Final Report
Curriculum Implementation Committee
SUBMITTED TO THE UNDERGRADUATE ACADEMIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL
FACULTY OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA
FALL, 2010
Curriculum Implementation Committee
2
Report to the Undergraduate Academic Affairs Council – September 2010
Table of Contents
Introduction ...............................................................................................................4
Background ................................................................................................................4
Clarification of the Role of CIC .....................................................................................5
Consultation ...............................................................................................................6
Response to Feedback ................................................................................................7
General Comments ................................................................................................................................. 7
Likes ............................................................................................................................................................. 8
Questions and Areas for Reconsideration ..................................................................................... 9
Program Content ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Credit Hour Allocation in Specific Content Areas ........................................................................ 9
Community-based Placements............................................................................................................. 9
Education Seminar ................................................................................................................................... 9
Technology .................................................................................................................................................10
Counseling and Child Development .................................................................................................10
Concentrations .........................................................................................................................................10
Program Organization and Delivery ..............................................................................................10
Some Common Questions and Responses ................................................................. 13
Moving Forward ....................................................................................................... 14
Appendix A – CIC Terms of Reference ........................................................................ 17
Appendix B – Review of Elementary Credit Distribution in Selected Courses at
Other Canadian Faculties of Education ................................................................ 19
3
Curriculum Implementation Committee
Curriculum Implementation Final Report
_____________________________________________________
Submitted to the Undergraduate Academic Affairs Committee
September 2010
Introduction
With the submission of this report, the Curriculum Implementation Committee (CIC)
has completed its work and undergraduate program renewal will now move
forward under the direction of Undergraduate Academic Affairs Council (UAAC).
This report is meant to synthesize two years of intense work by CIC, provide some
ideas for direction setting in the future, as well as an overview of:
1. Background – the process in which the Curriculum Implementation
Committee has been engaged for the past two years;
2. Clarification of the role of CIC;
3. CIC’s consultation with faculty;
4. Faculty feedback to the proposed teacher education program model with
responses from CIC to the feedback;
5. Some common questions and responses;
6. Moving forward.
For complete information about the proposed teacher education program model as
well as other pertinent documents, which are essential knowledge for
contextualizing this report, please go to the following URL:
http://www2.education.ualberta.ca/cic
Background
CIC is a sub-committee of UAAC with representation from each of the four
departments, the Assistant Dean, Field Experience, an Alberta Teachers’ Association
(ATA) representative and is chaired by the Associate Dean, Undergraduate Teacher
Education. We began our work in August, 2008. Our responsibility (See Appendix A)
was to provide a program model with workable variations that reflected the
Statement of Principles (2006), responded to the findings of the Undergraduate
Program Review Report (2007), and incorporated the components of the
Curriculum Framework (2008). In addition, we were instructed by the Steering
Committee (Dean Snart, Vice Dean Bainbridge, Chairs Jose da Costa, Elaine Simmt,
Robin Everall, Dianne Oberg) to work within current resources.
Much of our work in Fall, 2008 consisted of exploring various models in other
organizations as well as envisioning potential models that would accommodate the
complexity of our program, including various entry points, collaboratives, etc.
During Winter, 2009, after lengthy discussion and debate, we organized the thirteen
4
Report to the Undergraduate Academic Affairs Council – September 2010
components of the Curriculum Framework into six themed strands, called nodes, as
programmatic organizers.
In Fall, 2009, we spent time thoroughly cross-checking, using N-Vivo, to ensure that
the descriptions for the nodes collectively captured the intent of all components. We
also began the work of organizing the nodes into a program of learning units (precursors to courses that would eventually be developed by faculty working groups)
that could be delivered within the credit hours available to both Elementary and
Secondary. We concurrently consulted with the faculty1 to ensure that the
outcomes for each node, which would then be organized into learning units by term,
represented the collective expertise of the faculty. Our goal was to organize the
outcomes in a coherent and developmentally appropriate series of learning units
across the six nodes in four themed terms.
Our preliminary program model was first shared with the steering committee in
order to ascertain what was seen as desirable and what some of the concerns might
be. We then prepared a more comprehensive presentation of the proposed program,
including a rough estimate of resources for delivery, to be presented at a special
faculty meeting in April 2010. The presentation was for the purpose of soliciting
feedback prior to preparing a final report for UAAC in September 2010.
Clarification of the Role of CIC
During the consultation process, and in subsequent conversations, CIC noticed some
misunderstanding with regard to the extent of the role that we would play in the
implementation of a revised undergraduate program. The chart below attempts to
clarify CIC’s role and notes some of the issues that are related to implementation but
over which we had no jurisdiction.
