Principles and guidelines for curriculum design to engage and empower first year students

Jan Nedermeijer

Engaging and empowering first-year students through curriculum design perspectives from the literature. Catherine Bovill, Cathy J. Bulley and Kate Morss. Teaching in Higher Education. Routledge Vol. 16, No. 2, April 2011, 197—209.

There is an increasing value being placed on engaging and empowering first-year students. First-year curriculum design is a key driver and opportunity to ensure early enculturation into successful learning at university. The paper of Catherine Bovilla, Cathy J. Bulley and Kate Morss summarizes the literature on first-year curriculum design linked to student engagement and empowerment. 

Bovilla, Bulley and Morss made a list of principles and guidelines for curriculum design to engage and empower.

Table 1. Principles and guidelines for curriculum design to engage and empower.

  1. Facilitation of student development should be based on abilities on entry
     Explore students’ abilities on entry, aims and goals and conflicting roles
    Become familiar with students’ needs and aspirations

  2. Students should be enabled to develop the abilities required on graduation
    Curricula should be designed to develop abilities required on graduation in a cumulative Manner
    Reflection and independence should be facilitated to ensure potential for lifelong learning

  3. Academic skills should be developed throughout the course or programme
    Development of academic learning and literacy skills should be facilitated
    Student needs should be developed in a long-strategy throughout the whole programme of study

  4. Students should be aware of their progress in relation to course standards
    Integration of early and ongoing formative feedback should be used to inform students on standards and progress

  5. The conflicting roles of students should be understood and valued
    Learning experiences from paid work should be capitalised on

  6. Engaging learning experiences should be generated
    ‘Engaging learning environments’ should be designed with contextualised tasks
    Information and communication technologies should be strategically integrated in Learning

  7. Course content should integrate research into teaching
    Course structures should be coherent and current
    Research and teaching should be linked from year one, promoting discovery and debate

  8. Institutional structures should support curricular strategies
    An institution-wide approach should align curriculum with administrative and support Services

