to CTools)
CTools:
Bloom, A. (1987). Introduction: Our virtue. In The Closing of the American Mind (p. 25-43). New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity, Group Identity, and Citizenship Education in a Global Age. Educational
Researcher, 37(3), 129-139.
Giroux, H. (1992). Decentering the canon: Refiguring disciplinary and pedagogical boundaries. In Border
crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education (pp. 89-110). New York: Routledge.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1997). Citizens of the world. In Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in
liberal education (pp. 50-84). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Berkowitz, P. (2009). Conservatism and the college curriculum. Wall Street Journal Online. Retrieved
January 6, 2013 from
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124484718091311321.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%
3Darticle
Kiley, K. (2011, May 19). Decline of “Western Civ”? Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/05/19/national_association_of_scholars_report_finds_no_
mandatory_western_civilization_courses_at_top_universities
Ricketts, G., Wood, P. W., Balch, S. H. & Thorne, A. (2011). The Vanishing West: 1964-2010. Princeton,
NJ: National Association of Scholars.
Continued on next page
EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014
9
Curriculum Examples:
 Hatcher, R. (2007). Diversity and discipline: Approaching French literary studies. In J. Branche, J.
Mullennix, & Cohn, E. R. (Eds.), Diversity across the Curriculum: A Guide for Faculty in Higher
Education, (pp. 88-93). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 Also Terry et al. from Week 1 readings
CLASS 5 October 1 Accountability and Accreditation
CTools:
American Council on Education (2012). Assuring Academic Quality in the 21st Century: Self-Regulation in
a New Era. Washington, DC: Author.
Scanlon, E., & McComis, M. S. (2010). Accreditation and accountability. In G. Hentsche, V. Lechuga, &
W. G. Tierney (Eds.), For-Profit Colleges and Universities: Their Markets, Regulation, Performance, and
Place in Higher Education (pp. 109-144). Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing.
Gaston, P. (2014). Accreditation's alchemy hour: Riding the wave of innovation. Liberal Education,
100(2). Retrieved 8.19.14 from http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-sp14/gaston.cfm
Gaston, P. (2014). Questions that should be frequently asked. In Higher education accreditation: how
it's changing, why it must (pp. 5-25) Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Provezia, S. (2010). Regional Accreditation and Student Learning Outcomes: Mapping the Territory.
University of Illinois: National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.
Shavelson, R. J. (2010). Higher-Education Accountability Outside the United States. In Measuring College
Learning Responsibly: Accountability in a New Era (pp. 161-183). Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
CLASS 6
October 8
Organizational Contexts
CTools:
Lattuca & Stark (2009): Chapter 3, Internal Influences: College and University Contexts
(NOTE: CSHPE students may find this chapter useful as a review; others will find it useful as a primer on
how colleges and universities are structured and how they work.)
American Association of University Professors (2010). Tenure and Teaching Intensive Appointments.
AAUP Bulletin, September 2010. Washington, DC: AAUP.
(NOTE: Please pay particular attention to pp. 89-92 and skim the rest.)
Tierney, W. G., & Lechuga, V. (2010). Differences in academic work at traditional and for-profit
postsecondary institution. In G. Hentsche, V. Lechuga, & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), For-Profit Colleges and
Universities: Their Markets, Regulation, Performance, and Place in Higher Education (pp. 71-90).
Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing.
Continued on next page
EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014
10
Chronicle of Higher Education Special Report on For Profit Education (see multiple articles in single file)
Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on Demand: Online Education in the United States, 2009.
Boston: Babson Survey Research Group.
Wilson, R. (2012, October 14). 2 tracks for faculty. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved on 8.19.14
fro http://chronicle.com/article/2-Tracks-for-Faculty/135050/
If you are unfamiliar with the concept of academic freedom, please read this brief explanation:
 American Association of University Professors. 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic
Freedom and Tenure with 1970 Interpretive Comments. Washington, DC: AAUP.
CLASS 7 October 15
Disciplinary Contexts and Integrative Learning
DUE TODAY - Assignment 2: Proposal for Course Paper
CTools:
Lattuca & Stark (2009), Chapter 4, Internal Influences: Academic Fields
Davis, J. R. (1995). The rationale for interdisciplinary courses: The problem of specialization. In
Interdisciplinary Courses and Team Teaching: New Arrangements for Learning (pp. 23-44). Phoenix, AZ:
American Council on Education and Oryx Press.
Nelson Laird, T. F., Shoup, R., Kuh, G. D. & Schwarz, M. J. (2008). The Effects of Discipline on Deep
Approaches to Student Learning and College Outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 49, 469-494.
Labaree, D. F. (2006). Mutual Subversion: A Short History of the Liberal and the Professional in
American Higher Education. History of Education Quarterly, 46(1), vi, 1-15.
Curriculum Example:
 Abbott, W. & Nantz, K. A. (2012). Building students’ integrative capacities: A case study in
economics and history. Issues in Integrative Studies, 19-47.
