At the heart of a successful course is the planning that precedes it. Good planning involves several steps. First, identify the content domain of the course. Then, decide upon the goals that students are to reach at the end of the course. Next, select subject matter, materials, learning activities, and teaching methods that are appropriate and relevant to those goals and objectives. The instructor should then determine how to engage students in the subject matter. And finally, design methods to measure and evaluate students’ performance according to the objectives and goals that were originally selected. These topics on the subject of course planning are all addressed in this chapter.
Universal Design
Course Content
Course Goals
Structuring an Effective Course
Selecting Learning Activities
The Syllabus
The way in which students access,
process, and demonstrate information in a course can vary widely,
based on their
learning style, cognitive development, personality, cultural background, and
abilities.
Universal Design
is an approach to designing course instruction, materials, and
content to benefit
people of all learning styles without adaptation or retrofitting. Universal
Design provides equal access to learning, not simply equal access
to information.
Universal Design allows the student to control the method of
accessing information
while the teacher monitors the learning process and initiates any beneficial
methods.
Although this design enables the student to be self-sufficient, the teacher
is responsible for imparting knowledge and facilitating the learning process.
It should be noted that Universal Design does not remove
academic challenges;
it removes barriers to access. Simply stated, Universal Design is just good
teaching.
The scope of a course is
a curriculum
decision and as such, is broadly identified through a process of
dialogue that
involves not only the instructor, but the department, college, and university
at large. Although the University’s course approval process
is the originating
point for content decisions, instructors have latitude within the bounds of
the final approved course description in deciding the specific content that
will be part of a particular course offering. If the course is part
of a sequence
that builds on skills and knowledge from a previous course or is standardized
across the department, the course will have to include the expected
content.
Among the most important course decisions is the identification of
course goals.
Without clear course goals, the following results are likely:
On the other hand, clear
goals enhance
the possibility that the following results will occur:
In short, with well-defined course
goals there is a clear communication of intent on the part of the
teacher regarding
what he or she is trying to teach, what the students are going to be expected
to be able to do, how their achievement will be measured, and what
will be accepted
as evidence that they have achieved the goals.
Over the years,
educators have approached
goal setting in a variety of ways. During the decades when learning
theory was
characterized by a Behaviorist approach, educators urged teachers
to set broad
goals and then develop very precise instructional objectives for each goal.
According to Robert Mager (1962), an instructional objective is
“an intent
communicated by a statement describing a proposed change in a learner—a
statement of what the learner is to be like when he has
successfully completed
a learning experience.” Teachers were encouraged to state
objectives very
narrowly and to include measures specifying how attainment of the objective
would be judged; for example, “The student will be able to
draw the structures
of these chemical compounds to 100% accuracy when compared with the textbook
figures.”
As learning theory focused on more
holistic ways of thinking about learning, educators began to think
differently
about objectives. Eisner (1994), for example, stressed that during inquiry or
discovery learning, one wants to be open-ended about what might
result. He substituted
the term “instructional objectives” with the term
“expressive
outcomes.” Today, most educators agree that good
instructional objectives
should neither be so narrowly stated that they represent the
intended curriculum
mechanistically nor so generally stated that they lend little clarity to the
intended goals. They should not discourage creativity on the part of either
teacher or learner, nor should they take away the need for the
teacher to communicate
the “challenge” of studying and learning to her or his students.
Other dangers to be aware of are objectives that insult
students’ intelligence,
that are restricted to lower-level cognitive skills, that seem mechanistic or
dehumanizing, or that result in overconcentration on the aspects of a subject
while the students miss the “big picture.”
Loosely stated
objectives—such
as “The students in Theatre 100 will understand what makes
good theatre”—are
not especially useful. It is generally better to refer to a
specific realization
or ability that the teacher wants his or her students to gain as a result of
their course. An example of a well-stated objective might be the following:
“The students in Physics 101 will demonstrate awareness of
the importance
of safety in the laboratory by learning and completing six standard
precautionary
steps before beginning each of the experiments in the course.”
Many educators evaluate
their instructional
objectives using the work of Benjamin Bloom. Bloom (1956) classified various
abilities and behaviors that correlate with cognitive learning
objectives into
a taxonomy (now commonly referred to as Bloom’s
Taxonomy of Learning) that represents the thinking processes required of
students as a continuum moving from the simple to the complex. This hierarchy
can serve as a classification scheme for constructing course objectives since
it focuses on the way a student acquires and uses knowledge in any
subject area.
