University of Leicester
The Curriculum Lifecycle: a proposal from the DUCKLING team
The DUCKLING team, Beyond Distance Research Alliance, University of Leicester
November 2009
Contact: Dr A Armellini, aa277@le.ac.uk
WORK IN PROGRESS
Context
One of the DUCKLING project’s deliverables is ‘a transferable model for effective, scalable inclusive and sustainable work- and distance-based curriculum delivery in a dual-mode university’. The DUCKLING team has been conceptualising this deliverable in light of our research and the Curriculum Lifecycle diagram proposed as part of JISC InfoNet’s Design Studio.
A brief critique of the current curriculum lifecycle diagram
We share the view that a usable curriculum design and delivery diagram would be a welcome addition to the Design Studio’s toolkit and would benefit the Curriculum Design Programme and the sector. The DUCKLING team feels, however, that the proposed diagram does not accurately reflect a realistic curriculum lifecycle for a number of reasons, including:
§ It shows a clear separation between design and delivery, indicated by the use of different colours and discrete stages. In reality, particularly for new courses, design can be about a week ahead of delivery (sometimes a day or two!). Design and delivery overlap and reinforce each other.
§ The diagram contains an evaluation stage based on ‘data from virtual learning systems [and] from other e-administrative systems to produce a more rapid and accurate overview of the curriculum’. We feel that this view is too simplistic, as it misses (among other elements) the deeper, richer and complex processes associated with design and delivery. An evaluation of the curriculum may require a comprehensive Action Research process, leading to change and enhancement throughout all stages of design and delivery, and informing redesign.
§ As a key driver, assessment is at the heart of design. We must begin our designs with the end in mind - this includes learners' aims. Assessment should not be simply a section in the 'delivery half' of the diagram, which is what the original model suggests.
§ Any lifecycle, by definition, needs to include a phasing-out stage. Curricula are no exception: old curricula are discontinued or phased out, new ones are developed and introduced. This aspect is not represented in the current diagram.
DUCKLING’s proposal
The DUCKLING team would like to propose an alternative curriculum lifecycle diagram (figure 1), which addresses these concerns and better captures the design-delivery continuum and associated processes. At the time of writing this document, this alternative diagram should be considered to be work in progress. We welcome feedback on it.
Figure 1: DUCKLING’s alternative curriculum lifecycle diagram
The concept or idea for a new course (or a new version of an existing course) kick-starts the design for learning and assessment process and, in parallel, the drafting of a business plan for the approval of the course. This design process may include a pilot phase. Delivery begins during the design process, not necessarily after the design phase is complete. Action Research (AR) loops start early on, preferably before delivery. Findings from this AR process are fed back to the course team so that enhancements to the design and delivery of the curriculum can be implemented effectively. Feedback from learners and colleagues, gathered and analysed on a regular basis from the early stages of delivery, informs future versions of the course (redesign). The ongoing evaluation process takes account of the AR and the other forms of feedback received. In every stage, the course team needs support from various sources (e.g. administrative, marketing, pedagogical, technical), communicates developments to all stakeholders and disseminates the lessons learned on curriculum design and delivery through the appropriate channels for departmental, institutional and sector benefit.
Update on 10 December 2009: based on the feedback received and our own project development, the following is a new version of the lifecycle as proposed by the DUCKLING project:
29 January 2010 - update
Thank you very much to all colleagues who have posted comments with feedback on the proposed alternative curriculum lifecycle diagram. Taking those comments on board, and based on recent developments on the DUCKLING project at Leicester, we'd like to suggest a new version of our alternative diagram. The aim is to address some of the issues associated with earlier iterations, as well as the problems we identified with the original diagram proposed by JISC. The new version is available here. Again, we invite comments!
Alejandro Armellini & the DUCKLING Team, Beyond Distance Research Alliance, University of Leicester
Comments (10)
MarkRussell said
at 12:26 pm on Nov 20, 2009
Thanks for the link to the alternative model : )
A couple of questions.
* Why does the feedback lead into re-design which then leads into re-approval. Can't the feedback simply enhance the design and subsequent delivery (yuk) phases without going to re-approval? I wonder if the notion of feedback -> redesign -> re-approval might imply a system that does not encourage (practitioner-oriented) constant reflection and continuous enhancement. Could / should a branch be added that takes the design process through re-approval or not, as needed?
* I'm interested in the shape of the model suggested - what are the inner circles doing? I see the outer circle showing a (cyclic) flow but the inner cicles?
* Why have you specifically used Action Research? Case Study research is located in the case too.
Mark
Alejandro Armellini said
at 1:31 pm on Nov 20, 2009
Thanks, Mark. This is exactly the sort of feedback we need. Let me address each of your questions:
1. Feedback may indeed just enhance design and subsequent delivery, with no need for either redesign or re-approval in many cases. We need to ensure this is better illustrated in the diagram. The incorporation of some of the changes may result in the need to have the course re-approved, which also needs to shown here, hence the value of your suggested 'branch'.
2. The two outer circles show a cyclic process (clockwise), roughly indicating the order in which events are likely to occur. The white circle (support, communication, dissemination) contains actions that happen throughout all stages and I agree there may be better ways of showing that in the diagram.
