Evaluating C-CAP: reflecting on the dichotomy of curriculum design and approval

George Macgregor

    Research output: Other contribution

    Abstract

    This brief contribution comments on the dichotomy between 'system' and 'process' within the context of technology-supported curriculum design systems. In this instance the system was well received by study participants.  Participants' perception of the existing curriculum design and approval process was, however, generally quite negative.  Responses from the pre-session questionnaire instrument indicated that few were satisfied with the status quo.  In particular, participants were inclined to view the current process as onerous and stifling class/course design, and in need of improvement to render it more efficient and responsive to the changing demands of industry and the employment market.  All of this tended to imply that participants would be responsive to an online system designed to ameliorate these process issues; yet – as was to be discovered through qualitative data analysis - the demands of the University’s policies and regulations on curriculum approval meant that many participants were unconvinced of the process, irrespective of the system delivering it. This contribution goes on to explore conflicting "information needs" within the process perspective. These information needs could be described as three divergent sub-perspectives, all existing as part of an information ecosystem and all underpinning the wider process perspective: academic, operational, and aspirational.
    LanguageEnglish
    TypeBlog post
    PublisherUniversity of Strathclyde
    Number of pages4
    Place of PublicationGlasgow
    Publication statusPublished - 13 Mar 2012

    Fingerprint

    CAP
    Curricula
    curriculum
    Online systems
    Ecosystems
    university policy
    Industry
    data analysis
    regulation
    industry
    questionnaire
    market

    Keywords

    • technology-supported curriculum design
    • curriculum design systems
    • system usability
    • human-computer interaction
    • HCI
    • systems theory and complexity

    Cite this

    @misc{c7e95644aba74b22a2ac04159cb88956,
    title = "Evaluating C-CAP: reflecting on the dichotomy of curriculum design and approval",
    abstract = "This brief contribution comments on the dichotomy between 'system' and 'process' within the context of technology-supported curriculum design systems. In this instance the system was well received by study participants.  Participants' perception of the existing curriculum design and approval process was, however, generally quite negative.  Responses from the pre-session questionnaire instrument indicated that few were satisfied with the status quo.  In particular, participants were inclined to view the current process as onerous and stifling class/course design, and in need of improvement to render it more efficient and responsive to the changing demands of industry and the employment market.  All of this tended to imply that participants would be responsive to an online system designed to ameliorate these process issues; yet – as was to be discovered through qualitative data analysis - the demands of the University’s policies and regulations on curriculum approval meant that many participants were unconvinced of the process, irrespective of the system delivering it. This contribution goes on to explore conflicting {"}information needs{"} within the process perspective. These information needs could be described as three divergent sub-perspectives, all existing as part of an information ecosystem and all underpinning the wider process perspective: academic, operational, and aspirational.",
    keywords = "technology-supported curriculum design, curriculum design systems, system usability, human-computer interaction, HCI, systems theory and complexity",
    author = "George Macgregor",
    year = "2012",
    month = "3",
    day = "13",
    language = "English",
    publisher = "University of Strathclyde",
    type = "Other",

    }

    Evaluating C-CAP : reflecting on the dichotomy of curriculum design and approval. / Macgregor, George.

    4 p. Glasgow : University of Strathclyde. 2012, Blog post.

    Research output: Other contribution

    TY - GEN

    T1 - Evaluating C-CAP

    T2 - reflecting on the dichotomy of curriculum design and approval

    AU - Macgregor, George

    PY - 2012/3/13

    Y1 - 2012/3/13

    N2 - This brief contribution comments on the dichotomy between 'system' and 'process' within the context of technology-supported curriculum design systems. In this instance the system was well received by study participants.  Participants' perception of the existing curriculum design and approval process was, however, generally quite negative.  Responses from the pre-session questionnaire instrument indicated that few were satisfied with the status quo.  In particular, participants were inclined to view the current process as onerous and stifling class/course design, and in need of improvement to render it more efficient and responsive to the changing demands of industry and the employment market.  All of this tended to imply that participants would be responsive to an online system designed to ameliorate these process issues; yet – as was to be discovered through qualitative data analysis - the demands of the University’s policies and regulations on curriculum approval meant that many participants were unconvinced of the process, irrespective of the system delivering it. This contribution goes on to explore conflicting "information needs" within the process perspective. These information needs could be described as three divergent sub-perspectives, all existing as part of an information ecosystem and all underpinning the wider process perspective: academic, operational, and aspirational.

    AB - This brief contribution comments on the dichotomy between 'system' and 'process' within the context of technology-supported curriculum design systems. In this instance the system was well received by study participants.  Participants' perception of the existing curriculum design and approval process was, however, generally quite negative.  Responses from the pre-session questionnaire instrument indicated that few were satisfied with the status quo.  In particular, participants were inclined to view the current process as onerous and stifling class/course design, and in need of improvement to render it more efficient and responsive to the changing demands of industry and the employment market.  All of this tended to imply that participants would be responsive to an online system designed to ameliorate these process issues; yet – as was to be discovered through qualitative data analysis - the demands of the University’s policies and regulations on curriculum approval meant that many participants were unconvinced of the process, irrespective of the system delivering it. This contribution goes on to explore conflicting "information needs" within the process perspective. These information needs could be described as three divergent sub-perspectives, all existing as part of an information ecosystem and all underpinning the wider process perspective: academic, operational, and aspirational.

    KW - technology-supported curriculum design

    KW - curriculum design systems

    KW - system usability

    KW - human-computer interaction

    KW - HCI

    KW - systems theory and complexity

    UR - https://perma.cc/4QZK-DEW9

    M3 - Other contribution

    PB - University of Strathclyde

    CY - Glasgow

    ER -