I am also currently taking EME 6059 Blended Learning Environments and I originally designed the course in clinical decision-making for the final project requirement of that course. When I looked at the course I designed, I felt that it reflected effective science instruction. This is evidenced by the "Course Assessment Using the C-U-E Framework" (click on the button below). This is when I decided to make that project a significant portion (PART 3) of this project.
The strength of the course / curriculum I designed is that every learning activity was designed to stimulate the student to think. The nature of the course (i.e. inductive reasoning in clinical decision-making) and its delivery (i.e. in a blended learning environment) creates a climate conducive to thinking, analyzing and collaborating. None of the activities were designed to “spoon-feed” students with factual knowledge. The online videos with embedded formative questions and related research articles provided are used primarily to prime students to actively engage and participate during the small group F2F clinical decision-making (CDM) session. They are also designed and expected to draw on students’ prior knowledge. It is meant to engage the student in assessing sufficiency of their knowledge, identifying gaps, and mitigating these gaps so that they could robustly participate during the F2F session. During the F2F session, the vignette with guide questions facilitates thinking, analyzing and collaborating during the activity. Students are given the opportunity to develop their own conclusions, to recognize variations in their conclusions with other groups, and to appreciate these differences as acceptable variations in clinical decision-making. They do this while supporting each other, asking each other questions, and debating the merits of their perspectives and their decisions.
None of the content is intended to tell students what they have to know. Success in the course is not based on what they know, but more on how they use what they know.
What challenged you about the process of science curriculum development? (How? Why?)
How did the overall experience enhance your understanding of science curriculum development?
When I decided to use the EME 6059 project for the required project of this course, I was engaging in a bottom-up process - using the course as a basis for developing a curriculum. The requirement for the SCE 5140 project is that I develop the curriculum using a top-down process (program goals --> core ideas / cross-cutting concepts --> course objectives --> lesson objectives --> course design). On further reflection, with my work with the Commission on Accreditation of Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE), I have visited programs which have "unknowingly" engaged in a bottom-up process, and these programs seem to "fall-apart" very easily with minimal pressure.
CAPTE requires program faculty to have a terminal degrees with contemporary knowledge on their assigned content. There is, therefore, a shortage of qualified faculty due to this CAPTE requirement. Programs might have been inadvertently "pushed" into building their programs according to available resources, designing courses based on the availability of faculty to teach these courses . Just like me (at least in the beginning), the situation has made it conducive to design the curriculum from the bottom-up. This is in contrast to a program I visited which is in the top ten PT programs here in the US. Every summer, this program has a 2-day retreat, when they discuss their curriculum. During my interview with one of their faculty, I asked about the depth of the cardiopulmonary content of their program. The faculty showed me an example of how a specific concept was mapped and woven throughout different courses in the program - a cardiovascular concept discussed in a pediatric course, a geriatric course, a cardiovascular-pulmonary course, a neurologic course, a musculoskeletal course, and a clinical decision-making course.
Click on the button below for a discussion on how this course has enhanced my understanding of science curriculum development. (This discussion has also been placed in PART 1.)
Moving forward, what changes will you make in your “program” or in your approach to science teaching as a result of the topics explored in this course?
What questions do you still have about the process of science curriculum development?
I was recently hired to teach Anatomy and Physiology as an Adjunct instructor at Broward College North. I am already thinking of pathologic processes I could use as introductory online material to prime students for the F2F lectures on different body systems. I am also exploring developmentally appropriate group activities that I could use for the last 15 to 20 minutes of the F2F session that would be useful for wrap-up and formative assessment (suggestions are greatly appreciated). I think I would have more ideas once I start teaching the course. I am going to ask the dean if there is a media specialist or an instructional designer who could identify technologies I could use which allow for easy integration with their learning platform.
My biggest concern is negative student feedback which can result in the termination of my appointment. As a novice instructor, I will make "selection" mistakes. I will make mistakes in selecting what technology to use, how to facilitate active learning, how to apply reform-based science instruction. My engagement in reform-based science instruction will also be affected by the university leadership's advocacy for this type of instruction.
Finally, my questions about the process of science curriculum development mostly involve the practical dimension / applicability of the process. And, I can only answer my own questions while fully engaged in the process. For example, with my new appointment, I am wondering what active learning activities are most appropriate for the learners and the course content.