I have been working with the Ontario University Degree Level Expectations (UDLEs) locally and as an educational developer representative with the Ontario Council of Academic Vice Presidents (OCAV) for a couple of years now. OCAV sought us out to work on ways so that the UDLEs are actively used in guiding curriculum. As a result, we have toured the province with workshops for academic laders and educational developers.
If you have looked at the UDLEs, then you will probably have noticed that they are quite broad and generic. So, if a programme being reviewed chooses, they can easily account for the UDLEs in their curriculum without authenticity.
Where I have found the difference is that they have prompted increasing numbers of universities and individual programmes to develop/critical reflect on their own outcomes, and to begin to more rigorously explore where those outcomes are being intentionally fostered in the curriculum.
Re: Topic 1: Desired outcomes of a national system of training and credentialing
by Peter Wolf -
Number of replies: 1
In reply to Peter Wolf
Re: Topic 1: Desired outcomes of a national system of training and credentialing
by Gary Hunt -
Interesting comments Peter. The benefits that a programme gets from the UDLE's depends on the effort that faculty choose to put into it. For me this raises the issue that if the expectations are so broad and flexible that they can be met with minimal effort and thought, then the goals of OCAV are not really being met. Is there a template for exactly how the programme reviews are structured?
I can certainly see a big value having the expectations prompt reflection on, and development of programme-level outcomes--I think we have a long way to go in BC to get to this point in every institution.
I can certainly see a big value having the expectations prompt reflection on, and development of programme-level outcomes--I think we have a long way to go in BC to get to this point in every institution.