What the CIC could do
What the CIC could not do
Identify essential outcomes
Decide on the organization of
workload as this is the
responsibility of the steering
committee
---------------------------------------------Assignment of courses
--------------------------------------------Identify organization of outcomes
into groupings of outcomes
(learning units)
By “faculty”, we mean the tenured or tenure-track professors in the Faculty of
Education unless otherwise noted.
1
5
Curriculum Implementation Committee
Identify potential courses based on
Curriculum Framework
--------------------------------------------Provide a coherent and
developmentally appropriate
programmatic structure to
accommodate learning units within
current credit hours
---------------------------------------------Suggest organizational structures
to monitor program
Course development
---------------------------------------------Implement program as this is the
responsibility of UAAC
--------------------------------------------Implement organizational
structures to monitor program
Consultation
Throughout its work as a committee, CIC has reported monthly to UAAC. In addition,
the Chair of CIC generally met every two weeks with the Steering Committee to
discuss resource issues as well as process issues regarding changes in practice that
were not a part of CIC’s mandate but were necessary to successful implementation
of a new program – e.g., workload. At the end of the academic year, Spring 2009, CIC
also presented interim information to the Dean’s Advisory Council Retreat and
Faculty Council. In addition, members of CIC presented information about our
deliberations to department councils, as appropriate.
In Fall, 2009, the faculty participated in a retreat at which outcomes directly derived
from the components of the Curriculum Framework were considered and expanded.
“Brown bags”, at which further input on the outcomes was sought, followed the
retreat. In addition, a wiki was set up following the faculty retreat that provided
extensive information for faculty as well as a blog for faculty feedback. Faculty
members were also invited to communicate ideas and questions on the wiki,
through email, or by raising questions with the Department CIC representative or
the CIC Chair at any time.
Prior to the presentation of the proposed model to the faculty, a draft model was
presented to the Steering Committee for feedback. Further consultation about the
education seminar and the field experience was sought and input was provided
from cross-departmental groups chaired by Randy Wimmer (re: field experience)
and Terry Carson (re: education seminar). Based on the feedback received, and
keeping in mind the resources available and requirements of the Curriculum
Framework, a draft undergraduate teacher education program model was
developed. Immediately following the development of a comprehensive program
model by CIC, the model was posted on a website accessible to all faculty prior to
6
Report to the Undergraduate Academic Affairs Council – September 2010
the faculty presentation. A formal presentation of the proposed model was provided
to faculty in April 2010 for discussion and feedback.
Response to Feedback
CIC has received extensive feedback from the faculty and has reviewed it
thoroughly. The specific written feedback has been collated and organized into
three separate documents: Likes, Questions, and Areas for Improvement (See
http://www2.education.ualberta.ca/cic). Please note that the latter two categories
have been conflated into one category – Questions and Areas for Reconsideration – in
this report. The following represents a précis of the feedback with selected
responses from CIC that will hopefully clarify information and some misconceptions.
General Comments
Feedback, following presentation of the draft undergraduate teacher education
program model, was received from individuals, ad hoc groups, and departments. Not
surprisingly, there was some repetition as well as differences of perception – e.g.,
strong support for the education seminar across departments with some dissenting
or cautionary views. Some comments, while not directly related to the proposed
model, raised important questions with regard to workload or pedagogical issues
that are beyond CIC’s mandate (see Clarification of the Role of CIC, p. 5) but will be
important to consider should courses be developed based on the outcomes in the
proposed program. Further, significant resource issues are implied by the “wish
lists” put forward by faculty (e.g., smaller classes than those proposed in the
program model; more credits allocated to program) that cannot be resourced under
current circumstances but will certainly be important to capture for future
consideration should resources increase.
Inevitably, however, there are tensions between meeting the demands of the CIC
mandate and retaining program practices to which faculty may have a legitimate
allegiance. For example, the curriculum framework requires that all pre-service
teachers have knowledge of the thirteen components, whereas, in the current
program, often only a comparatively small number of students may have access to
courses on Aboriginal Knowledges, Human Development, and so on. In addition, due
to the idiosyncratic way in which student programs are currently structured, the
Synthesis and Integration component is largely impossible within the current
program.
