Curriculum Management And Renewal Plan

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan Running head: CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL PLAN

Richard Joffray Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan Supervision of Curriculum D. Weinbach December 13, 2008

1

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

2

Introduction Welcome to the curriculum management and renewal plan for the Art Institute of Seattle  (AIS). The Seattle campus is one of over 40 locations across North America. Each individual  location is made up of separate departments that focus on one discipline and curriculum is  managed separately with a common thread of general education courses that are common to all  departments. General Education courses are designed to integrate required curriculum such as  Mathematics, English and History with needed skills in each department. The focus of this paper  is to develop a curriculum management and renewal plan for the Interactive Media Department  that can further integrate department curriculum with industry standards and potential employer  skill set needs. Each specific department evaluates curriculum based on a general national assessment of  industry standards and each individual school evaluates local industry needs through a  “Professional Appraisal Committee” or PAC meetings. These meetings are comprised of  administrators, faculty members and industry leaders in each facet of a department’s discipline.  Through these meetings, student surveys, and faculty meetings, needs are recorded and brought  to a “Curriculum Task Force” to evaluate. According to The Art Institute Faculty Handbook  (2008), each time a new program is being considered for The Art Institutes or an existing  program is going to be evaluated and revised, a Curriculum Task Force may be convened.  A  Curriculum Task Force is generally composed of one Dean of Academic Affairs (usually the  Chairperson), faculty members in the specific program, and Academic Affairs Staff. 

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

3

Representatives from Admissions, Instructional Technology, and Career Services may participate  in the Curriculum Task Force as well. It is from these meetings that the school can assess and  implement curriculum renewal plans to address the ever­changing technologies that are offered. As technology and trends change, so do the needs and goals of the students as well as the  school’s organization of the curriculum. The Art Institutes employ professional instructors that  are often industry working professionals and their input to the curriculum and its needs are the  heart of the organization and address the social changes that shape the goals and measured  outcomes of every department in the school. Using instructional strands in the various curriculums to guide a student through the  curriculum and adequately prepare them for entry into the professional world, The Art Institute  of Seattle is able to prepare and place students into employment at any level throughout the  curriculum, however the ultimate goal is to train students as model employees with exit skills that  are decided by the curriculum task force and PAC meetings. It is through these curriculum goals and objectives that revision best practices are  decided. It is then up to the individual school and department to design and implement those  goals into a course syllabus and weekly lesson plan. Leadership and Key Process Points The input and support for curriculum development at the Art Institute of Seattle (AIS)  begins with the State of Washington Board of Education and The Northwest Commission on  Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) as the accrediting body. The state and accrediting body are 

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

4

not prescriptive but rather organizational and supervisory when it comes to overseeing and  funding curriculum efforts. The state awards funds to AIS for its structure, facilities and  consistency and other organizational guidelines given by the accrediting body. The heart of  curriculum development and supervision at AIS are the industry leaders that the school consults  with to make sure that the competency­based curriculum is on track and successful. When a new  curriculum begins, it usually starts at a national or corporate level and is created by a DACUM  (Developing A Curriculum) (Wolford & Ritchey, 1996) or Task Force. This task force is made up  of a corporate supervisor, regional academic deans appointed by separate schools and a  committee of industrial leaders for a particular discipline. They put together a set of exit  competencies that are given to individual schools to implement that new curriculum. This only  happens once during the inception of the curriculum and again if the curriculum has a 10%  change in its structure or content. This process also happens approximately every three to five  years to insure currency with industry needs.  Once a Curriculum Task Force has completed a development or revision of a Curriculum  Model, The Art Institute (AI) Council of Deans will review it and pass it on to the AI Council of  Presidents for their input and recommendations. The Art Institutes System Coordinating Board  (AiSCB 2008) must give final approval before it can be implemented.  This new curriculum is  sent to the accrediting body and the state for approval of its legitimacy but not its content. This Curriculum Model has twelve components. These components are: 1. Program Mission and Description