3. Action Research was chosen as a methodology specifically geared towards change. It seems appropriate for many reasons (multiple loops reflecting e.g. interventions, data gathering, analysis, reflection, evaluation, action - leading to change). We felt that this was particularly suitable and appropriate in the context being discussed here. However, this choice does not preclude other approaches. Case Study research would certainly be one of them. Again, we may be able to show this in future versions of the diagram.
Thank you very much for your comments. We look forward to your and other colleagues' feedback.
Alejandro Armellini
Leicester
MarkRussell said
at 5:35 pm on Dec 10, 2009
Thanks for the addition - but I'm still not convinced.
For instance why does Action Research precede Evaluation? Shouldn't the Evaluation also Flow into Action Research?
If this was my model I would more explicitly show that you could dodge the Approval and Resourcing node after the Redesign. Your diagram could be clearer here.
What is the green circle trying to represent? i.e. is it just related to the potential pilot phase? i.e. why do you tie Action Research and Evaluation only on the green circle ? Again, it’s not clear to me how that differs from the outer (blue) circle.
Not trying to be negative but trying to offer some thoughts as I look at your model.
Mark
Alejandro Armellini said
at 12:09 am on Dec 11, 2009
Hi Mark
This continues to be work in progress and we continue to welcome suggestions. It would be particularly helpful if you could 'grab' this diagram and edit it to illustrate the (certainly valid) points you make. I suppose you can also comment on the original 'lifecycle', the one proposed by JISC? That one suffers from many problems, 3 of which I highlighted in the text above.
Regarding your queries:
1. Why does Action Research precede Evaluation?
Because you need research evidence to be able to evaluate this in a rigorous manner. You could get rid of the 'Action' - however, in our view, Action Research offers a useful set of tools that are appropriate here.
2. Shouldn't the Evaluation also Flow into Action Research?
It does. Follow the arrows, clockwise.
3. If this was my model I would more explicitly show that you could dodge the Approval and Resourcing node after the Redesign. Your diagram could be clearer here.
Agreed that the diagram could be clearer. However, some redesign does require revalidation (depending on what is redesigned). Other forms of redesign do not, which is why the new diagram offers the choice of bypassing Approval after redesign (blue circle) – the ‘branch’ you suggested in an earlier message.
(continues in the next message)
Alejandro Armellini said
at 12:11 am on Dec 11, 2009
Regarding your other queries:
4. What is the green circle trying to represent? i.e. is it just related to the potential pilot phase?
No, the green circle is not only related to the pilot phase. It provides the research that needs to go on in order to be able to evaluate the course in its different iterations, including the pilot.
5 i.e. why do you tie Action Research and Evaluation only on the green circle ?
We don't - the (Action) Research is (or should be) ongoing - as indicated in question 4.
6. Again, it’s not clear to me how that differs from the outer (blue) circle.
The outer (blue) circle represents the overlapping phases of Design > Delivery > Redesign, i.e. the bigger picture. Maybe you find the 'Feedback for redesign' element confusing there, because that may be seen to be part of the research. I think you may be right in this. However, we wanted to highlight the learner voice as a key element in the redesign process, which is why we made it explicit.
Again, this is very much work in progress. We know that no single model will capture the complexities of our diverse institutional contexts. However, I would really like others, including yourself Mark, to put forward alternative models, including edited versions of ours, and together arrive at something that we are all reasonably satisfied with.
Alejandro Armellini
Beyond Distance Research Alliance
University of Leicester
Gill Ferrell said
at 4:33 pm on Dec 14, 2009
I think this offers a very useful way of enhancng the original and covering the fact that much redesign takes place outside the approval prcesses for new courses. One of the things we were trying to do in the original was to cover the admin and academic perspectives and to encompass all of the key business processes. In this context I'm intrigued as to why you've missed assessment out of this version?
Alejandro Armellini said
at 4:43 pm on Dec 14, 2009
Thanks for raising this, Gill. We view assessment as a central component of Design, not just as a section within Delivery (which is what the original JISC diagram suggests). In fact, in our Carpe Diem approach, we start the design process with that end in mind!
The inclusion of Assessment as a component of a Delivery sequence is one of the issues we have identified as problematic in the original diagram.
Ale
Stephen Powell said
at 6:55 pm on Dec 29, 2009
As you indicate, and I agree, action research provides a sound approach by which to develop curricula. The action research 'spiral' incorporates the elements you have identified from concept, to pilot, evaluation, delivery, as well as participatory involvement (your feedback), etc. My suggestion would be that your diagram is a whole is based on an action research approach (and presumably your curriculum design model / process ) and not that action research is merely a component as indicated by its inclusion in the green circle.
Eddie Gulc said
at 3:13 pm on Jan 4, 2010
Sorry missed out on these discussions earlier but whilst reviewing the model and reading the thread I too wondered about the place and indeed the role of assessment in design and delivery.
I'm still grappling with the concept of assessment being only a component of design and not delivery .. and so not present in your model. Surely the feedback loop to support any redesign might be influenced by assessment methods/practices/outcomes and any issues these raise with learners?
PS Happy New Year to you all!!
Alejandro Armellini said
at 2:48 pm on Jan 22, 2010
Eddie,
Assessment is central to design. Of course you implement assessment during delivery. But you will successfully implement what you planned carefully before. Assessment is not just a stage in delivery, but a key driver to the DESIGN of a programme - and the diagram should capture that.
Ale
You don't have permission to comment on this page.