Enhance existing degrees

These suggested actions are about adjusting the priorities, delivery, or requirements of existing degree specializations without making major curricular changes.

R5. Revitalize degree priorities and corresponding PLOs

Well-crafted Program Learning Objectives (PLOs) are a precursor to curriculum mapping which in tern is useful for both review and renewal. UBC’s CTLT is eager to provide support for crafting or clarifying PLOs.

Why focus on PLOs?

The "... development of Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) across campus and ... ensuring that mapping of outcomes to the curriculum takes place ..." was a stated recommendation in the "2018/19 Quality Assurance Process Audit The University Of British Columbia " (pg 10). The results for EOAS degree specializations are given on the corresponding Program Calendar Pages: see them under the "Learning Goals" heading on their respective UBC Calendar pages: Atmospheric Sciences; Earth and Ocean Sciences; Environmental Sciences; Geological Sciences; Geophysics; Oceanography. These objectives are compared here. 

Although current, these program objectives are 3-4 years old. Reviewing and renewing these will ensure they reflect the aims and aspirations of degree specialization programs and thus increase transparency, helping students and instructors set appropriate expectations about what will be learned, which skills will be developed and how success will be measured. The discussions necessary to achieve consensus will also help faculty recognize how students are expected to progress from year to year, and inspire opportunities to be more explicit about how the learning at senior levels depends upon abilities developed in earlier courses.

To ensure review of PLOs is carried out in an informed and efficient manner, precedent and perhaps an existing framework should be used. There are many frameworks for developing or reviewing PLOs, but one example is the Degree Qualifications Profile (Gaston, Schneider, and Ewell, 2022). This broadly-based and widely used framework organizes degree qualifications for BSc, MSc and PHD levels into five categories: >>Specialized/Industry Knowledge, >>Broad and Integrative Knowledge, >>Intellectual Skills includes, >>Applied and Collaborative Learning, and >>Civic/Democratic and Global Learning.

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. Details in the following drop-down provide inspiration for defining objectives that are forward looking.

Goals for 21st century Science Education

In his article "Science education in the 21st century", Sun Kwok, 2018 articulates and discusses several commonly debated aspects of science education & curricular reform. His section "Rationale and objectives for science education reform" reads like a list of higher level degree program learning objectives. If the goal is to train students as people of intellect, not for a vocation, then program objectives could include:

  • Master methods such as building models, constructing experiments, taking data, making observations, revising models based on data and observations, and communicating results.
  • Acquire abilities to solve problems by studying examples of previous work.
  • Develop free, bold, independent, and creative thinking.
  • Make rational judgments that raise decision-making above the ignorance and prejudice that are prevalent in society.
  • Develop a sense of curiosity and acquire the confidence to ask questions and challenge assumptions.
  • Acquire knowledge about our world and awareness of how nature works.
  • Think analytically and quantitatively, keeping an open mind, and remaining independent of public opinion.
  • Build versatility of mind enabling abilities to take on any job.
  • Lay the groundwork for lifelong learning, as society’s needs are constantly and rapidly changing.

Of course, discipline-appropriate capabilities would be added to these "generic" aspirations, but these represent a good starting point for deliberations about defining the Department's QES (and other) degree options.

Existing PLOs for EOAS degree specializations are fairly good, but are rarely explicitly targeted or referenced in course syllabi. Specific recommendations related to revisiting priorities and PLOs follow.

  1. Aim for consistency across specializations without substantially changing curriculum. (See current PLOs for EOAS specializations here.) Then craft new Program Learning Objectives (PLOs) for each specialization that are as compatible cross specializations as practical.
  2. For each degree specialization, do this by committing to 2 or 3 structured workshops with the goal of defining priorities and articulating them as PLOs. Educational experts at CTLT can facilitate these actions.
  3. Factors to consider:
    • Consider both professional and scientific priorities in terms of principal knowledge, attitudes, skills and habits (KASH) targeted by the core course sequences and electives.
    • Bear in mind “desirable skills” detailed elsewhere and anticipated demand for quantitatively skills graduates (the demand for geoscientists page).
    • Consider establishing principles underlying science – and especially quantitative – curriculum in EOAS, as was done by Kwok, 2018. The current EOAS service course learning objectives may serve as a starting point.
    • Some PLOs may be “either-or”. For example, a BSc in geophysics might have some PLOs targeting students pursuing exploration geophysics careers, and others for students with more scientifically oriented interests (e.g. planetary geophysics, glaciology, etc.)
    • Visibility: PLOs should be public on the main EOAS “degrees” pages, and Course Learning Objectives (CLOs) should point to the PLOs of relevant degree programs. This can be expedited by maintaining a matrix of PLOs and CLOs.
    • Refer to details about current EOAS curriculum prepared by the QuEST project, including the interactive curriculum maps of quantitative courses with comments and observations.
  4. Map course learning outcomes (CLOs) against PLOs using UBC’s curriculum mapping tool. This is a straight-forward and maintainable approach to articulating curriculum for all stake-holders. Start by using existing PLOs.
  5. Some examples and guidelines:
  6. Assess results; some indications of effective PLOs include: they are publically visible; they identify how students will graduate as desirable employees; students can see how their course work relates to them (ideally via to measurable CLO:s); they are agreed upon widely within the department. CTLT will provide expert assistance for evaluating effectiveness of PLOs. (Kwok 2018 mentions some challenges of assessing curricular renewal using student evaluations.)

