Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan 1

Running head: CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL PLAN

Richard Joffray

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan

Supervision of Curriculum

D. Weinbach

December 13, 2008


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.

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 ever-changing 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

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 competency-based 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 post-testing,

standardized exams where there is a one-to-one relationship to specific student learning

outcomes. Indirect measures include surveys of alumni, students, and employers, as well as

retention studies, course performance analysis, end-of-course 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

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 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

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 inter-linking of individual lesson plans developed by each

instructor. Comments, collaborative input and group curriculum planning would bring AIS closer

to a Site-Based 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

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

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

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

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 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

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.


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-B9B6-

93DBC5C4DFD1/0/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.

http://pearsonassess.com/NR/rdonlyres/E680AEC5-A1E3-475A-B9B6-93DBC5C4DFD1/0/HorizontalVerticalAlignment.pdf

http://pearsonassess.com/NR/rdonlyres/E680AEC5-A1E3-475A-B9B6-93DBC5C4DFD1/0/HorizontalVerticalAlignment.pdf

http://www.middlesex.mass.edu/TutoringServices/AstinInvolvement.pdf


Lamb, Brian (2004) Wide open spaces: Wikis, ready or not. EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 39, no. 5

(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), 6-11.

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), 175-180. 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

http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/0260293042003243896


Documents

Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan