Shared Visions: Uncovering Philosophies Behind Curriculum Development

Workshop Recommended citation: Laperrouza, M., & Sylvestre, E. (2025). Shared Visions: Uncovering Philosophies Behind Curriculum Development. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631608. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. SHARED VISIONS: UNCOVERING PHILOSOPHIES BEHIND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT . M. Laperrouza a,1, E. Sylvestre b a EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland, 0000-0001-6316-254X b UNIL, Lausanne, Switzerland, 0000-0003-4575-7755 Conference Key Areas: Curriculum development and emerging curriculum models in engineering Keywords: curriculum development, curriculum philosophy, visual mediation, reflective practice ABSTRACT In engineering education, developing a clear and shared vision of the curriculum is essential for coherent program design. While teaching philosophies have gained traction as a tool for personal and professional development, the idea of a "curriculum philosophy" remains underexplored. This workshop invites participants to clarify their personal curriculum vision and explore how to support academic teams in doing the same. Using creative approaches through photo-elicitation, participants will express and share their representations of what a curriculum is and should be. Building on this, participants will co-construct a set of powerful questions that can guide teams in articulating their curriculum philosophy in ways that align with institutional and disciplinary goals. The workshop is designed to be highly interactive and reflective. It will be of interest to educators and educational developers engaged in curriculum transformation, strategic program review, or pedagogical innovation in engineering higher education. Participants will leave with a deeper understanding of their own values and beliefs about curriculum development, a replicable method for team facilitation and a collective set of guiding questions to use in their institutions. 1 Corresponding Author M. Laperrouza [email protected] 1 BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE Curriculum development in higher education - particularly in engineering education - is often addressed through a focus on curriculum design and internal coherence among learning outcomes, teaching strategies and assessments. Tools such as curriculum mapping are widely used to align course-level components with programlevel competencies, providing a visual and analytical overview of how learning outcomes are distributed across a program (Harden, 2001; Uchiyama & Radin, 2009). This work is essential and has contributed significantly to improving curricular coherence and transparency. However, this instrumental approach to curriculum design tends to emphasize structural and procedural alignment at the expense of a deeper engagement with the underlying educational vision. Drawing inspiration from the pedagogical design model articulated by Lanarès et al. (2024), we propose to reconceptualize curriculum development as a process rooted in three interdependent dimensions: vision, design, and evolution. This model echoes recent calls for more holistic and meaning-driven approaches in higher education (Barnett & Coate, 2005; Biggs & Tang, 2011; Fraser & and Bosanquet, 2006). Among these three dimensions, vision - defined as the shared, often implicit, values, beliefs and aspirations that guide program development - is consistently the most underdeveloped. Most institutional and quality assurance processes tend to support the design and evolution phases, with the vision phase remaining underexplored or entirely absent from formal development processes. This omission can lead to programs that are technically well-aligned but lack coherence in terms of their overarching purpose and contribution to graduate identity. In the field of educational development, teaching philosophy statements have become a key reflective tool used by educators to articulate their beliefs, goals, and practices. We argue that a parallel is needed at the program level: a curriculum philosophy. Such a construct invites academic teams to make explicit their collective vision for the program, including the values they wish to transmit, the kind of graduate they aim to form and the unique contribution their program brings to the field. This workshop is grounded in the program approach described by Sylvestre & Berthiaume (2013), which frames curriculum design as a collective and iterative process involving continuous negotiation of meaning and intentionality among faculty members. By initiating a reflective dialogue around symbolic representations (images, objects), the workshop provides a gateway into the tacit dimensions of curriculum design. It then bridges this reflection with practical questions that teams can use to co-construct a curriculum philosophy. Ultimately, our goal is to support educators and curriculum designers in reclaiming a strategic and value-driven orientation to curriculum development - one that aligns pedagogical coherence with institutional mission, disciplinary specificity, and societal needs. 