Notes from a lab coordinator: what I’d want a new dean to read first.
These are the questions I would ask a new department chair, dean, or curriculum committee to consider when reviewing a large undergraduate science program. They bring together the earlier essays as practical guidance.
When a new dean arrives in a college that includes a large undergraduate science program that prepares students into nursing, allied health, and pre-medical careers across a region, the volume of competing requests for attention can be overwhelming. Faculty want resources; students want flexibility; accreditors want documentation; legislators want efficiency. Each request deserves attention. None, by itself, tells the dean which decisions need the most careful review.
I draw here on my experience coordinating a multi-section undergraduate lab program. These principles are not specific to one institution. They help distinguish changes that can be assessed within a course from those that also need consultation with later programs and longer-term follow-up.
Each principle below corresponds to a longer essay elsewhere on this site, linked in case the dean would like the underlying argument and citations. The point of this synthesis is not to re-argue any of them. It is to put them in one place.
Five working principles
Lecture and laboratory teach different things. They are not interchangeable.
Lab work provides practice in carrying out procedures, making decisions from imperfect evidence, identifying structures on unfamiliar specimens, and comparing observations with a partner. These skills are not unique to laboratories, but explanation alone does not demonstrate that a student can use them.
When a proposal moves time from lab to lecture, ask which skills students will still practice and how they will be assessed. If the replacement changes the learning goal, the proposal should say so explicitly.
Gateway-course decisions affect later programs.
Some curriculum decisions mainly affect one course. Others change a prerequisite that several programs rely on. In a large gateway course, a change in content or assessment may affect students' preparation well beyond that semester. Those effects may not be clear within a single review cycle.
Match the review to the decision's reach. Consult the programs that receive these students, identify the preparation they expect, and decide how to evaluate the change over time.
Choose assessments to match the claim the course needs to defend.
Multiple-choice exams can efficiently assess knowledge and reasoning across a broad range of content. Lab practicals provide direct evidence of identification and procedure. Choose the format according to the knowledge or skill being assessed, and check the quality of the resulting evidence.
In professional preparation, criterion-referenced assessment can show whether a student has met a published standard, rather than only where the student ranks. A prerequisite should assess the skills it teaches; passing it does not certify readiness for the entire profession.
Substituting paper exercises for bench tasks is a hypothesis. Treat it like one.
Transfer of learning means using knowledge or skill in a different setting. A worksheet may teach the steps of a procedure without showing that a student can perform it. Paper tasks can support reasoning and collaboration, but those benefits do not establish that every hands-on goal has been met.
Ask three questions before substituting. Which skills does each task assess? How will we check preparation for later work over the next one to three years? What savings and learning tradeoffs do we expect? Where the evidence is incomplete, a pilot can help answer these questions.
Innovation and content reduction are not the same thing. The distinction is worth defending.
Approaches such as active learning, peer instruction, Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL), team-based learning, and structured preparation and practice have a research base. Each deserves consideration in light of its methods, evidence, and fit with the course.
Evidence for one approach does not automatically support another that shares its label. Ask “what does the evidence say this produces?” If content is reduced, identify what students gain time to practice and how the program will check their preparation afterward.
What I am not asking the dean to do
A short, important section: what this synthesis is not asking for. It is not asking for protection from change. It is not asking for resources beyond what the program needs to do its work. It is not asking for any colleague's proposal to be overruled, or for any committee's authority to be redirected. The five principles above are not a position against reform; most of them are positions in favor of more disciplined reform.
My request is specific: for changes to gateway-course content, lab time, or assessment, require evidence proportionate to the decision and track the outcomes. Make the learning goals and tradeoffs clear enough that the institution can learn from both successful and unsuccessful changes.
Before approving a curriculum change, ask what students should learn from it and how the program will know. Record the answer so future reviewers can compare the intention with the outcome.
One concrete suggestion
Use a one-page Curriculum Change Brief for proposed changes in gateway courses and other professional prerequisites. Ask for four things: the intended learning improvement; relevant research in comparable settings; a plan to track outcomes, with measures and a timeline; and a short account of what is being removed or changed.
A consistent brief means reviewers do not have to remember to ask these questions separately. It can make strong evidence easier to evaluate and reveal where a proposal needs further work. When evidence is limited, the next step may be a pilot rather than immediate approval or rejection.
Closing
Careful reform does not mean avoiding change. It means piloting where appropriate, measuring results, and planning how to revise a change if it does not serve students well. That work gives later programs a clearer account of what students have learned.
Good review takes staff time, and its costs should be acknowledged. A concise brief and regular follow-up give that work a practical purpose: helping the institution make its next decision with better evidence.
Drafted May 2026. Comments and corrections welcome.