Conceptual frameworks for curriculum development

There is plenty of precedent for approaches to curriculum renewal, both at UBC and in the wider science, STEM and geoscience education literature. A few selected aspects that have been front-of-mind throughout preparation of recommendations are summarized here.

>>UBC’s process for “program renewal” includes six types of goals, each of which align closely with QuEST project’s objectives .

1. Reviewing and re-imagining the academic direction of  a degree specialization.
2. Understanding and improving student learning experiences.
3. Managing program growth, [or in our case striving for growth].
4. Offering greater transparency about programs [to benefit existing students, potential or prospective students and EOAS faculty].
5. Ensuring that programs prepare graduates for the next stage of their life [to ensure that “career preparation” meets the needs of as many students as possible].
6. For accredited programs, ensuring programs meet required standards or competencies [bearing in mind that roughly 80% students want to pursue careers upon graduation and some of the normal career pathways for QES graduates require registration as professionals].

>>Process and experiences described in Kwok, 2018 regarding science curriculum reform at Hon Kong University between 2006 and 2012. Their goals involved the wider scope of science education generally while our objective is focused on quantitative Earth science disciplines. However, rational, initiatives and lessons learned by the Hong Kong University curricular renewal project are germane to our narrower initiative. For example, the following considerations for reforming courses are adapted from those expressed by the author:

• Are all courses in each degree specialization really necessary?
• Each course should focus on the fundamentals and not be overly specialized.
• Courses should be designed for the benefit of students, not the convenience of the instructors. Some courses reflect the research specialties of individual faculty members, which may not be essential to a particular major.
• The degree’s curriculum should be flexible enough to allow discipline-dedicated students to gain the in-depth knowledge expected for entry to graduate school but also allow the majority of students to have a broad, meaningful and appropriate education that makes them attractive to prospective employers.

>>Interdisciplinary Curriculum Design is discussed in some detail in Modo and Kinchin, 2013. Their context is neuroscience, considered significantly “interdisciplinary”, and hence a good analogy for QES curriculum design.

>>An insightful case history of curriculum development is “A faculty team works to create content linkages among various courses to increase meaningful learning of targeted concepts of microbiology“, Marbach-Ad et al., 2007.

>>Precedent regarding crafting of program learning objectives; To clearly characterize an existing, proposed, or updated degree program, carefully crafted Program Learning Outcomes or PLOs must be constructed (an iterative process): There are many frameworks for developing or reviewing PLOs, but one example is the Degree Qualifications Profile (Gaston, Schneider, and Ewell, 2022). Existing precedent does not necessarily have to be used rigorously, but it may help ensure a “structured” consideration of curriculum. More locally, CTLT will be eager to help formulate and optimize PLOs. See their PLO page.

>>Transparency of teaching practices is important for all stake holders, especially students. The TILT Higher Education model of Winkelmes, 2023 (TILT = Transparency in Learning and Teaching) provides insights and guidelines to help ensure equitable teaching and learning practices by promoting students’ conscious understanding of how they learn and by enabling faculty to gather, share and promptly benefit from current data about students’ learning by coordinating their efforts across disciplines.

>>An emphasis on “authentic learning” permeates all suggested curricular innovations or adjustments. This is to ensure students can connect what they learn, practice and create to real-world issues, problems & applications.

Framework for embedding career preparation into degree experiences

One of the principle recommendations emerging from QuEST to increase the focus on career preparation without compromising the benefits of learning fundamentals in a top research university. The annotated bibliography and notes generously prepared for QuEST by K. Rawes, includes the following useful framework for how this can be done:

1. Professional preparation ‐ activities, lectures, or assignments where students learn about their strengths, write personal philosophy statements, listen to alumni guest speakers, or practice career management skills (resume writing, interviewing, or researching labour market data).
2. Discipline‐specific experiences ‐ students gain credit for discipline‐specific experiential learning like research projects, community‐based experiential learning, internships, practicums, co‐ops, field school, international study, etc.
3. Pedagogies and course‐design ‐ students develop future work competencies – like complex problem solving or communication – as a result of activities like presentations, team assignments, real‐world case studies, ePortfolios, etc.
4. Applied learning ‐ Capstones or applied research projects create opportunities for students to integrate learning from multiple sources or experiences and/or apply theoretical learning to real‐world problems.

Regarding pedagogy

Detailed suggestions for adjusting pedagogy in particular settings (a course, lab, assignment, etc.) are largely out-of-scope for this report, partly because pedagogic “best practices” for STEM learning are mostly ubiquitous – i.e. not specific to the learning of quantitative Earth science subject knowledge or skills.

There may be some teaching or learning tactics that are particularly relevant in courses focusing on math, statistics, data science or computing. However, improving pedagogy in specific settings should be an ongoing process addressed by individuals with departmental and institutional support in the form of time, resources and educational expertise. EOAS expects to continue developing and applying established pedagogic best practices to help students set appropriate expectations, develop their learning skills and succeed in their chosen courses & careers. Examples include continued development of active learning tactics & group work, explicit use of learn -> apply -> practice cycles throughout the curriculum, and others. Having said that, some specific aspects of pedagogy will be mentioned within the recommendations section, to identify opportunities for improving QES learning within EOAS.

Examples of tactics that are highly recommended regardless of course or content:

• Improving program and course-level learning outcomes as well as syllabi;
• Introducing (or improving) capstone experiences in a course or program;
• Emphasizing career-related contexts that encourage development of professional behaviours.
• Students and instructors benefit when students can determine if their prior knowledge is adequate at the start of a course, AND resources are provided to help students catch up with common missing skills or knowledge. Several EOAS courses are doing this; EOSC 340, EOSC 354, and MATH255 at UBC-OK.
• Pay attention to semantics and jargon, especially “normal” words that take on special meaning within the context of the discipline.
• Consult with colleagues and science education specialists (and CTLT) introduce imaginative, stimulating tactics that inspire, motivate and increase retention and skills.
• Many EOAS courses are now quite active in terms of students being effectively engaged during class, lab and homework time. However others could benefit from less “telling” and more “guided doing” during lessons, assignments and assessments.