Particular concern was expressed about the suggestion of one and two credit
learning units, however, some written and oral feedback we have received
demonstrates that a small number of faculty members are already thinking about
how they might, for example, work with a 2 credit course, should doing so be
necessary, by pairing instructors in subject areas that are congruent pedagogically
so that they can share teaching core knowledge. Others are beginning to talk about
how a coherent and predictable knowledge base within a term will mean that they
can organize course-based knowledge differently within a smaller number of course
7
Curriculum Implementation Committee
hours. For example, if Bloom’s Taxonomy is taken up in an Assessment module or
course elsewhere, it can be referenced and built on and/or critiqued within the
particular subject area but does not have to be re-taught. This is currently not
possible because it is entirely unpredictable what knowledge students have when
they come into a class, so there is a necessary redundancy in course content. In
addition, 1credit courses could be offered as an on-line or face-to-face module
and/or combined with 2 or 3 credit courses as appropriate. This kind of pedagogical
imagination demonstrates the strength of our faculty in moving forward in
whatever direction is chosen by UAAC as we work to implement a coherent program
that authentically represents all of the components in the curriculum framework
within diminishing resources.
Likes
Faculty members were particularly supportive of an expanded field experience and
the education seminar. Although there was some concern about the size of the
seminar, whether tenure-track professors would be available to facilitate the
seminar, and the desirability as well as complexity of building the seminar around
cohorts, the general consensus seemed to be to “make it work”. In particular, the
focus on research in the T4 seminar was noted as a positive as was the ability of
professors to build supportive relationships with students and link their research
expertise to the discussions in the seminars. Faculty members also noted the
efficacy of having a field experience early in the program and were particularly
positive about the possibilities of a field experience linked to the community. The
linkages between the field experience and the course-based components for all
students were seen as a welcome initiative.
Many faculty members welcomed having a particular focus for each term and the
developmental progression of knowledge across the nodes in each of the four terms.
The research and inquiry focus of each term was also seen to be a positive aspect of
the program. Faculty also felt that issues of diversity within the K-12 student
population were addressed very effectively, and that a focus on critical literacies,
developing technologies, and aboriginal focus have significant merit.
Unlike some of the feedback we got, which will be addressed later in this report,
several faculty welcomed opportunities to collaborate in a more comprehensive and
coordinated way and that key concepts, such as assessment and Aboriginal
knowledges, will be embedded across subject areas. They also welcomed facultywide ownership of courses for its pedagogical merit and as a way to bring the
faculty together across departments around common interests and expertise. Other
“likes” included the possibility of alternate delivery formats, the cohesiveness of the
program, and the flexibility of credit modules.
8
Report to the Undergraduate Academic Affairs Council – September 2010
Questions and Areas for Reconsideration
Program Content
With significant change there is always concern; understandably there were many
questions and concerns expressed by the faculty about a model that proposes to
make significant changes in the organization of our undergraduate program. These
concerns will need attention in amending the model. We will address some of them
in this report and in no particular order.
Credit Hour Allocation in Specific Content Areas
First, several faculty had concerns about the limited number of credit hours
allocated to language and literacy. In addition, the organization of language and
literacy across the four terms was perceived to be fragmented. The lack of a
separate course on assessment was also a concern, although there was agreement
that assessment should be integrated into curriculum courses in addition to a
separate course. There was also a feeling that there was an over-emphasis on
language diversity in “Making Learning Accessible” and other parts of the program
and that other diversities needed equal attention.
Community-based Placements
A small number of faculty were concerned that the community-based field
placement needed to be aligned with subject areas and that the implications of
doing placements for a large number of students within the community needed to
be fully considered. These are issues that CIC has certainly considered and will be
carefully addressed as the program becomes more highly developed by the
departments and curriculum working groups, should UAAC move forward with
implementation.
Education Seminar
Although the education seminar was viewed very positively in general, some faculty
asked about whether cohorts had been considered. CIC did consider several cohort
options carefully but this is a decision outside of CIC’s mandate and will have to be
made during program implementation, as there are several variables that would
affect the feasibility of a cohort model. For example, there might be difficulty
ensuring that the same professor/instructor is with the cohort throughout four
terms, and integration of students who choose to move through the four terms more
slowly then their peers could be challenging. There was also concern about who
would teach the seminars, as it is essential that pre-service teachers are introduced
to the “bigger picture” questions rather than simply exploring instrumental issues in
teaching. The education seminar was seen as the focus for the “synthesis and
integration” and “teacher identity” components.
9
Curriculum Implementation Committee
Technology
Concerns were raised about “quality control” across multiple course sections in
which technology is to be integrated and assessed critically. Budget issues and the
lack of qualified instructors to integrate technology knowledgeably were also noted
as potential concerns.