References

  1. ACT. 2002. National collegiate dropout and graduation rates. lowa City, JA: ACT, Office for the Enhancement of Educational Practices.
  2. AUSSE. 2007—2008. Australasian Survey of Student Engagement Reports. http://www.acer. edu.au/ausse/ (accessed September 10, 2009).
  3. Banta, T., G. Pike, and M. Hansen. 2009. The use of engagement data in accreditation, planning and assessment. New Directions for Institutionol Research 141: 2 1—34.
  4. Beder, S. 1997. Addressing the issues of social and academic integration for first year students. http://u1tibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/dec97/beder1.htm (accessed January 17, 2007).
  5. Best, R., M. Lawrence, S. Askey, S. Starkings, and S. Mealing. 2005. Change Academy — London Southbank University. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/universitiesandcol leges/alldisplay?type=projects&newid=changeacademy/changeacademy_london_south bank_university_2005&site = york (accessed January 28, 2010).
  6. Bovili, C., K. Morss, and C. Bulley. 2008. Curriculum design for the first yea? Project report. Quality enhancement themes: The first year experience — practice-focused development project number 3. Mausfield; QAA. http:/www.enhancementthemes.acuk/documents/firstyear/CurriculumDesign_finaLreportpdf (accessed January 11, 2010).30 June 2 July, Hobart, Tasmania. In 11 th Pacific Rini first year in higher education conference: An apple for the learner. Tasmania. http://www.fyhe.qut.edu.au/pascpapers/ papers08/FYHE2008/content/pdfslKeynote%20-%20Kift.pdf (accessed September 24, 2009).
  7. Kift, S., and K. Nelson. 2005. Beyond curriculum reform. Embedding the transition experience. http:i/www.herdsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/conferencel 2005/pdf/refereed/paper 294. pdf (accessed January 16, 2007).
  8. Krause, K. 2006. On being strategic in the first year. Paper presented at Queensland University of Technology First Year Forum, 5 October, Brisbane. http://www3.griffith.edu.au/03/1tn/ docs/GIHE-First-Year-Experience.pdf (accessed May 5, 2008).
  9. Krause, K. 2007. New perspectives on engaging first year siudents in learning. http:/lwww. enhancementthemes.ac.uk/documents/eventsl2007O3O8lFYE_Engagement_Krause.pdf (accessed May 5, 2008).
  10. Krause, K., and H. Coates. 2008. Student engagement at university. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 33, no. 5: 493-505.
  11. Krause, K., R. Hartley, R. James, and C. Mclnnis. 2005. The first year experience in Australian universities: Findings from a decade of national studies. Canberra: Australian DEST. http:// aegir 1 .itc.griffith.edu.au/data/assets/pdf_file/0006/3749 l/FYEReportO5.pdf (accessed September 25, 2009).
  12. Kuh, G.D. 2008. High-impact educationalpractices: What they are, who has access to theni, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
  13. Land, R., and G. Gordon. 2008. Research-teaching linkages: Enhancing graduate attributes. Sector-wide discussions, vol. 1. Mansfield: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
  14. Light, J., L. Girardeau, J. Beller, and G. Crouch. 2006. Using reflective essays as part of a mixed method approach for evaluating a freshman living-learning community for engineering and science students. Paper presented at the American Society of Engineering Education conference, 18—21 June, Chicago.
  15. Lines, D. 2005. The first year learning experience. In Responding to student needs, cd. Enhancement Themes, 107 54). Mansfield: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
  16. Lines, D., D. McLean, and R. Taylor. 2006. Enhancing the curriculum: Empathy, engagement, empowerment. Paper presented at the meeting of the Higher Education Acaderny, in London. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk!misc/DavidLinespresentation.ppt (accessed January 17, 2007). Archived — available on request from HEA.
  17. Lundstrom, R., J. Mariappan, and K. Berry. 1996. lmproving teaching quality through total quality management. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, February, Washingdon, DC.
  18. Malave, C.O., P.K. Imbrie, and K.L. Watson. 1999. Intervention programs for a freshman integrated curriculum. Paper presented at the frontiers in education conference, 18—21 October, in Piscataway, NJ.
  19. McGoldrick, C. 2002. Creativity and curriculum design: What academics think. http:lI www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/resourcejiatabase/id6qcreatjvity and curriculum design (accessed January 14, 2007).
  20. Mclnnes, C. 2001. Researching the first year experience: Where to from here? Higher Education Research and Development 20: 105—14.
  21. McLaughlin, S., and R. Sutton. 2005. Re-assessment strategy. Case Study 1. The STAR Project, University of Ulster. http://www.ulster.ac.uk/starfcurriculum_developmentfre assessment.htm (accessed April 29, 2008).
  22. McLean, S., J.D. Ruddick, and K.R. Adams. 2005. Supporting first-year Chemistry for students of Bioscience. Case Study 8. The STAR Project, University of Ulster. http://www. ulster.ac.uk/star/curriculum_development/UUChemistry.pdf (accessed June 17, 2010).
  23. Mehrubeoglu, M., and L. McLaughlan. 2007. A cooperative learning model in multi- disciplines across universities in freshmen courses. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, 24—27 June, in Honululu.
  24. Mezirow, J. 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Mitchell, J., K. Csavina, and J. Sweeney. 2002. Arizona State University’s bioengineering first year student workshop. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, Session 2793, 16—19 June, Montreal, Canada.
  25. Bovili, C., K. Morss, and C. Buliey. 2009. Should students participate in curriculum design? Discussion arising from a first year curriculum design project and a literature review. Pedagogical Research in Maximising Education 3, no. 2: 17—26. http://www.hope.ac.
  26. ukllearningandteaching/downloads/prime/prime_vol_3_issue_2.pdf.(accessed January 11: 2010).
  27. Bridges, D. 2000. Back to the future: the higher education curriculum in the 2lst century. Cambridge Journal of Education 30: 37—55.
  28. Bryson, C., and L. Hand. 2007. The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 44: 349—62.
  29. Chan, V. 2001. Learning autonomously: the learners’ perspectives. Journal of Further and Higher Education 25: 285—300.
  30. Cook, T., and V. Naughton. 2005. Biomedical Science Tutorials. Case Study 9. The STAR Project, University of Ulster. http://wrww.ulster.ac.uk/star/curricuiumjievelopment/UU tutorials.htm (accessed April 29, 2008).
  31. Davidson, A., and D. Young. 2005. Student evaluation and feedback. In Responding to student needs, ed. Enhancement Themes, 155—83. Mansfieid: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