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

5

2. Program Need 3. Potential Enrollment Analysis 4. Analysis of Competition 5. Program Employment Outcomes and Salary Levels 6. Graduate Exit Competencies 7. Program Course Titles and Descriptions 8. Organization and Program Content 9. Instructional Materials and Classroom Technology 10. Assessment 11. Faculty Qualifications 12. Program Evaluation After an individual school has included a curriculum or program into their system, it is up  to The Dean of Academic Affairs to implement and supervise. At The Art Institute of Seattle  there are two Associate Deans of Academic affairs that actually monitor the curriculum status  and report it to the Dean of Academic Affairs. A Professional Appraisal Committee (PAC), made up of an Academic Directors (AD), its  faculty and industrial leaders, do supervision and maintenance of each curriculum.  Approximately twice a year this committee meets to review the exit competencies and make  recommendations for revisions or additions to the curriculum. These recommendations are  presented to the Dean of Academic Affairs (Pamela Goad) and the School President (Shelly 

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

6

DuBois) for approval. Faculty meetings are held four times a year in between academic quarters to review and  assess curriculum success. Academic Directors and faculty members meet and compare, organize  and coordinate student desired outcomes to insure the goals and mission of the school are being  addressed in the current curriculum implementation. It is the job of each instructor to decide how  to include exit competencies into the lesson plan of each class. The Academic Director assesses  each instructor’s implementation of the outcomes in several ways. A Professional Performance  Appraisal Review (PPAR) takes place once a year between the Academic Director and individual  instructors to insure that curriculum goals and outcomes are being performed. Process Points for Strategic Curriculum Design The Art Institute of Seattle curriculum design model is an eclectic set of components that seem to take the necessary parts from each model definition and apply them in a unique structure that is successful in its outcome. A set of curriculum components including program mission and need, analysis of competition and enrollment, program employment outcomes and salaries, graduate exit competencies and course titles seem to follow a more researched and external model that is described as a Research, Development and Diffusion Model (RD&D) which is the classic model for large-scale curriculum development projects (Marsh, 2007). The Art Institutes (AI), having over 40 locations across North America is certainly large scale. The distribution of these external components follow a Center-Periphery Model (CP) as they are mandated to the separate schools to further develop. While examining the twelve model components of the AI curriculum, an internal model can be identified that allows each campus to organize, implement, assess and evaluate the

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

7

structure handed to them. An Action Research Model (ARM) becomes apparent as each school has the ability to form internal groups such as Professional Academic Committee (PAC), which together with industry leaders, teachers and curriculum leaders can assess and recommend directions in which the internal curriculum decisions should head. This direction of curriculum leadership has proved beneficial to groups of teachers in schools working toward a constructivist-teaching model (Perkins, 1999). These two different models of curriculum development can work together successfully as it allows support for the individual campus’s local industry need while still maintaining a corporate structure. Further freedoms are then demonstrated in each individual school’s ability to give instructors a choice during implementation of exit competencies and personalization of course material. The combination of an external mandated model together with an internal freedom to interpret these guidelines supports the importance of a teacher’s personal beliefs and internal mission (Goodson, 2000). With individuality comes diversity and with diversity comes the responsibility for instructors to be aware of other individuals and their needs. Because AI is a large organization and has a worldwide reputation, many cultures are represented in every campus. The subject of diversity in the classroom is always discussed and lectures and faculty development classes are offered to the faculty every quarter further developing this philosophy. At The Art Institute of Seattle (AIS) the diverse population of Seattle as well as the many foreign students attending the school represents many cultures. With computer and Internet access available in almost every classroom, the ability to customize the materials to separate cultures in possible. Instructors should be aware of technical abilities to do this individualization and make every attempt to present materials in an understandable way despite the student diversities. An example of this is

