A Quick Guide for AQ Staff: Using the C-CAP Administration Dashboard - C-CAP Embedding Phase

    Research output: Book/ReportOther report

    Abstract

    Whilst academics are at the centre of the curriculum design process, faculty academic quality (AQ) teams are at the centre of - and are critically important to - the approval process. AQ teams are singularly responsible for administrating and managing the curriculum approval process and therefore have responsibility for tracking, providing on-going feedback, controlling the status of proposals, assigning proposals for academic review, etc. Administering this functionality exposes AQ teams to an extra layer of C-CAP functionality. The back-end administration of the curriculum approval process via C-CAP is therefore mediated at a faculty level by AQ staff and is best understood, not through process diagrams, but by a star-shaped interpretation of faculty level approval processes. AQ teams govern or mediate key decision points during the approval process. Their centrality to the approval process and their influence on curriculum design (via academics) is such that they are the stakeholders above all others who interact with C-CAP the most and are the most exposed to its functionality and benefits. AQ teams are therefore at the centre of the star in Figure 1, which is part of the wider process surrounding curriculum design and approval. AQ teams were always central to faculty level approval processes but this centrality was never formalised in the previous state (i.e. before C-CAP) and, as a consequence, the approval process remained mysterious to many stakeholders. The development of C-CAP has changed this by making explicit a curriculum approval process that was hitherto mythic and plagued by tacit practice. This document provides guidance on using the C-CAP administration dashboard, the underlying approval workflows and also makes recommendations on how best to use C-CAP during the approval process and during Academic Committee. It should also be remembered that C-CAP covers only the curriculum design and approval process; there are a great many “off-line” processes and activities that AQ and faculty officers must undertake to ensure the successful delivery of a new class or course.
    LanguageEnglish
    Place of PublicationGlasgow
    PublisherUniversity of Strathclyde
    Number of pages24
    Publication statusPublished - 4 Oct 2012

    Fingerprint

    CAP
    Curricula
    staff
    curriculum
    Stars
    functionality
    stakeholder
    Feedback
    workflow

    Keywords

    • technology supported curriculum design
    • academic quality
    • information management
    • curriculum change
    • information systems

    Cite this

    @book{829965224209467299ab654dc7869781,
    title = "A Quick Guide for AQ Staff: Using the C-CAP Administration Dashboard - C-CAP Embedding Phase",
    abstract = "Whilst academics are at the centre of the curriculum design process, faculty academic quality (AQ) teams are at the centre of - and are critically important to - the approval process. AQ teams are singularly responsible for administrating and managing the curriculum approval process and therefore have responsibility for tracking, providing on-going feedback, controlling the status of proposals, assigning proposals for academic review, etc. Administering this functionality exposes AQ teams to an extra layer of C-CAP functionality. The back-end administration of the curriculum approval process via C-CAP is therefore mediated at a faculty level by AQ staff and is best understood, not through process diagrams, but by a star-shaped interpretation of faculty level approval processes. AQ teams govern or mediate key decision points during the approval process. Their centrality to the approval process and their influence on curriculum design (via academics) is such that they are the stakeholders above all others who interact with C-CAP the most and are the most exposed to its functionality and benefits. AQ teams are therefore at the centre of the star in Figure 1, which is part of the wider process surrounding curriculum design and approval. AQ teams were always central to faculty level approval processes but this centrality was never formalised in the previous state (i.e. before C-CAP) and, as a consequence, the approval process remained mysterious to many stakeholders. The development of C-CAP has changed this by making explicit a curriculum approval process that was hitherto mythic and plagued by tacit practice. This document provides guidance on using the C-CAP administration dashboard, the underlying approval workflows and also makes recommendations on how best to use C-CAP during the approval process and during Academic Committee. It should also be remembered that C-CAP covers only the curriculum design and approval process; there are a great many “off-line” processes and activities that AQ and faculty officers must undertake to ensure the successful delivery of a new class or course.",
    keywords = "technology supported curriculum design, academic quality, information management, curriculum change, information systems",
    author = "George Macgregor",
    year = "2012",
    month = "10",
    day = "4",
    language = "English",
    publisher = "University of Strathclyde",

    }

    A Quick Guide for AQ Staff : Using the C-CAP Administration Dashboard - C-CAP Embedding Phase . / Macgregor, George.