R6. Enhance delivery of existing degree programs

These recommendations focus on ideas applicable to any degree program. Corresponding suggested actions targeting individual courses are in a separate recommendation.

Some ideas are presented in terms of the geophysics degree specialization, but discussions can be equally relevant for atmospheric sciences and physical oceanography specializations.

  1. Implement regular curriculum review procedures. For example, allocate 2 hours every 2-3 years to share (a) ways courses are meeting PLOs, (b) learning strategies that are particularly successful or satisfying, (c) update on initiatives completed or in progress, (d) identify challenges, and (e) decide whether to meet again to address specific issues.
  2. Increase transparency related to departmental priorities. In other words, make Nurturing critical quantitative thinking with models, mathematics and data-oriented information a Departmental priority and visibly demonstrate this committeemen. Students benefit from seeing such outcomes as a department-wide priority. Options for achieving this include the following:
    • Articulate or “map” explicitly how senior courses build upon capabilities developed in earlier courses.
    • Include carefully crafted PLOs targeting these capabilities.
    • Showcase real-world (including research) contexts where these capabilities have been instrumental in successful decisions affecting society. See also marketing recommendations.
    • (Transparency is a useful pervasive framework for curricular review, renewal and delivery, and is one of 6 goals in UBC’s process for “program renewal”. See also Winkelmes, M., 2023, “Introduction to Transparency in Learning and Teaching.”)
  3. Introduce contextual threads that span several courses. The importance of contexts for learning fundamental concepts is discussed under recommendations for improving individual QES courses. This is a reminder of the benefits of working with colleagues to identify contexts that can be reused in senior courses after students first encounter them in early courses. This is a “low-cost” suggestion if such contexts can be found. It requires faculty communicate more regularly about their courses and how they are taught. The suggestion for regular curriculum review above would facilitate the identification of contextual threads.
  4. Geophysics for undergraduates: Current 4th year courses appear to emphasize planetary physics. Three 4xx courses: Introduction to Global Geophysics (EOSC 444 proposed), Interior Structure of Earth and Planets (EOSC 450 – used to be “potential methods”), and Advanced Physics of the Earth and other Planets (EOSC 453) do not obviously serve the needs of students who aim to enter the workforce upon graduation. This may even cause the geophysics program to appear (to students) as an alternative to “astronomy”. It also leaves students without opportunities to learn about “practical” or applied geophysics at a level of rigor suitable to a quantitative degree. This recommendation basically boils down to suggesting that QES faculty should consider course offerings in terms of students’ needs rather than faculty’s research preferences.
  5. Focus attention on developing the maturity of “geoscientific thinking”. This does not necessarily mean making new courses, but rather working towards a more integrated suite of courses in which the geoscience and the physics or math pervade the curriculum more coherently rather than offering “silo’d” courses that have students working on content in isolation from other courses they have taken, are taking, or will take. For example, several key contexts could be identified that would serve as threads throughout the 3 years, culminating in a fourth year capstone requirement that draws upon skills and knowledge developed in 2nd and 3rd year courses.
  6. Quantitative learning in non-QES EOAS specializations is somewhat out of scope for the QuEST project, however researchers in geology, environmental sciences, and biological oceanography have argued that quantitative capabilities are increasingly important and currently deserve improvment.
    • A focused discussion among relevant faculty is needed, to establish the scope and expectations for quantitative learning in these specializations. Precedent does exist for incorporating statistics, data science, modeling (including differential equations), machine learning and computer programming into geoscience courses (Jacobs, 2016).
    • A science education specialist should participate in order to research precedent and generate recommendations.