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

8

the ability to localize languages in materials presented in which computers make this possible. AIS has an online course materials framework setup to do just that and multilingual settings are available to every student in a class available on this system. To insure that this ability is a standard in every class, faculty training and awareness together with requirements in every class to at least list their syllabus addendums and weekly schedules on this system, would help to insure that every student has equal access to the same information. Insuring that students of similar cultural backgrounds and spoken languages have contact with one another can also aid students in pooling their understandings together. Instructors can be made aware of this strength in numbers and encouraged to group together students that might be linguistically challenged. Curriculum revisions are necessary when one factor or a combination of factors, such as a changing market, unacceptable employment outcomes, or unacceptable salary rates, exist (Art Institutes Academic Manual, 2008). A Program Report Card (PRC) is implemented to insure that the AI marketing-driven; competency-based curriculum stays up to standards required by local industry. On an AI system level there are to be a hierarchy of review committees that offer various input to the development and review of programs. Together with the curriculum Task Force Committee (TFC), industry leaders and potential graduate employer surveys, each individual campus has the freedom to alter actual implemented curriculum as long as the system wide curriculum competencies are met. These review procedures seem to be affective and insure a horizontal alignment of curriculum. When the curriculum is implemented at the campus level, books, curriculum sequencing, detailed exit competencies and specific class instructions are up to the individual school to organize, plan, implement and review (Case, 2005). The Curriculum Advisory Committee (CAC) at each school consist predominantly of full-time faculty members but can also include

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

9

Admissions, Student Affairs, the Supply Store, Employment Assistance, and the Registrar. The existing system of curriculum review at AIS seems to be sufficient when considering that the entire faculty is full time and systems outlined at the corporate level are followed, however over 50% of the faculty are part-time and not part of most curriculum development or review. AIS could benefit from a collaborative communication environment. I have been studying the use of a wiki in education for a while now and have measured its abilities against curriculum development needs. So far I have not found any negatives. Wikis address a number of benefits such as faculty training (Lamb, 2004), bridging the gap between digital natives and digital immigrants (Prensky, 2001) as well as reducing the amount of paperwork. Wikis and blogs belong to an emerging family of networking tools known as social software (Waters, 2007). In order for us as educators to be heard by a digitally driven student body, we are going to have to speak in a language that they understand. During in-service training of faculty between quarters, mandatory participation of a collaborative wiki that describes the entire curriculum could be implemented and used to enhance the understanding of all curriculum stakeholders. The wiki can contain prerequisites for every course offered as well as descriptions, syllabus addendums or even outlines of weekly lesson plans. Both students and faculty as well as curriculum leaders would benefit by getting the proper scope and sequence presented in a well organized easy to navigate framework. This type of collaboration between students, full-time faculty, part-time faculty and administrators, can further enhance the organization, communication and implementation of a well-designed curriculum. Curriculum Evaluation Process During examination of the existing evaluation process at The Art Institute of Seattle  (AIS) it became apparent that there was no clear established method of evaluating the success or 

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

10

failure of the implemented curriculums, but rather a mixture of many known methodologies.  Evaluation and assessment begins and ends with each program’s mission statement while  delivering core information to students needing exit competencies in order to become employed  in the discipline of the program’s focus. By examining the current new program development  process and comparing the various review processes to known curriculum evaluation models, a  semblance of a working evaluation practice is apparent, however interviews with academic  administrators and instructors found no recognized formal evaluation model. Some similarities to  the Context, Design Process and Product (CDPP) Model are inherent to teaching the design  process itself (Doll, 1996) and at first glance seemed to be a natural way to evaluate that kind of  program, however the need for evaluation of exit competencies at AIS requires more concrete  evidence of outcomes to successfully place students in a demanding industrial market place. A  new Program Assessment Initiative was mentioned without a clear definition of a know model.  Further examination uncovered a structure in the evaluation model that has begun at AIS. This  model follows The Nichols Institutional Effectiveness Model (NIEM) in which it states “…  descriptions of what academic departments intend for students to know (cognitive), think  (attitudinal) or do (behavioral) when they have completed their degree programs, as well as their  general education or ‘core’ curricula” (Nichols, 1991). The NIEM follows a prescribed circular set of five practices that begin and end at the  program mission statement. The process components are to define a mission statement, develop a  list of student outcomes, design the assessment tools, collect and summarize the data and finally 

