FAQ

It is easier to explain the need for curriculum change to teaching staff when it is based on data, evidence and feedback rather than on the programme director’s assumptions. An analysis of the existing curriculum provides an overall picture of how it functions – what supports student learning, where the constraints lie, and which changes are realistic in terms of both content and resources. The sources for such analysis are described in more detail on the process page under Stage 2. The analysis helps teaching staff understand the need for change and gives them confidence that changes are not being introduced on the basis of intuition alone.

The programme director is responsible for curriculum development, coordinating the process and the team, maintaining a focus on the overall cohesion of the curriculum, and agreeing on working methods, roles and decision‑making processes. The programme director does not make decisions alone, but acts as the substantive lead of the development work.

Does the programme director have to carry out the entire process alone?

Curriculum development is a team effort that requires the involvement of teaching staff, students, alumni, employers and other experts. The programme director leads the process but does not undertake it alone – they are supported by the development team and the university’s support units.

It is important for the programme director to establish a development team that helps maintain direction, provides support, and ensures that curriculum development proceeds on the basis of a shared understanding.

The development team includes teaching staff, typically those in charge of compulsory courses. It is important that they are willing to contribute to curriculum development and participate actively in the process. As needed and at different stages, students, alumni, employers and practitioners may also be involved. The programme council can provide support, but in practice, the key role lies with the core teaching staff.

It is advisable to involve part-time teaching staff and those working under an authorisation agreement in a targeted way for a certain specified time. The most effective approach is to invite them to discussions where their contribution has the greatest impact – for example, in shaping the graduate profile, mapping labour market expectations, or developing specific courses and assessment methods.

It is important to provide a clear focus, well-prepared materials and flexible forms of participation (such as short meetings or written feedback). If the development work requires a significant additional contribution, workload and remuneration should also be agreed. Transparent communication helps ensure that part-time teaching staff also feel they are an important part of the overall curriculum and understand its focus, objectives and guiding principles.

The general principle is that curriculum development is a team effort, with different stakeholders involved throughout. To support this, it is important that all agreements, analyses and decisions are documented transparently and made accessible to all teaching staff, ensuring a shared understanding of direction and continuity in development work. More detailed descriptions of the stages, key activities and expected outputs can be found on the curriculum development process page.

Stage 1: the development team is formed, and roles and the organisation of work are agreed.

Stage 2: in addition to the development team, students, alumni, employers and teaching staff are involved through discussions or surveys.

Stages 3–4: alongside the development team, all teaching staff involved in the curriculum should be involved, as their collaboration is critical for defining the curriculum core, learning outcomes and development decisions. It is also important that teaching staff have sufficient time to participate, which requires support from the head of the institute and/or head of academic affairs to ensure both time and financial resources. For teaching-related support, it is advisable to involve academic developers and instructional designers to gain an external perspective.

Stage 5: the institute’s head of academic affairs supports the preparation of the change proposal for the institute and faculty councils, while the Office of Academic Affairs helps ensure that the changes comply with university requirements.

Stage 6: continuous collaboration and the sharing of feedback during implementation require active involvement from teaching staff. When evaluating changes, it is important to involve not only teaching staff but also students, alumni and employers, whose input is essential for future internal evaluations. Regular exchange between these groups helps to understand how changes function in practice, their impact on the learner experience, and what adjustments may be needed.

At the university, it has been agreed that compulsory courses should generally be worth at least 6 ECTS credits, while elective and optional courses may be smaller if necessary. This recommendation is based on the principles of a good curriculum. Research also supports offering larger courses so that students have fewer concurrent subjects to focus on during the same period. This reduces fragmentation and enables deeper, more meaningful learning. UT students also tend to give higher ratings to curricula with fewer small courses (see the UT statistics dashboard).

Course design should be guided primarily by the curriculum core and learning outcomes. It is also important that learners have opportunities to apply theoretical knowledge within the same course. Creating larger courses becomes a natural process when it is based on substantive collaboration between teaching staff rather than the formal merging of separate courses. As with the curriculum development team as a whole, it is important that teaching staff work consciously as a team, developing a shared understanding of course learning outcomes, how different components and learning activities fit together, and which competences students will develop. Jointly agreed learning activities, teaching methods, and assessment approaches help avoid fragmentation and ensure the course functions as a coherent whole for students rather than an artificial combination.

It is also highly beneficial if all teaching staff are involved in the initial delivery of the course, at least as observers. This helps build a shared understanding of how teaching works in practice, the course’s logic and rhythm, and its internal structure and connections. In this way, a jointly created and shared whole emerges that is clear and supportive for learners, with integration that feels natural rather than forced.

Key interim deadlines are linked to the 2026 internal evaluation, which determined whether a curriculum would only align its learning outcomes with the new higher education standard or undertake more substantial changes.

Other interim deadlines (such as stage-specific outputs and their completion) are defined within each curriculum.

Faculty councils approve updated curriculum versions between March 2026 and April 2028.

Faculty councils can approve curricula on an ongoing basis. A recommended timeline is provided below.

See Stage 5 of the curriculum development process, where the procedure at the UT is described in detail.

Here is the template for comparing learning outcomes with the higher education standard (in Estonian). In addition, the Centre for Learning and Teaching has developed an assistant within the MS Copilot environment that can be used to check the alignment of curriculum learning outcomes with the higher education standard. To use the assistant, type “Alusta”/”Start” in the chat window.

The recommended timeline for curricula aiming to introduce a new version in autumn 2027 is as follows: