I‘m working on a project that‘s creating a new and needed curriculum for a specific course and it got me thinking more broadly about what that might be in a broader sense. I‘ve talked about the elements before, when I reacted to Stephen Downes‘ proposal. But I tried to get more concrete about what might make a good undergraduate program that might be what I would want for my kids.
Now, back when I was teaching at UNSW, I had a role in forming a joint Computer Science/Psychology undergraduate program. At the time (and it‘s not all that different now), technology was getting more capable, and the issues increasingly became how to design systems that meet real needs. I believed then (and now) that an understanding of how people really think and learn, and how technology can be designed, would be a valuable combination. The program (if I recall correctly) also covered a wee bit of how business worked.
I still think that model isn‘t far wrong. Ok, it was pretty technical, teaching programming, and not sure I‘d focus on that instead of skills around designing technology capabilities (not implementing), and managing the process. I‘d add a social component as well, but keeping cognition and technology. I‘d elaborate the business side, and add some focus on about society and culture (and values; I haven‘t abandoned my concern with wisdom).
I think this might be the core of a general liberal arts program, so at one level this may be part of all degrees, but it certainly could be it‘s own unique focus with some depth in each of the areas. Cognition, sociology, technology design and management, etc. And I like innovations like outcomes-based education, and service learning, but these aren’t mutually exclusive with the above.
Of course, right now my son wants to be an architect, but I‘ve no problem with that. He‘ll need special skills, but still will need to know technology (can you say CAD?) and people (who occupies the buildings?). He may change his focus (I was going to be in submarines at that age), but the core won‘t change.
Now, if only our schools had a focus on a reasonable curriculum (not ‘no child left untested‘), and were properly resourced so they could develop this for learners before they hit college (spiraling back around), and…
It seems to me, as far as I can tell, that you are proposing an old approach to curriculum design dressed up as something new. By that I mean you are determining what students should learn albeit from a “liberal arts programme” perspective. My question to you is what role does inquiry play in your model? Why not allow students to determine what it is they need to learn and focus your “new and needed curriculum for a specific course” on processes that enable truly personalised learning? You are nearly there in focussing on “skills around designing technology capabilities (not implementing), and managing the process.” and in your “Computer Science/Psychology undergraduate program” that identified to need for interdisciplinary learning. However, it seems to me that you just need to ‘let go’ a bit more and trust the learners… :^)
Cheers, Stephen.
Stephen, a good point, while the content of the curriculum may be new, the process of selection and direction is old. However, I do believe there may be a need for some guidance (e.g. the move from discovery environments to guided discovery).
They do choose the major, but while I may have a core in mind, they certainly should be part of the process. I think having them think through the curricula they think they need so they understand and accept the goals, is a worthwhile endeavor.
And I strongly believe in exposing the underlying thought processes, and allowing them to take on responsibility for problem-solving, communication, etc. So, I have no objections to your inquiry approach as a component or even a guiding principle. I have ‘let go’ in a constructivist model before, and would again in implementation; this is more a reflection on what’s coming and what may be needed.
Thanks for the feedback!