    Glasgow : University of Strathclyde, 2012. 24 p.

    Research output: Book/ReportOther report

    TY - BOOK

    T1 - A Quick Guide for AQ Staff

    T2 - Using the C-CAP Administration Dashboard - C-CAP Embedding Phase

    AU - Macgregor, George

    PY - 2012/10/4

    Y1 - 2012/10/4

    N2 - Whilst academics are at the centre of the curriculum design process, faculty academic quality (AQ) teams are at the centre of - and are critically important to - the approval process. AQ teams are singularly responsible for administrating and managing the curriculum approval process and therefore have responsibility for tracking, providing on-going feedback, controlling the status of proposals, assigning proposals for academic review, etc. Administering this functionality exposes AQ teams to an extra layer of C-CAP functionality. The back-end administration of the curriculum approval process via C-CAP is therefore mediated at a faculty level by AQ staff and is best understood, not through process diagrams, but by a star-shaped interpretation of faculty level approval processes. AQ teams govern or mediate key decision points during the approval process. Their centrality to the approval process and their influence on curriculum design (via academics) is such that they are the stakeholders above all others who interact with C-CAP the most and are the most exposed to its functionality and benefits. AQ teams are therefore at the centre of the star in Figure 1, which is part of the wider process surrounding curriculum design and approval. AQ teams were always central to faculty level approval processes but this centrality was never formalised in the previous state (i.e. before C-CAP) and, as a consequence, the approval process remained mysterious to many stakeholders. The development of C-CAP has changed this by making explicit a curriculum approval process that was hitherto mythic and plagued by tacit practice. This document provides guidance on using the C-CAP administration dashboard, the underlying approval workflows and also makes recommendations on how best to use C-CAP during the approval process and during Academic Committee. It should also be remembered that C-CAP covers only the curriculum design and approval process; there are a great many “off-line” processes and activities that AQ and faculty officers must undertake to ensure the successful delivery of a new class or course.

    AB - Whilst academics are at the centre of the curriculum design process, faculty academic quality (AQ) teams are at the centre of - and are critically important to - the approval process. AQ teams are singularly responsible for administrating and managing the curriculum approval process and therefore have responsibility for tracking, providing on-going feedback, controlling the status of proposals, assigning proposals for academic review, etc. Administering this functionality exposes AQ teams to an extra layer of C-CAP functionality. The back-end administration of the curriculum approval process via C-CAP is therefore mediated at a faculty level by AQ staff and is best understood, not through process diagrams, but by a star-shaped interpretation of faculty level approval processes. AQ teams govern or mediate key decision points during the approval process. Their centrality to the approval process and their influence on curriculum design (via academics) is such that they are the stakeholders above all others who interact with C-CAP the most and are the most exposed to its functionality and benefits. AQ teams are therefore at the centre of the star in Figure 1, which is part of the wider process surrounding curriculum design and approval. AQ teams were always central to faculty level approval processes but this centrality was never formalised in the previous state (i.e. before C-CAP) and, as a consequence, the approval process remained mysterious to many stakeholders. The development of C-CAP has changed this by making explicit a curriculum approval process that was hitherto mythic and plagued by tacit practice. This document provides guidance on using the C-CAP administration dashboard, the underlying approval workflows and also makes recommendations on how best to use C-CAP during the approval process and during Academic Committee. It should also be remembered that C-CAP covers only the curriculum design and approval process; there are a great many “off-line” processes and activities that AQ and faculty officers must undertake to ensure the successful delivery of a new class or course.

    KW - technology supported curriculum design

    KW - academic quality

    KW - information management

    KW - curriculum change

    KW - information systems

    M3 - Other report

    BT - A Quick Guide for AQ Staff

    PB - University of Strathclyde

    CY - Glasgow

    ER -