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

11

to use the results that redefine the mission statement. This type of evaluation process allows for  integration of existing assessments to be included in a defined set of rubrics and then presented  to the students and faculty in multiple forms to record direct and indirect assessment methods  that represent a means of program assessment and criteria for success. Direct measures should  include capstone courses, theses, dissertations, portfolio assessments, pre­ and post­testing,  standardized exams where there is a one­to­one relationship to specific student learning  outcomes. Indirect measures include surveys of alumni, students, and employers, as well as  retention studies, course performance analysis, end­of­course evaluations, and job placement  data. Both direct and indirect measures or indicators need to be used to insure a complete  assessment has been made. This evaluation model works for most programs at AIS as a continual evaluation and  allow for customization among different programs. Both process and product (Marsh, 2007) are  in need of being assessed as the industry leaders have mandated in the Professional Appraisal  Committee (PAC) meetings. This model allows for a diverse assignment of comparisons between  outcomes and assessment to include needs from a variety of disciplines at AIS. It also includes a  measure for internal versus external evaluation that makes this model more versatile and  accommodates a greater range of assessment (Marsh, 2007). This formal model of evaluation should not be the only method of measuring success.  Frequent personal interviews with both students and faculty can reveal direct input and help  curriculum leaders to recommend or improve existing curriculum. Observation by curriculum 

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

12

leaders of classroom practices can also be a clear indicator of student and instructor successes or  failures. During many of the program reviews at AIS both student and faculty portfolio reviews  help a curriculum leader to assess and compare stated program goals to the outcomes presented  in those reviews. Data should also be collected regarding graduate job placement in order to  summate the ultimate goal of the school, which is finding positions for all graduates. Even thought The Nichols Institutional Effectiveness Model process is clear and seems to be a very good fit with the original goals at AIS, concerns still exist when considering the practical implementation of this type of evaluation process. Unlike other schools in the system, at AIS there is a lack of full time personnel dedicated to continually exercising these methods. Extra work added to academic personnel already overloaded schedule tends to dissipate the energy put toward this valuable evaluation asset and have prolonged the rollout of this method as an official evaluation tool. I would recommend that a budget be investigated that could include better funding for a full time Academic Evaluation Administrator.

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

13

Curriculum Planning Process The basic ingredients for an effective curriculum-planning model already exist at the Art Institute of Seattle (AIS). After reviewing the process and actually participating in some of the existing practices, I have a clearer picture of its strengths and disconnects. Currently the planning process starts at the Macro level where the system curriculum organizers and the Academic Affairs Review Committee (AARC) review the work of the  Curriculum Task Forces (CTF) that decide the program course bundles, course titles,  descriptions, portfolio standards and exit competencies that are the guide for individual course  syllabus and considered the framework for individual lesson plans (Art Institutes Academic  Manual, 2008). This is an efficient use of an overseeing committee as the framework is solid and  leaves enough room for interpretation by the individual schools to further direct the curriculum.  This satisfies the program industrial needs to tailor curriculum to the skills of the local faculty  hired to implement the direction of the different departments while still maintaining control over  the original mission statement decided by the CTF.  The Curriculum Task Force and Academic  Review Committee deliver to each school a set of exit competencies that are prescriptive and not  negotiable, however each school has the freedom to interpret these competencies and for their  own scope and sequence to deliver them.  At the Micro level these course guidelines are implemented and reviewed by each  program’s Academic Director (AD) and Faculty Curriculum Committee (FCC) approximately  every three to five years, or whenever the professional climate changes significantly. With 