2 WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES 2.1 Theoretical and methodological foundations of the workshop Building on the need to make explicit the often-overlooked vision dimension of curriculum design - as highlighted in the rationale - this workshop adopts a format that encourages both personal reflection and collaborative inquiry. It is grounded in two complementary theoretical foundations. First, reflective approaches to professional development (Brookfield, 1995; Schön, 2013) provide a framework for eliciting participants’ beliefs, values, and educational intentions, seen here as essential levers for informed curriculum development. Second, curriculum design theories (Barnett & Coate, 2005; Biggs & Tang, 2011) emphasize the critical role of a shared vision in ensuring program coherence, constructive alignment, and meaningful innovation. To operationalize this reflection, the workshop uses symbolic and affective mediation techniques through photo-elicitation. These approaches, inspired by the work of Baptiste (1991) and Harper (2002), provide access to deeper, often implicit, representations of curriculum beliefs. To support this symbolic mediation, a curated collection of 25 photographs was assembled following three guiding principles: polysemy, metaphorical richness, and emotional resonance. The selected materials range from abstract visuals (e.g., mazes, bridges, paths) to symbolic items (e.g., compass, puzzle piece, thread), allowing participants to project diverse meanings related to curriculum structure, transformation, or purpose. The selection process drew on the principles of protolanguage (Baptiste, 1991) and visual elicitation methods (Harper, 2002; Kolb, 2008), ensuring that each image could elicit both cognitive associations and affective responses—what Barthes (1980) refers to as the punctum. The materials were pilottested with a small group of educators to ensure their interpretive openness and relevance to curriculum reflection. This carefully designed collection enables participants to externalize implicit beliefs and engage in deep meaning-making as a precursor to collective inquiry. By creating a space where meaning can emerge through metaphor and dialogue, the workshop aims to surface foundational assumptions that can inform the design or transformation of educational programs. 2.2 Target audience The workshop is aimed at faculty members, pedagogical advisors, administrators and other stakeholders involved (or intending to be involved) in curriculum development committees at engineering higher education institutions. The number of participants targeted is between 12 and 40 – there are in principle no issues of scalability (provided the room is large enough). 2.3 Expected learning outcomes At the end of the workshop, participants will be able to: - Recognize and describe key values and beliefs associated with curriculum development - Interpret visual materials as metaphors for educational practices, roles, and purposes - Reflect on and articulate their personal philosophy of higher education in relation to curriculum development - Compare and contrast individual and group perspectives on teaching and learning philosophies in the framework of curriculum development - Co-construct a shared set of guiding questions pertaining to curriculum development 3 WORKSHOP DESIGN 3.1 Time plan Table 1. Time plan Run time Activity Notes 10 min Introduction and setting the scene Presentation of objectives, explanation of the "curriculum philosophy" concept and exploration methods (photoelicitation / signature object) 15 min Image selection & sharing Step 1 — Individual reflection (5 min): Choose an image and write three keywords Step 2 — Small-group discussion (10 min): Share choices and identify similarities and differences 10 min Reflective Debrief Step 1 — Individual reflection (5 min): How did Activity 1 help me clarify my vision? What made the process difficult? Step 2 — Small-group discussion (10 min): Identify facilitators and blockers then write them 15 min Designing guiding questions Step 1 — Small groups (7 min): Review images and draft 2–3 questions Step 2 — Plenary sharing (8 min): Each group shares one question; build a collective set 10 min Synthesis and conclusion Pooling of questions, reflection on transferability and possible uses in institutions 3.2 Interactivity Interactivity is embedded throughout the entire workshop, not as an isolated moment but as a sustained pedagogical thread connecting each phase of the session. The design intentionally moves from individual introspection to peer exchange and finally to collective co-construction, ensuring that each participant is actively engaged in the learning process from beginning to end. Rather than focusing solely on cognitive engagement, the workshop initiates reflection through symbolic mediation—using photo-elicitation—as a way to access and express implicit curriculum beliefs. This modality fosters personal involvement and creates an emotional and imaginative entry point into the topic. From this personal foundation, interactions evolve into small group dialogues, encouraging participants to listen, compare, and challenge their own assumptions through peer learning. The collaborative dimension is further deepened in the second half of the workshop, where participants are invited to co-construct conceptual tools—namely, a set of guiding questions—that they can later use in their institutional context. This activity transforms the session from a reflective exploration into a shared production space, making the learning experience both participatory and transferable. The workshop thus offers a rich variety of interaction formats—individual, dyadic, small group and plenary—each serving a specific pedagogical function. 3.3 Logistics The workshop organizers will provide all necessary materials to support the interactive activities, including a curated selection of images for participants to choose from, as well as cards for writing down the guiding questions developed during the session. In terms of logistical needs, the workshop requires a room set up with tables to facilitate small-group work, as well as a flipchart or a digital board to synthesize and visualize collective outputs during plenary discussions. 