WRITING CLEAR CUSTOMIZED LEARNING OUTCOMES WITH KEY UNDERPINNING KNOWLEDGE

WRITING CLEAR CUSTOMIZED LEARNING OUTCOMES WITH KEY UNDERPINNING KNOWLEDGE

D. SALE, S. CHEAH (2008).  WRITING CLEAR CUSTOMIZED LEARNING OUTCOMES WITH KEY UNDERPINNING KNOWLEDGE. 12.

This paper is based on Singapore Polytechnic‟s (SP) experience in implementing the CDIO approach and standards for pilot diploma courses across four academic schools. It documents the approach taken to customize CDIO to a polytechnic context. A specific focus on a chemical engineering module is used by way of example to model the systematic infusion of selected CDIO skills. In order to produce a fully aligned curriculum at module level, a subject specialist and lecturer for the module working with SP‟s Senior Education Advisor used the following approach:

  • Modelling and unpacking the module syllabus to identify specific topic areas in which the infusion of selected CDIO skills (e.g., Personal Skills and Attitudes, Interpersonal Skills: Teamwork and Communication, etc) would naturally support the learning of subject content knowledge and skills
  • The production of appropriate assessment items and scoring systems
  • Designing the learning experience and activities to make the module as interesting and real world as possible, within the particular environmental and resource constraints.

Finally, the paper identifies the main problems and challenges faced in the curriculum innovation, the ways in which they were tackled and key lessons learned from the overall experience to date. 

Authors (New): 
Dennis SALE
Sin-Moh CHEAH
Pages: 
12
Affiliations: 
Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore
Keywords: 
Curriculum
Syllabus
Objectives
learning
Knowledge
Year: 
2008
Reference: 
Bloom B., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Longman, London, 1956.: 
Crawley E. F. (Ed.), Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach, Springer, New York, 2007. : 
Darling-Hammond L. & Bransford J., Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: what teachers should learn and be able to do, Jossey-Bass, San-Francisco, 2005.: 
Diamond R. M., Designing & Assessing Courses & Curricula: A Practical Guide, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1998. : 
Kelly A. V., The Curriculum: Theory and practice. Paul Chapman, London, 1989: 
Marzano R. J. et al., Dimensions of Thinking: A Framework for Curriculum and Instruction, ASCD, Alexandria, VA, 1988.: 
Neff G. et al., “Transforming Engineering Education from a Product to a Process”. A paper presented at the 4th World Conference on Engineering Education, 1985, 15 - 20 October, Saint Paul Minnesota, USA, Vol 1. pp.5-9.: 
Paul R. W., Critical Thinking, Foundation for Critical Thinking, Santa Rosa, CA, 1993.: 
Perkins D. N. Smart Schools, The Free Press, London, 1992.: 
Polanyi M. The Tacit Dimension, Routeledge and Kogan Paul, London, 1967. : 
Resnick L. B. “Assessing the Thinking Curriculum: New Tools for Educational Reform.‟ in B. R. Gifford & M. C. O‟Connor (Eds.)”, Future Assessments: Changing views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1989. : 
Sallis E. and Hingley P., “College Quality Assurance Systems”, Mendip Paper D20, Coombe Lodge, Bristol, 1991.: 
Satinover J., The Quantum Brain, John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York, 2001.: 
Stenhouse L., An Introduction to Curriculum research and Development, Heinmann Educational Books, Oxford, 1989.: 
Swartz R. J., “Teaching for Thinking: A Developmental Model for the Infusion of Thinking Skills into Mainstream Instruction” in Baron, J. B and Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice. Freeman, New York, 1987.: 
Go to top
randomness