CLASS 8 October 22 Creating Academic Plans: Instructors’ Planning and Decision-Making
CTools:
Lattuca & Stark: (2009), Chapter 5, Creating Academic Plans
Amundsen, C., Weston, C. & McAlpine, L. (2008). Concept mapping to support university academics’
analysis of course content. Studies in Higher Education, 33(6), 2008, 633–652.
Berrett, D. (2012, May 4). The imperfect art of designing online courses. Chronicle of Higher Education,
pp. B11-B12. Retrieved on 8.19.14 from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Imperfect-Art-ofDesigning/131671/
Continued on next page
EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014
11
Hora, M. T. (2012) Organizational Factors and Instructional Decision-Making: A Cognitive Perspective.
Review of Higher Education, 35(2), 207–235.
Ferrare, J. J., & Hora, M. T. (2012). Cultural Models of Teaching and Learning: Challenges and
Opportunities for Undergraduate Math and Science Education (WCER Working Paper No. 2012-8).
Retrieved from University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research website:
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/papers.php
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Backward design. In, Understanding by design (expanded 2nd ed.) (pp.
13-34). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jaschik, S. (2010, November 8). Constant Curricular Change. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2010/11/08/pod
CLASS 9 October 29 Learning, Part I: Learner as Individual
Required Text:
Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (1998). Behaviorism. In Perspectives on Learning (5th ed.) (pp. 21-32). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (1998). Problem solving, insight, and activity. In Perspectives on Learning (5th
ed.) (pp. 33-40). New York: Teachers College Press.
Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (1998). Piagetian Structures and Psychological Constructivism. In Perspectives
on Learning (5th ed.) (pp. 41-51). New York: Teachers College Press.
Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (1998). The Cognitive Science Approach. In Perspectives on Learning (5th ed.)
(pp. 76-89). New York: Teachers College Press.
Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (1998). Transfer of learning. In Perspectives on Learning (5th ed.) (pp. 76-86).
New York: Teachers College Press.
CTools:
Entwistle, N. J., & Peterson, E. R. (2005). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education:
Relationships with study behavior and influences of learning environments. International Journal of
Educational Research, 41, 407-428.
Curriculum Example:
 Glenn, D. (2010, February 7). How students can improve by studying themselves. Chronicle of
Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Struggling-Students-Can/64004/
CLASS 9 November 5 Learning, Part II: The Learner in Context
Text:
Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (1998). Social Aspects of Learning. In Perspectives on Learning (4th ed.) (pp.
53-66). New York: Teachers College Press.
EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014
12
CTools:
Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaboration, conversation, and reacculturation. In Collaborative learning: Higher
education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge (pp. 3-20). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
Press.
Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Education as conversation. In Collaborative learning: Higher education,
interdependence, and the authority of knowledge (pp. 133- 148). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational
Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Paris, J. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice.
Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97.
Bailey, F. & Pranksy, K. (2003). Are “Other People’s Children” constructivist learners too? Theory into
Practice 44(1), 19-26.
Rose, M. (1989). The Politics of Remediation. Lives on the Boundary: A Moving Account of the Struggles
and Achievements of America’s Educationally Underprepared (pp. 167-204). NY: Penguin Books.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of Research in
Education, 23, 1-24.
For a critique of claims made regarding situated learning, see:
 Anderson, J. R, Reder, L. M., & Simon H.A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational
Researcher, 25(4), 5-11.
CLASS 10 November 12 Instructional Processes
Due on Friday, 11/14 - Assignment 4: Course Paper Component: Annotated Bibliography
CTools:
Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Experiencing a paradigm shift through assessment. In M. E. Huba & J.
E. Freed, Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning
(pp. 1-31). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Freeman, S. Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P.
(2014). Active learning increases student performances in science, engineering, and mathematics.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415, doi:
10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Prince, M. J. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering
Education, 93 (3), 223‐231.
Continued on next page
EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014
13
CHOOSE to TWO of the following SETS of articles: 1) Decoding the disciplines, 2) SCALE-UP, or 3)
Universal Design
Decoding the Disciplines:
 Middendorf, J. & Pace, D. (2004). Decoding the disciplines: A model for helping students learn
disciplinary ways of thinking. In D. Pace & J. Middendorf (Eds.), Decoding the Disciplines: Helping
Students Learn Disciplinary Ways of Thinking (pp. 1-12). New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, Vol. 98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 Pace, D. (2004). Decoding the reading of history: An example of the process. In D. Pace & J.
Middendorf (Eds.), Decoding the Disciplines: Helping Students Learn Disciplinary Ways of
Thinking (pp. 13-21). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Vol. 98. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
SCALE-UP:
 Beichner, R. J. Saul, J. M., Abbott, D. S., Morse, J. J., Deardorff, D.L., Allain, R. J., Bonham, S. W.,
Dancy, M. H., & Risley, J. S. The Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate
Programs (SCALE-UP) Project. Retrieved December 21, 2009 from
http://www.compadre.org/PER/per_reviews/media/volume1/SCALE-UP-2007.pdf

Beichner, R. J. (2008). The SCALE-UP Project: A Student-Centered, Active Learning Environment
for Undergraduate Programs. Invited white paper for the National Academy of Sciences.
