First Retreat on 4-Year Undergraduate Curriculum Reform
Date: 29-30 June, 2006
Venue: HK Gold Coast Hote
Aims, Objectives and Participant
Aims:
- This retreat provides an opportunity for multilateral interaction amongst staff members who are involved in the planning and implementation of undergraduate curriculum and committed to the enhancement of teaching and learning to examine in greater depth the various dimensions of the new 4-year curriculum outlined in the discussion document Transforming Student Learning.
- It serves the purpose of gathering a critical mass of academic staff who share the common goal of transforming the undergraduate education at HKU. This critical mass will continue to grow as the reform progresses and will be instrumental in shaping the direction of the reform.
Objectives:
At the end of the retreat, participants will :
- have a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the current undergraduate education at HKU;
- have a better understanding of the conceptual framework and the curriculum framework and structure;
- be able to collectively formulate the distinctiveness of the new curriculum;
- be able to determine whether the curriculum framework is robust;
- have an idea of the way forward in the coming academic year.
Participants:
- Steering Committee members
- Teaching Quality Committee members
- Associate Deans (Teaching and Learning)
- University Teaching Fellows
- Deans’ nominees
- Presenters
Programme (29-30 June 2006)
| 29 June 2006 |
| 2:00 p.m. |
Arrival and check-in |
| 2:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. |
Setting the scene |
|
|
|
The big picture
|
|
The Aims and Challenges of Introducing a New 4-Year Undergraduate Curriculum in HKU
– Professor Richard Y.C. Wong |
|
|
Higher Education Reform: The International Scene
– Professor Amy B.M. Tsui |
|
|
|
Feedback from informal discussions with Faculties
– Mr T.G. Edwards |
|
|
Discussion |
|
|
Identifying key issues that SC need to address based on the feedback – Mr T.G. Edwards |
|
| 4:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. |
Tea break |
| 4:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. |
Presentation of good practices and interaction
– chaired by Dr Peter A. Cunich |
|
Presentation of good practices from Faculties which illustrate the following:
|
|
the principles of curriculum design |
|
|
the educational aims |
|
|
the distinctive features |
|
|
how the questions raised under the curriculum components were addressed |
|
|
the enabling curriculum structure |
|
| 7:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. |
Dinner |
| 30 June 2006 |
| 6:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. |
Breakfast |
| 9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. |
Presentation of good practices and interaction (continued)
– chaired by Dr Peter A. Cunich |
|
|
| 10:30 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. |
Tea break |
| 11:00 a.m. – 12:20 p.m. |
Presentation of good practices and interaction (continued)
– chaired by Dr Peter A. Cunich |
|
|
| 12:30 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. |
Lunch |
| 1:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. |
Parallel discussion |
|
The chairmen of the following sub-committees will outline the major issues in the respective dimensions and propose a preliminary work plan for feedback from participants:
|
|
Academic advisory system – Dr Frederick C.C. Leung |
|
|
Assessment – Dr Tara L. Whitehill (for Dr. Esmonde F. Corbet) |
|
|
Diverse learning experiences – Dr T.G. Edwards |
|
|
IT in the curriculum – Dr Robert M.K. Fox |
|
|
Language across the curriculum – Professor Terry K.F. Au |
|
|
Staff engagement and staff development – Mr Benny Y.T. Tai |
|
|
Student learning experience – Dr Albert W.L. Chau |
|
| 3:00 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. |
Tea break |
| 3:15 p.m. – 4:15 p.m. |
Cross-group exchange
|
|
Participants will be regrouped for exchange of ideas |
|
| 4:15 p.m. – 4:50 p.m. |
Reporting by sub-committee chairmen
|
|
Sub-committee chairmen will each report on their sub-committees’ work and any other issues raised in regrouping discussion (5 min each) |
|
| 4:50 p.m. – 5:05 p.m. |
Plenary session: wrap-up – Professor Amy B.M. Tsui |
| 5:30 p.m. |
Departure |
Retreat Feedback
|
Questions
|
MEAN
|
S.D
|
| 1. On the whole, did you find this retreat useful? |
4.63
|
0.85
|
| 2. To what extent has the retreat achieved the following objectives? |
| a) |
To gain a better understanding of the conceptual framework of the new curriculum and the enabling curriculum structure |
| b) |
To gain a better understanding of the educational aims and distinctive features of the new curriculum as illustrated by some curriculum innovation initiatives in the University |
| c) |
To deliberate on the way forward for the Steering Committee and its subcommittees |
| d) |
To provide ample opportunities for exchange of views |
|
|
|
| 3. |
Which of the presentations would you like to know more about? Please put a tick against the presentations. |
| Professor Amy H.L. Lau, Critical Thinking and Business Judgment |
| Dr C.W. Lam, Social Exposure Programme |
| Dr Yoshiko Nakano, Project in Japanese Business |
| Mr Benny Y.T. Tai, Love, Marriage, Sex and Family |
| Dr Tara L. Whitehill, Problem-based Learning & Assessment |
| Dr Philip S.L. Beh & Ms Miranda G. Legg, English for PBL in Medicine |
| Dr Billy C.H. Hau, HK’s Natural Environment & Web-based Learning Support |
| Professor Nivritti G. Patil, Institute of Medical and Health Sciences Education |
| Dr W.S. Wong, Interdisciplinary Design Project |
|
|
4: Which aspect(s) of the retreat did you like best?