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

14

Faculty working as a group to plan the scope and sequence of a block of courses, members of the  FCC are able to share their teaching experiences and as Huberman (1980) uses the phrase “a  collection of recipes” to describe the sharing of ideas between faculty (Marsh, 2007). To better support the communication level of FCC members in between scheduled  meeting times, a faculty Internet forum or collaborative Internet wiki might be used to collect  such information and serve as a binder for collaborative planning elements. This kind of  repository might facilitate FCC meetings by allowing members to review, plan for and accept  other faculty course components without feeling like they are being encroached upon and reduce  the competitive nature of teachers (Marsh, 2007). Another idea that might be considered here is a  curriculum wiki that contains inter­linking of individual lesson plans developed by each  instructor. Comments, collaborative input and group curriculum planning would bring AIS closer  to a Site­Based Management Model (SBM) and contribute to the overall health of the school by  bringing the staff, faculty and even students together as a community (Marsh, 2007). Publically  viewed curriculum structure might also contribute to better curriculum mapping between courses  and serve as an overview for the Curriculum Task Forces (CTF) at the Macro level.  Students are major stakeholders in the curriculum planning process and having a clear  picture of course flow, prerequisites and expected contents of each and every course offered is an  extreme benefit. An Internet Curriculum Wiki (ICW) can address the technical needs of the  digitally savvy students as well as provide a discussion area for feedback on curriculum from  students and faculty. Faculty, students, staff and industry professionals should be encouraged to 

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

15

use this ICW to plan, collaborate and communicate needs, critiques and suggestions regarding  the curriculum structure and state of the scope and sequence. With a wiki as a thread through a  curriculum model, technical novices are able to contribute on a shorter learning curve as the  digital divide closes. Currently there are graphs and charts with descriptions and expectations for  every course offered at AIS, however organizational paradigms are subjective (Lundberg, 2008)  and the logical organization properties of a website, and particularly a wiki, serve as a natural  framework that speaks to the needs of curriculum leaders, faculty, students and industrial  interested parties. The Role of School and Community Stakeholders The Art Institute of Seattle (AIS) as a location for the corporate Art Institute System (AI) has charge of developing the curriculum for its programs under the guidance of the AI Curriculum Task Force (CTF) recommendations and is the central stakeholder of its curriculum process in its location. Surrounding this central core of curriculum are various other participants in the curriculum development process including administration, faculty, students and potential industrial employers. Class scheduling, program budget, student enrollment, market climate are just a few of the influences that limit or shape the possibilities that a program at AIS can develop and progress. But the main goal of a program that is decided by the Curriculum Task Force becomes the foundation in which many contributors shape the curriculum at AIS. Market driven employment becomes the ultimate landing spot in which the curriculum is the fuel for the journey a student embarks upon while being taught a particular discipline. Input from the industrial leaders becomes the most valuable asset for developing curriculum, which explains why it is so important for the current faculty, the spokesmen for the curriculum, to be

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

16

professionally involved in the field of study being taught (Marsh, 2007). The current 50 / 50 full time to part-time ratio of faculty insures that this trend continues as the part time instructors are also the industrial leaders and employers of graduates. Continuing the faculty ratio, surveying potential employers, and enlisting the participation of these professionals into curriculum development and planning as in the Professional Academic Committees (PAC) are essential to continue, however better direct communication amongst these participants might help strengthen the direction that the curriculum is developed. Although professionalism in curriculum and personal interests are freedoms each instructors need to be an engaging educator (Conneley & Clandinin, 1997), clarity of the original mission goal for a program needs to be controlled and monitored. A yearly Professional Performance Appraisal Review (PPAR) continues to monitor and review an instructor’s direction with the curriculum being taught. The Dean of Academic Affairs at AIS is considered the curriculum leader, however after reviewing their involvement it can be determined that they are the monitors and facilitators or gatekeepers (Doll, 1996) of the curriculum planning and review process in which each Academic Director, its faculty members and PAC meeting members are the actual planners. It is the job of the Dean to ensure that the system mission and goals are maintained as well as the needs of the faculty and students are met. As an intermediate to the facilities director, financial planners and corporate representatives, the Dean has the ability to run interference up and down the ladder to ensure that both the curriculum guidelines are enforced as well as innovative teaching approaches are being allowed. Politics always affects any private for profit organization and AIS is no acceptation. The Dean has the task of running interference between academic and marketing needs while maintaining the curriculum goal for the school. While the academic core planning can definitively structure the curriculum to be