Counseling and Child Development
In the area of education psychology, some noted the importance of introducing
counseling psychology and child development into the program. CIC believes that,
unlike the current program, which deals with each of these areas in a very limited
way, these areas are addressed in several places in the proposed program model,
but particularly in “Understanding Learning and the Development of Learners”.
Careful attention to the outcomes in this node during course development has the
potential to provide much more robust attention to both counseling and child
development.
Concentrations
There were a few questions raised about the idea of Concentrations. CIC did not
intend for this idea to be seen as a part of the proposed program model since it is
outside our jurisdiction. We merely raised the idea as an alternative for future
consideration to enable students to build education-related background knowledge
outside of subject-based knowledge. We also did not intend for these courses to be
seen as a replacement for education options, but rather as a way to guide students
in building a particular area of expertise related to the work of educators that they
could bring to the education program. While concentrations would certainly serve a
different purpose than the minors in Elementary, as currently offered, should the
program not offer minors in the future, we suggested the idea of concentrations as
an alternative way for our students to develop specialized knowledge that has
relevance to pedagogical contexts.
Program Organization and Delivery
Course Co-ordination and Development
Concerns were raised about the level of coordination necessary for effective
delivery of the proposed program. These concerns, while legitimate, may not
consider what is proposed in comparison to the considerable amount of coordination that already occurs in multiple section courses. For example, in the IPT
alone, there is a great deal of co-ordination required for all core courses as well as
the curriculum courses. Concerns may be based on current organizational
structures that require considerable meeting time for each aspect of a course. We
envision, instead, that co-ordination, once courses are developed, could take place
across a semester, much as the IPT Coordinating Committee works now. We
anticipate that there would be considerable “up-front” work, however, in
10
Report to the Undergraduate Academic Affairs Council – September 2010
coordinating the development of new courses and technology assisted opportunities
for learning, but it may be less onerous than is imagined. In addition, there may be
resource neutral ways to create incentives for faculty who provide significant
leadership in creating new and innovative courses.
One and Two Credit Courses
There was also concern about the efficacy of one and two credit courses. First, some
believe this will lead students to see these courses as less important and, therefore,
will not engage. Second, some were concerned that extra-campus opportunities to
observe in schools as a part of courses would be lost along with the loss of one
credit. Others were concerned about the transferability of the smaller credits. These
are very legitimate concerns and will be considered as the proposed program model
or aspects of the model are implemented. There was also a fear that the proposed
teacher education program would become over-modularized, but we believe that
careful co-ordination across themed semesters and the addition of a carefully
planned education seminar will mitigate these concerns. Our research, which was
limited to exploring elementary curriculum and core course requirements at other
Canadian faculties of education (Appendix B), suggests that courses with a low
number of credits or modularized courses are a common practice and have not
proven to be a problem when students are moving into graduate studies.
There was a concern that lower numbers of credits would offer pre-service teachers
fewer opportunities to interact one-on-one and in-depth with professors with whom
they may want to do graduate work. We would suggest, however, that these kinds
of opportunities are currently minimal and would largely continue within the new
model (e.g., the Roger S. Smith Undergraduate research Awards) but that the
education seminar and a concluding research project in T4 will provide an
additional opportunity for all students to interact directly with professors and allow
them to participate in research that is related to professors’ areas of expertise.
Doing so may well provide more students with greater motivation to consider the
possibilities of graduate studies than is currently possible.
Program Diffusion and Inter-disciplinarity
Program diffusion was also a concern – that is, the program content is perceived to
be spread too thinly across the semesters. However, we believe that the proposed
program model is consistent with current research on teacher education program
design (e.g., Darling-Hammond, Hammernes, Grossman, Rust & Shulman, 2005) in
that it offers an opportunity for developmental progression, thus offering preservice teachers the opportunity to meet ideas several times across the program in
an ever-deepening awareness of how these ideas relate to their growing pedagogical
expertise and the social context of teaching.
There was some concern about faculty needing to be “experts” in multiple areas in
order to offer courses that draw on inter-disciplinary expertise. Instead, we would
argue that what we are proposing does not require one person to be an expert in all
aspects of a course but, instead, offers the opportunity for sharing of expertise
11
Curriculum Implementation Committee
across departmental boundaries so that courses are enriched, particularly at the
planning stage, from expertise within the faculty wherever it might reside. In some
cases, faculty members may choose to co-teach a course by sharing responsibility
for particular aspects of a course, or a single instructor may teach the entire course
using a carefully crafted course developed by a team of “experts” who are available
to the instructor for questions, etc., but are not involved in the physical delivery of
the course.
