Now this is an area dear to my heart. I am intensely curious about how faculty go about the course planning process. Do they start with the course description that is published in the catalog? This description for courses in a major, is in fact, the legal description of the course “accepted” by the faculty as the key descriptor of what content and skills will be included in that particular course. Some university curriculum committee’s do examine other aspects of the course when proposed, but what guarantee does that committee have that the course will in fact be implemented as initially designed? This is particularly problematic when the course is “handed off” to others to teach.
Consider for a moment, a course that has several sections and several instructors. How does a university ensure the integrity of the course is maintained with such variance (in design and implementation?)
Just yesterday I created a new way of designing courses that allows faculty to draw direct lines of alignment from outcomes to activities; monitor the placement of formative assessments, and identify a grading model most likely to be fair and equitable for that particular course design. The template was designed for U-Engage instructors who teach their classes F2F. I am curious whether it will also work with hybrid course design.
Kay! It’s so interesting to think about alignment between activities and outcomes in the many sections of U-Engage courses. I was privileged to teach a U-Engage course in 2011–what an honor to get to work with those students. I think it worked out to be a good experience for the students, but I frequently felt like I was on shaky ground in terms of what we did in class and how it all added up. I love that I was able to bring forth my own topic for the class, but maybe there was just too much freedom for me. Letting the course management system drive the system: Yes!