Carew and Lindsay, Curriculum Lifeboat: A Process for Rationalising Engineering Course Content Proceedings of the 2008 AaeE Conference, Yeppoon, Copyright © Carew and Lindsay, 2008 1 Curriculum Lifeboat: a process for rationalising engineering course content Anna L Carew Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia Anna.Carew@utas.edu.au Euan D Lindsay Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia e.lindsay@curtin.edu.au Abstract: The problem of how to deal with overloaded curriculum and out-of-date content faces many engineering course co-ordinators. Engineering is a rapidly evolving field, and recent changes in the higher education landscape (eg. changed accreditation expectations; changing demands of incoming students) mean curriculum rationalisation is a priority. As Professor Norman Fortenberry has said (EE, 2008): “That which is not core we must be willing to let go”. In this paper we describe a process to aid course co-ordinators and academic teachers in negotiating shared content priorities. The ‘Curriculum Lifeboat’ process is presented as an enjoyable academic development activity which serves as a precursor to rationalising content at unit level. We describe how to run a Lifeboat and detail two examples of outcomes from the process; a small group Lifeboat run at course level, and a pair Lifeboat focussed on priority concepts for first year statics. Introduction Engineering curriculum requires regular maintenance. The need to review and update engineering curriculum has numerous drivers including: the need to keep pace with the rapid evolution of technology; shifting social expectations and aligned shifts in legislation and regulation of engineering work; and the changing expectations of the regulators of and participants in higher education (eg. students, academics, government and accrediting bodies) (Carew and Cooper, 2008). There is, however, some evidence that curriculum maintenance is a challenge for engineering and is a task that is often done poorly, neglected or avoided altogether (Walkington, 2002). One of the consequences of delaying or neglecting curriculum maintenance is a situation that is sometimes termed ‘curriculum cramming’ or ‘scope creep’. The problem of scope creep in engineering is characterised by: 1. The expanding demands of industry and society which mean that the range of knowledge and skills students might be expected to learn during undergraduate engineering is expanding (King, 2008; EA, 2004; Henley, 2006). Some of the content areas which contribute to the expansion of curriculum include: OH&S requirements; business nouse; interpersonal and leadership capacity; and sustainable practice. 2. The ‘massification’ (Dobson, 2001) of higher education and budgetary pressures have seen a diversification in the incoming skills and qualifications of first year students at some engineering faculties. Some students enter engineering, mostly at non-sandstone and non- ATN universities, with a UAI ranking below 70 (eg. ECU, 2008; Victoria, 2008). This diversification has resulted in some cases in a perceived need for revision or remedial content to be included in early year engineering units.