Workload
There is a significant concern that the proposed program will add to workloads and
that there might not be equitable distribution of workload. Elementary faculty, in
particular were concerned about how workload issues might play out for them,
given the complexity of their on-campus program as well as teaching responsibility
for the collaborative programs. There was also concern that FEC would not properly
recognize the extra workload in moving program initiatives forward. Many faculty
members felt that their concerns with regard to workload needed to be addressed
before they could respond positively to the proposed model. We would agree that it
is important for faculty to have as clear an idea of workload issues in the new
program as is possible but this is outside CIC’s jurisdiction. We would suggest that
the steering committee continue to move forward as quickly as possible with the
initiatives already begun in working on a more flexible workload policy and to do so
in consultation with faculty members.
Elementary: Minors and Two-Credit Subject Area Courses
The two proposed changes that were most upsetting to Elementary faculty were the
loss of the minors and the reduction of subject-based courses to 2 credits. These
concerns are shared by CIC, but decisions around these choices, while painful, were
almost inevitable in response to our responsibility to include knowledge from all the
Curriculum Framework components for all students that had previously been
options for a few students or not offered at all. The result was a model that is closer
to that of many other faculties of education and congruent with the generalist
nature of Elementary programs – i.e., provide overview courses to introduce
elementary teaching, subject-based knowledge in all curriculum areas with a
particular emphasis on the core of elementary teaching – language and literacy, and
attention to thematic synthesis of courses with a language and literacy emphasis.
All subject areas for which Elementary teachers are responsible were provided with
2 credits with the knowledge that some of the course content instructors have been
providing in every subject course, because of the current idiosyncratic nature of our
program, would not need to be attended to in the same way because of the coherent
nature of each term in the proposed program. In addition, we envisioned some
sharing of knowledge building across subject areas as has been described earlier.
However, there may be other ways to organize the subject courses that will mitigate
some of the concerns expressed and we would certainly encourage exploration of
those possibilities, should the proposed program model be adopted, as courses are
developed.
12
Report to the Undergraduate Academic Affairs Council – September 2010
The decision not to include Minors in the draft undergraduate program model was a
particularly difficult one and one that we did not make lightly. The credit hours
necessary for inclusion of Minors proved impossible to provide, however, because of
our mandate to build a program that must accommodate all of the Curriculum
Framework components that expand the knowledge base with which every student
is expected to engage and within our current resources. In addition, some of the
Minors were very small and maintaining the level of resources required proved
unsustainable as we considered resource estimates for the proposed program.
Lecture/Section Size
Some faculty were concerned about the class size suggested for some courses and
we share their concern. We were trying to be as frugal as possible with resources
while considering pedagogical arrangements that would adequately meet students’
needs – albeit not always within ideal conditions. We would certainly suggest that
many courses, which are currently listed as large section courses, should be
reorganized into smaller sections or combined large section/small section courses
as more resources become available. We also suggest that technology might assist in
enhancing the student experience in large section courses with mini-tutorials online, podcasts, wiki blogs, and so on.
Some Common Questions and Responses
Should the proposed model be adopted by UAAC in its current or an amended form,
there are some questions that may need to be considered. The following questions
and answers provide some insights from CIC, based on our experience, which may
be useful to future considerations.
Q: Can the groupings of outcomes in the proposed model be rearranged into
different credit groupings?
A: Yes – as long as outcomes are not lost and a rationale based on the Vision
Statement, Principles, and Curriculum Framework can be offered to justify change.
Q: Who will need to approve those changes?
A: Once the proposed program, either in whole or in part, is approved by UAAC, just
as we do now when program changes are proposed, changes will need to be
proposed through formal motion and approved by UAAC – e.g., a department
decides that they would like to: organize 2 credit courses into 3 credit courses;
integrate 2 credit and 1 credit courses of related learning units; combine 2 x 2 or 3
credit courses into a combined course (e.g., language arts, social studies into a
humanities course)
Q: Are there things that are non-negotiable?
13
Curriculum Implementation Committee
A: Yes – practices must be reflective of our Vision Statement and the Principles; field
experience must be included in each term as described; a seminar must be offered
as a synthesis and integration opportunity for students; practices must respect and
actualize all the framework components; total credit hours available within the
program must be accommodated.
Q: To what degree is cross-departmental collaboration necessary?
A: We see collaboration as necessary in the initial preparation of course outlines
and, in some cases, will be highly desirable in delivery of courses. Collaboration will
be made easier by the fact that the program is coherent and there is clear
information about outcomes and the relationship of those outcomes to those in
other courses. We also see a collaborative model as reflective of what we expect of
our students’ future practice as well as presenting opportunities for crossdepartment research, pedagogical material development, and so on for our faculty.
