{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0266541235497021, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002508623392913139, 'mean_word_length': 5.444444444444445, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
BEST PRACTICES: Open Source Curriculum

While the practice of instructional design has been growing in both literature and popular­ ity in recent decades, less attention has been given to theoretical issues involving the function and presentation of curriculum in higher education. As Birden (2003) has noted, "Theorists who study education have traditionally seen the educational process comprised of three key elements: learning, teaching, and curriculum. Psychology and learning theory tends to focus on the first of those elements, learning" (p. 30) . Curriculum as a topic of research or reflection is reserved primarily for the contexts of primary and secondary education, probably because the use of the syllabus has extensively individual­ ized even the corporate educational experience. "However, for a host of philosophers and educational theorists, the questions that have most interested them concern teaching and curriculum and how learning is influenced by changes made in teaching and curriculum" (p. 30) . Furthermore, the utilization of an alternative curriculum model in some aspects of accelerated adult education and the creation of new instructional technologies have created opportunities for new synergies. What difference does curriculum make? One might argue that the quality of the learning experience is primar­ ily determined by the relationship between student and instructor and by the content of their interactions. What is written on documents exchanged at the beginning of that relationship is regarded by many as less significant than (and, sadly, in some cases, nearly irrelevant to) the actual classroom experience. Nevertheless, curriculum form is important, if for no other reason than the common assump­ tion that the syllabus represents a legal contract of sorts between academy and student. In an increasingly litigious academic environment, faculty members are beginning to take the act of syllabus preparation more seriously than ever. More important, at least for the instructional task, curricular forms indicate who owns the learning experi­ ence. Whoever creates the curriculum (or remunerates the creator) retains primary ownership of that experience, even if that individual neither physically appears in the classroom nor is personally known by either student or instructor. Furthermore, curricular forms provide defini­ tions and boundaries for the course content while assuming or articulating one or more learning philosophies. For these and other reasons, it is time to pay more attention to the documents that are created and exchanged to guide the educational experience of students in our respective academies. This article compares and contrasts three major op­ tions for curriculum in higher education: (a) the syllabus, used primarily for traditional classrooms; (b) the module (defined later) or master syllabus, used primarily for ac­ celerated, modular programs; and (c) the toolkit, an "open source" option introduced here. I discuss each option briefly in terms of usage; current forms; the roles of and benefits to the faculty, students, and institution; and current challenges. I use the analogy of the learning experience