4 WORKSHOP RESULTS During the workshops a dozen of participants expressed their vision of teaching and learning at the curriculum level through images and keywords, which revealed recurring themes. Metaphors such as a door, gearwheel, treasure island, labyrinth, and arrow emphasized structure, clarity, and guided progression. Others, like the spider web, aquarium, brain, group discussion, tree, forest path, and desert, highlighted interconnectedness, exploration, collaboration, personal growth, and selfdiscovery. Across these diverse representations, common threads emerged around structure, journey, connection, support, development, creativity, and values, underscoring a shared view of curriculum as both a guided pathway and a collaborative, evolving learning experience. From the individual keywords, the groups identified shared elements of vision. These shared elements became the 14 final orientations of the workshop. For each orientation, the participants formulated guiding questions to clarify pedagogical intentions. Table 2. Orientations and guiding questions Orientations Guiding questions Flexible How much individual flexibility should be given to students? How to combine clear structure with flexibility (of students’ choices)? To what extent can curriculum design allow flexibility so that students can customize their learning pathways? Scaffolded How can we provide enough scaffolding to support each student with current resources? Connected (Community) What is the role of community in learning & teaching? How to build a community of learners & future game changers? How should we incorporate measures to ensure the development of students’ key competences throughout the curriculum? What would be measures to establish connections between different study levels? How should we involve stakeholders so that the community benefits from the project? How can the curriculum be connected to industry and society? Journeys How will you create opportunities to pause, rest, explore & discover within the journey? Creativity How can we provide room for creative elaboration in our design to make it adaptive? How would you foster creativity to tackle societal uncertainty? How can we best involve/recycle stakeholders to coconstruct a curriculum? Studentcentered How can we include the future students’ view in our design? Eco-system Within what eco-system are you developing this curriculum? Coconstructed How can we best involve key stakeholders to co-construct a flexible curriculum? What opportunities does the curriculum provide to co-construct learning? How will you include others in cocreation of the curriculum (including future students)? Process oriented (no question identified) Uncertainty How can the curriculum help the student to deal with uncertainties in professional life? How can uncertainty be embedded in the program to help students grow? Clearly structured Can you make sure that an outsider can understand your structure without it being too rigid? Responsible (no question identified) Growth / Development What kind of growth or development are you aiming for? (your own / students’?) How should personal growth be integrated in the curriculum? Curiosity How will you foster curiosity in each stage of the program? How should the curriculum stimulate curiosity? How can progression teach students curiosity for lifelong learning? How to encourage and ensure curiosity of students (program & course levels)? How to guide students to foster curiosity? Which pedagogy can be incorporated to foster curiosity? This workshop made it possible to: - Make explicit participants’ implicit curricular philosophies through a collective and participatory process - Produce a rich corpus of 14 orientations and 35 guiding questions to be used as a lever for curricular reflection and design - Demonstrate that curriculum design cannot be limited to technical alignments: it must also integrate values, visions, and intentions Perspectives: - Use these orientations and questions as a discussion tool in curriculum teams - Develop a reference framework of curricular questions at institutional or international level - Pursue further research on how these implicit visions influence actual curriculum choices In summary, the workshop provided a rich space for expression, confrontation, and co-construction, offering both a methodological framework and tangible results to inspire curricular reflections within the SEFI community. REFERENCES Baptiste, A. (1991). Photolangage une méthode pour communiquer en groupe par la photo. [Paris]: les Éd. d'organisation. Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2005). Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education. Berkshire: Open University Press. Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill and Open University Press. Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fraser, S. P., & and Bosanquet, A. M. (2006). The curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t it? Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 269-284. doi:10.1080/03075070600680521 Harden, R. M. (2001). AMEE Guide No. 21: Curriculum mapping: a tool for transparent and authentic teaching and learning. Medical Teacher, 23(2), 123137. doi:10.1080/01421590120036547 Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1), 13-26. doi:10.1080/14725860220137345 Kolb, B. (2008). Involving, sharing, analysing—Potential of the participatory photo interview. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-9.3.1155 Lanarès, J., Laperrouza, M., Sylvestre, E., & Bader, J. (2024). Course Design : a visual and modular approach. Lausanne: Épistémé Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes. Schön, D. A. (2013). The reflective practitioner how professionals think in action. Farnham: Ashgate. Sylvestre, E., & Berthiaume, D. (2013). Enseigner dans le cadre d’une approcheprogramme. In D. Berthiaume & N. Rege Colet (Eds.), La pédagogie de l’enseignement supérieur : repères théoriques et applications pratiques. Bern: Peter Lang. Uchiyama, K. P., & Radin, J. L. (2009). Curriculum Mapping in Higher Education: A Vehicle for Collaboration. Innovative Higher Education, 33(4), 271-280. doi:10.1007/s10755-008-9078-8