Q: How will collaboration be facilitated and monitored?
A: We recommend that structures be put in place, such as term committees (similar
to the IPT Coordinating Committee), that will work in conjunction with
undergraduate associate chairs in each department.
Moving Forward
Dean Snart, in her message to the faculty, dated August 27, 2010, stated that
The [CIC] report will provide a vision for the undergraduate program,
and also a springboard and catalyst for discussion and decisions
concerning the implementation and timing of specific changes to the
program. UAAC will be given the responsibility to consider and discuss
the CIC Report, and feedback from faculty members, to determine ways
to proceed with recommendations, and communicate such direction to
department members through departmental representatives and/or
Faculty Council.
As UAAC considers future steps toward program renewal, the Chair of CIC, will be
pleased to offer any support necessary. In addition, should it be useful to meet with
departments to clarify the proposed teacher education program model, the Chair
will be available to do so. Whatever steps forward toward a renewed undergraduate
program are taken, UAAC will provide direction to the faculty in reviewing its
practices in relation to the Principles, Undergraduate Program Review, Vision
Statement, and Curriculum Framework.
CIC has provided a rigorously vetted, coherent, and developmentally sequenced
program that is based on the Principles, Vision Statement, and Curriculum
14
Report to the Undergraduate Academic Affairs Council – September 2010
Framework that we are confident can be delivered within the resources available to
the faculty. We recognize, however, that we have proposed significant changes to
current practice. As we all know, change is difficult – particularly in a large and
complex institution and even more so during a time of fiscal constraint. However,
resources will diminish no matter which program we are working within and,
therefore, we would point out that our analysis suggests that the proposed program
model has the potential to use resources more efficiently.
Throughout the CIC process, departments, through committees like the IPT
Coordinating Committee, have been working to ensure that initiatives they have
taken on are congruent with the Principles, Vision Statement, and Curriculum
Framework, and are potentially transferable to the proposed program: for example,
the new model for guided observation during IPT that will be implemented Fall,
2010, as well as the Language and Literacy initiative that we hope will be
implemented in Fall 2011. As a faculty, we are committed to continuing to work
towards fulfilling the direction that we have chosen in ratifying the Principles,
Vision Statement, and Curriculum Framework that will now be carried forward
forward by UAAC with the receipt of this report.
Long Term and Short Term Reform
As UAAC considers next steps toward more global program renewal based on the
work of various committees over the past six years, CIC would propose that UAAC
consider some or all of the following initiatives in the more immediate future as
they are consistent with the direction of the proposed undergraduate program
model, will be helpful in ensuring that the curriculum framework is actualized, and
will capture the momentum that has been engendered across the faculty throughout
the program review process.
1. Review current courses and revise, as appropriate, to reflect the curriculum
framework and learning units in the proposed program: e.g., revise EDPS 310
and 410 based on outcomes of Contexts of Professional Practice.
2. Organize term committees through UAAC that would be responsible for
rationalizing courses within terms and across the program – for example,
separate or combined IPT/APT Co-ordinating Committees. (Note: Doing so
will help provide greater consistency across the professional terms within
the new Secondary program model.)
3. Develop the expertise for supporting students building an electronic
portfolio. These could become an important core organizer for the initiatives
introduced by the term committees. (Note: This is becoming increasingly
important as instructors in various parts of the program are introducing
electronic portfolios but there is no coherence between the various portfolios
that the students are developing in separate courses. In addition, the
15
Curriculum Implementation Committee
electronic portfolio will be a helpful tool in enhancing continuity for
Secondary students who are now doing their Major in both IPT and APT)
4. Initiate processes for integrating Aboriginal knowledges across the program
in co-operation with IEC, as well as introducing a compulsory course, a
course component, or required Native Studies course to provide important
contextual knowledge with regard to Aboriginal education.
5. Initiate strategic development of technological knowledge to support
pedagogy. Begin building a bank of podcasts for particular courses that will
be available for future course delivery: e.g., a presentation on assessment
that might be helpful for curriculum courses. Pilot on-line modules to
support particular courses.
6. As resources are available, pilot an education seminar/field experience
grouping that could serve as a model for the proposed program.
Revise EDU 250 to act as a dynamic introductory course that reflects the
intent of curriculum framework component and suggestions for teaching
initiatives at the University of Alberta as outlined in the Varnhagen report.