Universal Design for Inclusion:
 Mino, J. J. (2004). Planning for inclusion: Using universal instructional design to create a learnercentered community college classroom. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37(2), 154-160.
 Hackman, H. W. & Rauscher, L. (2004) A pathway to access for all: Exploring the connections
between universal instructional design and social justice education. Equity & Excellence in
Education, 37 (2), 114–123.
Recommended Reading to expand understanding of instructional approaches:
 Lattuca & Stark (2009) Chapter 7, Instructional Processes
November 19
NO CLASS - ASHE
Due on Wednesday, 11/19 - Assignment 4: Course Paper Component: Critical Review
CLASS 11 November 26 Institutional Improvement: Assessment and Program Review
CTools:


Case Study: Assessment of student learning at Olin College of Engineering
Case Study: The Core Council at The Pennsylvania State University
Astin, A. W. (2013, September 6). The promise and peril of outcomes assessment. Chronicle of Higher
Education, p. A53-A54. . Retrieved 8.19.14 from http://chronicle.com/article/The-PromisePerilof/141337/
Continued on next page
EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014
14
Berrett, D (2014, April 21). Colleges back away from using tests to assess student learning. Chronicle of
Higher Education. Retrieved 8.19.14 from http://chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Back-Away-FromUsing/146073/
Ewell, P., Paulson, K., and Kinzie, J. (2011). Down and in: Assessment practices at the program level.
University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign: National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.
Hutchings, P. (2010, April). Opening doors to faculty involvement in assessment. Occasional Paper #4.
National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.
Sternberg, R. J., Penn, J. & Hawkins, C (2009). Assessing college student learning: Evaluating alternative
models, using multiple methods. Washington, DC: AAC&U.
Kolowich. S. (2014, August 15). Can universities use data to fix what ails the lecture? Chronicle of Higher
Education, pp. A20-A23. Retrieved 9.2.14 from http://chronicle.com/article/Can-Colleges-Use-Data-toFix/148307/ (Link if you want to read the 245 comments!)
Curriculum Examples:
 Burnett, M. N. & Williams, J. W. (2009). Institutional uses of rubrics and e-portfolios: Spelman
College and Rose-Hulman Institute. Peer Review, pp. 24-27.
Recommended Reading to expand understanding of evaluation of academic plans:

Lattuca & Stark (2009) Chapter 8, Evaluating and Adjusting Academic Plans
Class 12 December 3 Curricular Change
CTools:
Lattuca & Stark (2009) Chapter 10, Models and Strategies for Curricular Change
Graham, R. (2012). Achieving excellence in engineering education: the ingredients of successful change.
London: Royal Academy of Engineering. (Read through page 25)
Henderson, C., Finkelstein, N. & Beach A. (2009). Beyond Dissemination in College Science Teaching: An
Introduction to Four Core Change Strategies. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(5), 18-25.
Kezar, A. (2012). The Path to Pedagogical Reform in the Sciences: Engaging Mutual Adaptation and
Social Movement Models of Change. Liberal Education, 98(1). Retrieved from
http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-wi12/kezar.cfm
Adelman, C., Ewell, P. T., Gaston, P., & Schneider, C. G. (2014). The Degree Qualifications Profile 2.0:
Defining US Degrees through Demonstration and Documentation of College Learning. Liberal Education,
100(2). Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-sp14/adelman.cfm
Wright, Cook, & O’Neal. (2010). Developing and renewing department chair leadership. In L. B. Nilson &
J. E. Miller (Eds.). To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional, and Organizational
Development (pp. 278-291). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014
15
CLASS 13 December 10 Present and Future Faculty: Instructional Development
Course Paper Due on Friday, December 12 at 4 pm
CTools:
June, A. W. (2011, May 15). Universities turn to graduate instructors to clear course bottlenecks.
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Grad-Students-Take-thePodium/127542/
Bok, D. (2013, November 15). We must prepare Ph.D. students for the complicated art of teaching.
Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A36-A37. Retrieved 8.19.14 from http://chronicle.com/article/WeMust-Prepare-PhD-Students/142893/
Pruitt-Logan, A. S., & Gaff, J. G. (2004). Preparing future faculty: Changing the culture of doctoral
education (pp. 177-193). In D. H. Wulff & A. E. Austin (Eds.), Paths to the Professoriate: Strategies for
Enriching the Preparation of Future Faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
June, A. W. (2014, May 9). Navigating culture shock: Ph.D. students at Stanford learn about faculty life at
San Jose State U., a campus quite unlike their own. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A26-A29.
Retrieved on 8.19.14 from http://chronicle.com/article/Navigating-Culture-Shock/146365/
EDUC 762 Curriculum /Fall 2014
16