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

17

presented to the student, sight of the student participation in the curriculum process should not be lost. Student involvement in their own education can create a more enriching learning experience (Astin, 1999) while creating a strong curriculum framework can aid them in that involvement as well as alleviate the stress of self study (Pope, 2005). Faculty training teaching techniques for structuring curriculum to leave room for student involvement can assist instructors in that task while the structure also limits the scope of that student and prevents them from straying from the original curriculum goal. Students are also to be surveyed by the IDEA course goals while allowing them to make suggestions for future class curriculum. A Student Affairs Committee (SAC) formed of students and a faculty advisor have the ability to discuss and present suggestion for curriculum development and material presentation without having a direct involvement with the curriculum creation or renewal but still influencing the development. Academic directors have been presented student wishes from these committees and curriculum planning as well as its implementation has been influenced. Allowing student participation in this way allows students to be more directly involved with their own outcome and thus more accretive in their careers (Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989). Although stakeholders in the curriculum process usually include many participants from either inside the school itself or outside special interests (Doll, 1996), at AIS and other locations in the AI system, those lines are blurred as instructors and outside special interested parties are often the same. Outside influences to the curriculum such as accreditation from The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) have influence in practical ways to the curriculum. This accreditation lends credibility to the school and in turn changes the size, availability and direction the mission and curriculum development take. It should be the job of the curriculum leader to determine what other of the many influences impact the development of

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

18

new curriculum and impose limits and abilities to the most appropriate contributors. Curriculum Implementation In order to address the wide variety of locations and localized industrial needs, The Art Institute (AI) system has created a curriculum implementation plan that allows individual schools to be in control of the curriculum structure, scheduling, planning and content while following a framework laid out for them by the Curriculum Task Force (CTF). By relinquishing control of the actual curriculum implementation to schools like The Art Institute of Seattle (AIS), the AI system is fostering individuality not only in the school as an organization but to the student that attend that school as well, while maintaining consistency and quality across the entire system. Through a constantly spiraling planning, enacting, monitoring, discussing, reflecting and reevaluating process AIS is able to look to the Action Research Model (ARM) and a well documented process for guidance while implementing a mandated curriculum structure. Currently the processes used for curriculum implementation are closely aligned with an ARM model and echoed in frequent DACUUMs (Developing A Curriculum), quarterly faculty curriculum planning, ongoing faculty training, Professional Planning and Appraisal Review (PPAR) and Instructional Development and Effectiveness Assessment (IDEA) (Art Institutes Academic Manual, 2008). Advantages to alignment of the ARM model and current implementation processes are clear when considering the end goal for students and requirements of a constantly evolving industry for placement of graduates. Since the ARM model is a clustered around the understanding and intentions of the participants (Redrick & Feldman, 2000), planning (DACUUM), monitoring (IDEA), reflecting and evaluation (PPAR) performed in a cyclical and repeating fashion can help to insure a fresh, pertinent and appropriate implementation process. These process are well planned and implemented through the use of organizational

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

19

documentation on the company Intranet, printed and distributed circulations and direct communications at DACUUM and PPAR meetings. Changes at this point in the curriculum implementation process must continue to support the freedom each instructor possesses when planning, enacting and evaluating the curriculum to ensure that personal, professional and political goals remain (Feldman, Redrick & Weis, 1999). Additions to the implementation process should enhance the existing practices to help administrator, faculty and students better communicate and foster understanding as a reflective tool that further aligns the curriculum with the professional market place and the ARM model. One such enhancement to the communication system during the implementation of curriculum at AIS could be an online discussion forum for faculty and administrators to confer with one another. This type of communication tool addresses some issues that are of concern for full-time part-time faculty collaboration. Proximity and frequency of instructor collaboration and communication are enhanced by the availability of a forum from multiple locations. Marsh and Willis (2007) state that at advanced levels of an ARM model participants take a collaborative approach, expecting to participate fully in collectively directing themselves a group, aiming to develop new practices or products and using personal wisdom to guide actions. The next enhancement to the current implementation of an ARM model at AIS would be a collectively built web accessible layout and cross reference of the existing curriculum. This web location would contain course syllabus and instructor addendums organized in a sequential program layout and links embedded for prerequisite courses. Collective input by instructors and administrators in a secure environment would alleviate the daunting task and add awareness for each participant as to the overall understanding of the structure of the curriculum. Mapping and cross linking of exit competencies is another helpful property that would aid in development and