(See: http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/governance/pdf/Item8-CLETeachingResearchDiscoveryLearningReport-FINAL-09May06.pdf )
Whether we go ahead with the proposed model, a hybrid, or something else entirely,
all of these suggested initiatives will enhance our current program and will,
therefore, be a valuable use of faculty’s time while ensuring that the momentum of
the past several years of program review and rebuilding is maintained.
Respectfully submitted by the Curriculum Implementation Committee to the
Undergraduate Academic Affairs Committee, Fall, 2010
Curriculum Implementation Committee Members
Chair – Janice Wallace (2008-2010)
Elementary
Carol Leroy (2008-09)
Clive Hickson (2009-10)
Secondary
Norma Nocente (2008-10)
Educational Psychology
Lynn McQuarrie (2008-09)
Leila Ranta (2009-10)
Educational Policy Studies
16
Report to the Undergraduate Academic Affairs Council – September 2010
Andre Grace (2008-10)
Research Assistant
Brian Jackson (2008-10)
_______________________________
Reference
Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F. & Shulman, L. (2005).
The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J.
Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers
should learn and be able to do (pp. 390-441). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Appendix A – CIC Terms of Reference
Curriculum Implementation Committee Terms of Reference
Overall Purpose of the Curriculum Implementation Committee:
The Curriculum Framework Committee and the Steering Committee recommended
the creation of an ad hoc Curriculum Implementation Committee (CIC) to develop a
program design with workable variations that incorporate and operationalize the
curriculum framework approved by Faculty Council. The program design process
will include: identifying amount and nature of attention the components will need;
identifying scope, sequence and integration of components; identifying how
components can be organized into courses or modules; and identifying the nature of
delivery of the courses. The program design will incorporate variations that
consider the needs of collaborative programs and feeder institutions. The
committee, in consultation with UAAC and the steering committee, will also develop
an implementation plan that identifies a timetable for the roll-out of specific
courses/programs. In addition, the committee, in consultation with UAAC and the
steering committee, will outline a plan for future development of the program
design if more resources become available.
Consultation:
The Chair and some members of CFC are members of CIC in order to facilitate the
transfer of work from curriculum framework development to curriculum
implementation. CIC will consult on a regular basis with the Steering Committee to
ensure the program design presented is within the resources available to the
faculty. The CIC will make regular reports to UAAC and solicit feedback on its
thinking and progress.
Membership:
The CIC includes representation from the four departments, USS (Assistant Dean,
Field Experience) and the ATA. The committee will be chaired by the Associate
Dean, Undergraduate Teacher Education or the Associate Dean, Academic. As
17
Curriculum Implementation Committee
outlined in UAAC’s terms of reference, the committee will consist of at least one
UAAC member.
The CIC will consult with faculty areas or groups who could provide additional
relevant expertise: e.g., faculty members from the departments and SLIS, sessional
instructors, education librarian from the Coutts Library, and support staff members
involved with staffing, timetabling, room bookings, or individuals from our partner
stakeholder groups.
Terms of Reference
1) CIC will develop a program design with workable variations that incorporates
the principles and curriculum framework approved by Faculty Council. The program
design process will include: identifying amount and nature of attention the various
components will need; identifying scope, sequence and integration of components;
identifying how components can be organized into courses or modules; and
identifying the nature of delivery of the courses.
2) The program design will incorporate workable variations that consider the
needs of collaborative programs and post-secondary institutions and other
University of Alberta faculties.
3) The committee, in consultation with UAAC and the steering committee, will also
develop an implementation plan that identifies a timetable for the roll-out of all or
some combination of courses, modules, practica, and seminars that will
operationalize program components.
4) The committee will outline a plan for future development of the program design
if more resources become available.
5) The Chair of the CIC and other committee members, as appropriate, will
communicate on a regular basis with the Steering Committee, Department Councils,
and UAAC for the purposes of receiving feedback and advice as the program design
process moves forward.
6) The CIC will obtain input from cross-departmental working groups about
various components of the program design throughout the program development
process.
7) The CIC will develop a website and/or on-line forum to allow for open
discussion with internal stakeholders and to collect feedback from them.
8) The goal of the CIC is to present a document to UAAC for feedback that proposes
a program design for teacher education at the University of Alberta with supporting
rationales that are theoretical and research-based. In addition, the document will
provide a plan for program implementation. Timing will be developed in
consultation with UAAC and the steering committee.
9) Concurrent with 1-7, above, the CIC will introduce initiatives, in consultation
with the departments, steering committee, and the IPT Coordinating Committee, to
pilot some of the ideas we project incorporating into the overall program design.