It includes the following levels, starting from the bottom:
Knowledge. The
lowest level.
Primarily concerns the students’ ability to memorize or recall certain
specific facts. A sample knowledge objective is: “Students can define
‘osmosis.’”
Comprehension. Involves
the ability to interpret, paraphrase, and extrapolate, thus demonstrating the
students’ basic understanding of ideas that they did not originate. A
sample comprehension objective is: “Students can give
examples of loosely
coupled systems.”
Application.
Includes activities
in which the student applies concepts and principles to new and/or practical
situations. A sample application objective is: “Students can
use the formula
to predict economic effects.”
Analysis.
Concerns breaking
down a piece of information into its constituent parts, differentiating and
discriminating. A sample analysis objective is: “Students can diagram
musical variations in a given composition.”
Synthesis. Involves the
blending of elements and parts in order to form a whole. Students should be
able to create a structural pattern that was not previously present. A sample
syntheses objective is: “Students can summarize the research literature
on genetic engineering.”
Evaluation. The highest
level. Students might judge the value of a work, the logical consistency of
written data, or the adequacy of someone else’s conclusions. A sample
evaluation objective is: “Students can judge the adequacy of research
claims according to the supporting data.”
If the above are used
when formulating
objectives, it should be possible to analyze which of the course objectives
require higher-order student behavior (application, analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation) and which center around lower-order objectives
(knowledge and comprehension).
Most instructional specialists argue that effective objectives (and
well-designed
courses) will almost always include some higher order objectives
and not center
exclusively around retention and understanding. Likewise, in most curricula
there are foundational knowledge and comprehension requirements that must be
achieved before higher-order objectives can be addressed.
In Teaching Assistance: A Handbook
of Teaching Ideas (1982), John Andrews suggests that a teacher should use the
following questions as a means of planning an effective course. These points
should enable the instructor to see how goals can shape planning
for other aspects
of the class. Note that the questions focus at the end point first and then
work backward in time to the first action the teacher will take:
Mary Minter of the University of
Michigan (1986) has suggested a more detailed planning analysis for
an instructor
faced with a new course if such an expectation exists. She suggests that on
accepting the course assignment, well-prepared instructors first set out to
acquire as much information as possible about the students they
will be teaching
(see the first section of this handbook) and the content they will
be expected
to cover in the course, if such an expectation exists. Resources to consult
include the college catalog, previous syllabi, the official department course
description, and the assigned textbook. Instructors can also
solicit help from
anyone who has previously taught the course.
Minter regards the next
step as the
setting of general goals and specific instructional objectives for
the course.
Instructors might be able to use a general purpose statement given
on a previous
syllabus, and/or they might want to include different or additional
goals. The
next step is to provide the student with even more specific
instructional objectives,
which should relate to the overall goals and be specific to the major content
sections/topics. “Action verbs” that are specific, such
as: “list,
write, report, do” are highly recommended. The final step is to conduct
another level of task analysis. Students’ basic learning needs in the
subject area should be identified. (This can be based, for example, on past
experience with similar groups of students or on a personal
questionnaire that
students complete on the first day.) From all this analysis an
effective course
structure will evolve.
Grunert (1997) stresses
the importance
of a “learning-centered” approach to course planning.
She suggests
that students should be involved in course planning through clarifying their
own goals for the course, helping choose learning activities, monitoring and
assessing their progress, and assisting in establishing the criteria on which
performance will be judged. Some instructors use portions of the first class
to modify or build upon their own plans for the course by asking for student
participation and suggestions.
Much of this section has assumed
the use of traditional classroom formats such as the lecture/ discussion mix
or lectures coupled with laboratory demonstrations. There are, nonetheless,
a variety of other possible methods for the delivery of
instruction. These are
discussed in the following chapters on modes of teaching and assessment. In
selecting and planning classroom instructional strategies to match
course goals
and objectives, it is important to consider the following:
Teachers choosing to use these important alternative methods need to be clear
about specifying the learning task and breaking it up into manageable units
if it is complex. Students will need monitoring through the exercise, and an
external resource person who can offer students help should always
be available.
It is a good idea to test new material on a sample group so that it
can be revised
before it reaches the intended audience. Finally, it is vital to ensure that
easy access is available to all the materials and that sufficient
opportunities
for student feedback are built into the course design.
The key, of course, is to begin with good goals and objectives.
