Abstract
| Language | English |
|---|---|
| Type | Blog post |
| Publisher | University of Strathclyde |
| Number of pages | 4 |
| Place of Publication | Glasgow |
| Publication status | Published - 13 Mar 2012 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- technology-supported curriculum design
- curriculum design systems
- system usability
- human-computer interaction
- HCI
- systems theory and complexity
Cite this
}
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 -