| Discussion / exchange of views |
| Exchange of views on important topics |
| The chance to share views, the difficulties and challenges, they are all good sharing |
| Group discussion |
| Group discussion |
| Discussion |
| Multidisciplinary input and discourse |
| Members’ participation! |
| Interaction, understanding the magnitude of the problems that we face |
| The opportunity to discuss it with colleagues from other Faculties |
| Exchange of ideas with colleagues from different Faculties |
| Cross fertilization discussion |
| The exchange of views among colleagues |
| Discussion |
| The exchange of views among members from different Faculties |
| I enjoyed talking to colleagues from different Faulties about teaching |
| Exchange of idea |
| Small group discussion |
| The (rare) possibility to work with other Faculties/ exchange ideas/ views |
| Brainstorming |
| The discussion |
| Sharing experiences / presentation of good practices
|
| Sharing experiences with colleagues from other Faculties |
| Sharing sessions |
| Learn more about work of colleagues in other Faculties |
| Opportunities to learn what others are doing |
| Being made aware of best practices in some areas of HKU – PBL in particular |
| Sharing of good teaching practices and views on curriculum reform |
| Presentations and summaries |
| Good examples of the various innovative work going on |
| Getting to know good practices |
| The sharing of good experiences |
| Presentations |
| Others
|
| Good mix of Faculties taking part |
| Having senior management involved and listening |
| While we all have some fun sharing views, we have yet to figure out how Senior Management can work together witht eh committed professional teachers. Are we serious? Is this a lip-service reform? |
| The comments of Professor Derek Hodson |
| Getting to know people |
| Good setting away from the University |
| Administration
|
| Overall administration |
| The retreat has been very well organized |
|
5: Which aspect(s) of the retreat could have been improved?
| More discussion |
| More time for discussion |
| More discussion |
| Discussion opportunities |
| More discussion |
| Greater opportunity for ideas and creativity |
| To have more discussion |
| Too short is discussion time, too many and too long is coffee break |
| More time for discussion |
| Maybe more time for interaction |
| Some free time for breathing and exchange informally |
| Less presentations, more discussions |
| More discussion on specific topics / sessions
|
| More discussion on the conceptual framework, its implication on four-year curriculum design and the common learning experiences |
| Specific discussion of the new curriculum |
| More time for people to air their views in open session rather than limiting them to reporting back on group discussion |
| More time for Q&A after presentation |
| More Q&A to share views with others beyond the small group |
| Specific suggestions
|
| SMT needs to be more transparent in what they think/plan and provide some guiding principles for deliberation |
| More action plans |
| More time is needed for scaffolding of helpful views into workable plans |
| Case presentation and discussion afterwards |
| The last part – cross-group exchange is not very meaningful. Too tight for exchange. The sub-committee chairmen’s reports are more informative. |
| Capturing of discussions in working groups |
| More creativity – let’s take some risks! |
| Logistics
|
| No need to come to Gold Coast |
| Earlier notice of the event |
| I wish I had known the schedule earlier |
| First names provided on the list (& maybe their titles) |
| Time management |
| Timing |
| Better design of the whole program |
|
6: Any other comments.
| Recognition of teaching and learning |
| Until there is more acknowledgement & reward for excellence in teaching, I have some concerns about engaging colleagues in the process necessary. |
| Wish the University really takes action to reward and recognize good teaching which is significant for staff engagement. |
| We have to find ways forward to address (1) inertia of university’s practice and (2) the reward structure that seem to recognise ‘excellence’ at the cost of teamwork. |
| SMT
|
| I am sceptical about how much what we have discussed will actually be listened to and taken on board by the senior management. |
| The colleagues need to have a clear vision of what the SMT has and what is the way to go. |
| Specific suggestions
|
| Put “Language/Communication’ into the conceptual framework. |
| The follow-up actions are crucial. |
| A clear indication of the next step! |
| Involve some student representatives in future! They can clarify some of our views on students. |
| Logistics / programme
|
| There is no need to do it off the campus, nor to stay in a hotel. We can use the money elsewhere. |
| Good facilities and amenities – although please consider holding it in town next time. |
| Only able to attend 2nd day. |
| Should have started earlier with lunch and/or finished later with dinner. |
| Could have an organized, informal event for the evening in Day 1. |
| General comments
|
| I appreciate the effort and time that the organisers had put into providing such a platform for colleagues to discuss and exchange ideas on curriculum reforms. |
| A thoroughly well-organised and useful retreat. |
| A very constructive platform for cross faculty and management discussion. |
| Interesting experience – look forward to sharing with other Faculties. |
| More needed. |
| Let’s be really innovative – that will sell the HKU brand! |
| It’s important to focus on education, not ‘reform jargons’. |
|
Video Clips
| 29 June 2006 |
| 2:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. |
|
| Setting the scene |
|
| 4:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. |
|
| Presentation of good practices and interaction
– chaired by Dr Peter A. Cunich |
Presentation of good practices from Faculties which illustrate the following:
|
|
the principles of curriculum design |
|
|
the educational aims |
|
|
the distinctive features |
|
|
how the questions raised under the curriculum components were addressed |
|
|
the enabling curriculum structure |
|
| 30 June 2006 |
| 11:00 a.m. – 12:20 p.m. |
|
| Presentation of good practices and interaction (continued)
– chaired by Dr Peter A. Cunich |
|
| 4:50 p.m. – 5:05 p.m. |
Plenary session: wrap-up – Professor Amy B.M. Tsui
(11MB, Windows Media Player 9 format) |