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

20

implementation of the curriculum for individual teachers as well as evaluation and scheduling for administrators. On the Internet today, many collaborative environments exist that contain the abilities that are being recommended, however most are costly and hard to fit into the fiscal budgetary cycle at the right moment as well as a political challenge when presenting to the corporate level for approval. Open-source models of online software systems are free and readily available to everyone and are modeled after a similar collaborative process to the ARM model. One such open-source system is Media-Wiki, the foundation of Wikipedia which is a collective knowledge-base maintained and monitored by the participants much like the ARM concepts indicate for advanced levels of organization (Marsh, 2007). Not only can each instructor contribute to the greater picture of the curriculum, but incorporation of discussions, advanced tracking of alteration, independent access control and many other control features allow a wiki to be a perfect companion for an ARM modeled curriculum implementation.

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

21

References Art Institute of Seattle & Education Management Corporation, (2008). The AI curriculum model, Pittsburgh, PA Art Institute of Seattle & Education Management Corporation, (2008). Art institutes academic manual, Pittsburgh, PA Astin, A. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development Vol. 40 no. 5. Retrieved December 04, 2008, from http://www.middlesex.mass.edu/TutoringServices/AstinInvolvement.pdf Case, B (2005). Horizontal and vertical alignment. Pearson Education, Inc, from http://pearsonassess.com/NR/rdonlyres/E680AEC5-A1E3-475A-B9B693DBC5C4DFD1/0/HorizontalVerticalAlignment.pdf Connely F, Clandinin D. (1997). Teachers' personal practical knowledge on the professional knowledge landscape. Elsevier Science Ltd Doll, Ronald C. (1996) Curriculum improvement, decision making and process. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. Feldman, A. Redrick, M., & Weis, T. (1999). Teacher development and action research: Finding from five years of action research in schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal. Goodson, I.F. (2000). Social histories of educational change. Paper presented at the annual  meeting of the American Educational research Association, New Orleans. Huberman, M. (1980). Finding and using recipes for busy kitchens: A situational analysis of routine knowledge use in schools. Washington, DC: Notional Institute of J Education. Lamb, Brian (2004) Wide open spaces: Wikis, ready or not. EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 39, no. 5

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

22

(September/October 2004): 36–48. Lundberg, J., & Kristenson, M. (2008, December). Is subjective status influenced by psychosocial factors? Social Indicators Research, 89(3), 375-390. Retrieved November 26, 2008, doi: 10.1007/s11205-008-9238-3 Marsh, C. W. (2007). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues (fourth ed.). Upper  Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill, Prentice Hall. Nichols, J. O. (1991). A practitioner's handbook for institutional effectiveness and student outcomes assessment implementation. New York, NY: Agathon Press. Perkins, D (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57 (3), 6­11. Pope, Nigel K. Ll. (2005). The impact of stress in self- and peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30 (1), 51-63. Retrieved December 04, 2008, from http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/0260293042003243896 Prensky, Marc (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants, part I and part II. On the Horizon NCB University Press, Vol 9 No. 6. (December 2001). Waters, J. (2007) Curriculum unbound! THE Journal, 34(3), 40-48 retrieved November 3, 2008 from Education Research Complete database. Wolford, B. & Ritchey, B. (1996, December). Analyzing the jobs of teaching troubled youth.  Journal of Correctional Education, 47(4), 175­180. Retrieved November 3, 2008, from  Academic Search Complete database. Zimmerman, B.J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds). (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Springer-Verlag

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

23