Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Richard Joffray
Supervision of Curriculum
D. Weinbach
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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,
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
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.
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
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
Currently the planning process starts at the Macro level where the system curriculum
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 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
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
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.
reevaluating process AIS is able to look to the Action Research Model (ARM) and a well
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
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.
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
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
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
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
Doll, Ronald C. (1996) Curriculum improvement, decision making and process. Boston,
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
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
Lamb, Brian (2004) Wide open spaces: Wikis, ready or not. EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 39, no. 5
Curriculum Management and Renewal Plan 22
Marsh, C. W. (2007). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues (fourth ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill, Prentice Hall.
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
Waters, J. (2007) Curriculum unbound! THE Journal, 34(3), 40-48 retrieved November 3, 2008
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