  32. Deipish, A., A. Darby, A. Holmes, M. Knight-McKenna, R. Mihans, C. King, and P. Feiten. 2010. Equalizing voices: Student faculty partnership in course design. In Engaging student voices in the study of teaching and learning, cd. C. Werder and M. Otis, 96—114. Virginia: Stylus.
  33. Edwards, D., D. Minogue, A. Towey, M. Westhead, and J. Loxton. 2006. Change Academy — St. Mary’s College. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourworkluniversitiesandcolleges/alldisplay? type = projects&newid = changeacademy/changeacademy_st_marys_college_2006&site = york (accessed January 28, 2010).
  34. Flores Juarez, J.B. 2005. Promoting student success: Students’ perceptions of the factors that influence their engagement at a Mexican university. PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin. http://repositories.lib.utexas.edulhandle/21 52/1546 (accessed January 14, 2007).
  35. Fraser, S., and A. Bosanquet. 2006. The curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t it? Studies in Higher Education 31: 269—84.
  36. Gibbs, G., and C. Simpson. 2004. Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 1: 3—31.
  37. Gieixner, S., E. Douglas, and 0. Graeve. 2007. Prime modules: Teaching introduction to Materials Engineering in the context of modern technologies. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, 24—27 June, Honululu, USA.
  38. Harris, L., P. Driscoli, M. Lewis, L. Mathews, C. Russeil, and S. Cumming. 2010. Implementing curriculum evaluation: Case study of a generic undergraduate degree in health sciences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35, no. 4: 477 90.
  39. Harvey, L., S. Drew, and M. Smith. 2006. The first-year experience: A review of literature for the Higher Education Academy. York: The Higher Education Academy.
  40. Harwood, D., and S. McLaughiin. 2005. A module in ‘Study in Higher Education’. Case Study 3. The STAR Project, University of Ulster. http://www.ulster.ac.uk/star/curriculum development/skills_piymouth.htm (accessed April 29, 2008).
  41. Helsby, G. 2002. Ski/is plus: Making round pegs tofit round holes. An analysis of interview data. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/tla/empioyability/skills_ pluspaperlo.rtf(accessed January 11, 2010).
  42. Higher Education Academy. 2007. Supporting learning: contexts for curriculum design and change. http:/Iwww.heacademy.ac.uklresources/detaillids7 (accessed January 15, 2007).
  43. Jantzi, J., and C. Austin. 2005. Measuring learning, student engagement and program effectiveness: a strategic process. Nurse Educator 30: 69—72.
  44. Keating, M. 2004. Integrating a skills framework into the First Year Sociology curriculum. The Higher Education Academy. http://www.c-sap.bham.ac.uk/resources/projectreports/ findings/ShowFinding.htm?id = 32/S/03&view print (accessed May 5, 2008).
  45. Kift, S. 2008. The next, great first year challenge: Sustaining, coordinating and embedding coherent institution-wide approaches to enact the FYE as “everybody’s business”. Keynote,
  46. Morda, R., C. Sonn, L. Ah, and K. Ohtsuka. 2007. Using a student centred approach to explore issues affecting student transition. Paper presented at the 3Oth HERDSA Annual
  47. Conference, 8—l 1 July, in Adelaide, Australia.
  48. Nicol, D. 2009. Assessment for learner self-regulation: Enhancing achievement in the first year using learning technologies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34: 335—52.
  49. Nicol, D., and D. Macfarlane-Dick. 2006. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning:A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 31:199—216.
  50. NSSE. 2001—2008. National Survey of Student Engagement. http://nsse.iub.edu/htmllannuaL reports.cfm (accessed October 1, 2009).
  51. Oliver, M. 2002. Creativity and the curriculum design process: A case study. http://www. heacademy.ac.uklassets/York/documents/resources/database/id_153_Creativity_and_thecurriculum_design_process_a_case_study.rtf (accessed January 28, 2010).
  52. Oliver-Hoyo, M., and D. Allen. 2005. Attitudinal effects of a student-centered active learning environment. Chemical Education Research 82: 944—9.
  53. Orwin, E.J., and R.J. Bennett. 2002. Trials and tribulations of a freshmen design course. Paper presented at ASFE annual conference & exposition: Vive L’ingenieur!, in Montreal, Canada.
  54. Piper, R. 2006. Enhancing the student experience in Scotland — the work of the QAA Quality Enhancement Theme. Paper presented at the meeting of the Higher Education Academy, in Edinburgh.
  55. Pitkethly, A., and M. Prosser. 2001. The first year experience project: A model for universitywide change. Higher Education Research & Development 20: 185—98.
  56. QAA (Scotland). 2006. The first year. http://www.enhancementthenies.ac.uklthemes/FirstYearl defauit.asp (aceessed September 10, 2009).
  57. QAA (Scotland). 2007. Graduates for the 2lst century: Integrating the enhancement themes. http://www.enhancementthemes. ac.uk/themes/21stCGraduates/overview.asp (accessed August 7, 2009).
  58. Reason, R., P. Terenzini, and R. Domingo. 2005. First things first: Developing academie competence in the first year of college. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, 6 June, in San Diego.
  59. Shaw, M. 2002. Coniexts for curriculum design: Working with external pressures. Report for the LTSN Learning and Teaching Support Network. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/ detail/resource_database/id57_contexts_for_curriculum_design (accessed January 28, 2010).
  60. Sutton, R., and S. McLaughlin. 2005. Professional ski/is tutoring system. Case Study 4. The STAR Project, University of Ulster. http:/fwww.ulster.ac.uk/star/curriculumjievelopment/ skills_wolverhampton.htm (accessed April 29, 2008).
  61. Tinto, V. 2006. 2007. Research and practice of student retention: What next. Journal of College Student Retention. Research, Theory and Practice 8: 1—19.
  62. Westheimer J., and J. Kahne. 2004. What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal 41: 237—69.
  63. Yorke, M., and B. Longden. 2006. The vital first year. Academy Exchange 4: 16—7.
  64. Yorke, M., and B. Longden. 2007. The first-year experience of higher education in the UK’ Report on phase 1 of a project funded by the Higher Education Academy. London, UK: HEA. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assetsfYork/documents/ourwork/research/FYE/web0573_the first_year_experience.pdf (accessed September 10, 2009).
  65. Yorke, M,, and B. Longden. 2008. The first-year experience of higher education in the UK. Final Report.London, UK: HEA. http://www.heacademy.ac.uklassets/Yorkldocuments/resources/ publications/FYEFinalReport.pdf (accessed January 23, 2010).