Approved
UAAC February 2009
18
Report to the Undergraduate Academic Affairs Council – September 2010
Appendix B – Review of Elementary Credit Distribution in
Selected Courses at Other Canadian Faculties of Education
Because of the diverse and complex organization of the selected teacher education
programs, a selection of required courses are listed to give a sense of the kinds of
courses and credit allocations in teacher education programs in various large
faculties of education in Canada. Only elementary programs are listed to simplify
information collection and because the greatest concern around credit allocation
was expressed by Elementary Department faculty members. In addition, credit
allocations vary across universities, therefore, the U of A equivalent is provided in
brackets where necessary. Information was collected from websites between May September, 2010, therefore, it may not reflect current practice with complete
accuracy.
Subject Area Credits in Elementary Education in Selected Programs
OISE/U of T:
Primary/Junior (K-6) candidates must take EDU1420, which covers “broad-based
methodology in several subject areas.” These include:
 Language Arts
 Mathematics
 Social Studies
 Science
 Health and Physical Education
 Music
 Visual Arts
This course is weighted at 2.0 credits, which is the equivalent (in instructional
hours) of 12 credits at the University of Alberta.
See: http://ro.oise.utoronto.ca/Calendar.pdf (p. 25)
http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/ite/BEd_DipTechEd/BEd_Elementary/Course_Compo
nents/index.html
Queen’s
Concurrent and Consecutive Primary-Junior programs curriculum course
requirements (U of A equivalents in brackets):
 Language – 0.5 credits (3)
 Mathematics – 0.5 credits (3)
 Social Studies – 0.25 credits (1.5)
 Science and Technology – 0.5 credits (3)
 Health and Physical Education – 0.25 credits (1.5)
19
Curriculum Implementation Committee
As well as two courses from:
 Art – 0.25 credits (1.5)
 Drama – 0.25 credits (1.5)
 Music – 0.25 credits (1.5)
 Assessment, Human Development and Theories of Learning, Philosophy of
Ed, and Social Contexts of Teaching (elementary/secondary) - 0.5 credits (3)
University of British Columbia
Elementary candidates are required to take the following curriculum courses
(credits are equivalent with U of A):
 Art – 2 credits
 Science – 2 credits
 Social Studies – 2 credits
 Math – 2 credits
 Music – 2 credits
 Physical Education – 2 credits
In addition, students must complete the following courses:
 Intro to Reading & Language Arts – 3 credits
 Curriculum & Instruction in Language & Literacy – 4 credits
 Educational Application of Development Theories – 3 credits
 Social Issues in Education – 3 credits
 Communication Skills in Teaching – 3 credits
 Social Issues in Education – 3 credits
See: http://teach.educ.ubc.ca/bachelor/elementary/2-year/current/courses.html
http://teach.educ.ubc.ca/bachelor/elementary/12-month/current/courseschedule-tell.html
McGill
Elementary candidates are required to take the following curriculum courses
(credits are equivalent with U of A):
 Language Arts – 3 credits
 Elementary School Mathematics – 3 credits
 Elementary School Science – 3 credits
 Science Teaching – 2 credits
 Geography, History and Citizenship Education – 3 credits
 Teaching Social Studies – 2 credits
 Teaching Mathematics 1 – 3 credits
In addition, students are required to take:
 Philosophical Foundations – 3 credits
 Educational Psychology – 3 credits
 Communication in Education – 3 credits
20
Report to the Undergraduate Academic Affairs Council – September 2010



Exceptional Students – 3 credits
Media, Technology and Education – 3 credits
One of: First Nations & Inuit Ed, Multicultural Ed, or Global Ed & Social Justice
3 credits
See: http://www.mcgill.ca/files/students/UG200910.pdf (p. 261)
University of Western Ontario
Primary/Junior program curriculum course requirements (U of A credit equivalents
in brackets):
 Language Arts – 0.5 credits (3)
 Mathematics – 0.5 credits (3)
 Art – 0.25 credits (1.5)
 Health and Physical Education – 0.25 credits (1.5)
 Music – 0.25 credits (1.5)
 Science and Technology – 0.25 credits (1.5)
 Social Studies – 0.25 credits (1.5)
 Educational Psychology and Special Education – 0.75 credits (4.5)
 Candidates must also take two courses from the Primary/Junior Language
Arts Co-curricular Requirements – 0.5 credits (3)
 Social Foundations of Education - .75 credits (4.5)
See: http://www.edu.uwo.ca/preservice/downloads/20092010coursedescbooklet.pdf
21