Helping students
more easily attain the goals set for the course should be the main criteria
for selecting instructional approaches.
Shulman and Hutchings (1994) advise instructors to think about
underlying assumptions
throughout the process of planning a course. For example, they suggest that
instructors should think about whether their content is inclusive (of varying
approaches and viewpoints) or concentrates on only a very narrow perspective,
whether their approach takes new developments in the field into
consideration,
and how their course will complement other courses in the
department.
Following course
planning, a syllabus
becomes the next vehicle for communicating the structure of the
course and operating
procedures. It will help students know what is expected from the start of the
course and will allow them to plan their quarter efficiently. The opportunity
for capricious grading charges will be diminished and a positive image will
be presented to the students (a well-prepared syllabus is evidence that the
instructor takes teaching seriously). A syllabus also provides the
departmental
office, supervisor, and/or colleagues with pertinent information
about the course.
Most university departments require some type of syllabus.
A large number of academic misconduct cases and student complaints
have at their
root a lack of understanding of the requirements and expectations
for performance
in a course. A syllabus can consolidate into a single document all
of the routine
matters that surround teaching a course—reading schedules, grading, due
dates, class topics, etc.—that would otherwise have to be communicated
in individual conversations with each member of the class.
Simply put, the syllabus is a formal statement of what the course is about,
what students will be asked to do, and how their performance will
be evaluated.
Unlike the comments an instructor makes in class, it is a lasting statement
to which students can refer again and again. Careful construction
of the syllabus
reduces ambiguity and is the first step toward producing an
environment in which
student learning can flourish.
One can begin by studying syllabi from other instructors or those that have been used previously in the course being taught. Instructors might also check with their departments for specific guidelines they may have about a syllabus format. The following are generally included in the syllabus:
As outlined by the OSU Partnership Grant, a syllabus should include
a disability
statement, which indicates the instructor’s willingness to
provide reasonable
accommodations to a student with a disability. The statement should
be an invitation
to students who have disabilities to meet with the
instructor—in a confidential
environment—to review course requirements and to discuss his
or her need
for accommodation. Establishing reasonable accommodations should be
considered
on a case-by-case basis because of the functional limitations of
each individual
and because the specific demands of the course will vary. An
example of a disability
statement is given in the previous section on Preparing an Effective Course
Syllabus.
The Office for Disability Services
(ODS) is the office responsible for determining appropriate
accommodations based
on the documentation. The accommodation process should be one of
collaboration
between student, instructor and the Office for Disability Services. Students
already working with ODS have provided that office with
documentation of their
disability. Instructors should not ask the student for
documentation; however,
they can request that a letter from ODS be sent to verify the disability. A
statement on the syllabus and an announcement in class normalizes
the accommodation
process by treating it as just another part of the course. However,
discussion
of these issues with individual students must be handled with sensitivity and
awareness of the student’s right to privacy.
Beyond the content of the syllabus
is its tone, which can give welcoming or hostile messages. A brief syllabus
with strong warnings about policy infringements and no encouraging
words about
the excitement of the course content may be offputting. Syllabi that contain
humor and enthusiasm can create good first impressions. For
example, one syllabus
at Ohio State proclaims that the course is “the most exciting calculus
course on this or any planet.”
One professor at the University of
North Dakota (Harris, 1993) posits 10 rules for syllabus
construction that take
motivation, as well as clarity, into consideration. In a good syllabus, the
instructor should:
Similarly, spatial layout can make
a difference. Syllabi that are well-designed will certainly be more effective
than those that are cramped or poorly formatted.
Several experts recommend going beyond the bare basics of syllabus content.
Howard Gabennesch, a sociologist at the University of Southern
Indiana, speaks
of the “enriched syllabus,” a syllabus that “is a teaching
instrument. It highlights those aspects of pedagogy—goals,
means, rationale—that
might encourage and enable students to cooperate more effectively
with the instructor’s
efforts” (1992, p. 4). For more detailed information, a
step-by-step guide
for preparing a “learner-centered”
course syllabus is in Grunert (1997).
Diamond, R. (1998). Designing and improving courses and curricula:
A practical
guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Grunert, J. (1997). The course syllabus: A learning-centered
approach. Bolton,
MA: Anker.
Kalish, A., & Middendorf, J. (n.d.) Course planning guide. Ohio
State Faculty
and TA Development.
McKeachie, W. J. (1999). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for
college and university teachers (10th ed.). Boston/New York:
Houghton Mifflin.