The web-site is now in readonly mode. Login and registration are disabled. (28 June 2019)

OULDI - Curriculum Mapping

Cloud created for the end of phase 2 workshop

Cloud created by:

Rebecca Galley
29 January 2010

Extra content

Embedded Content

Curriculum mapping poster

Curriculum mapping poster

added by Rebecca Galley


Rebecca Galley
3:44pm 29 January 2010 (Edited 3:52pm 29 January 2010)

At the workshop post-it notes were added to the posters and these structured the ensuing discussion. Messages left on this poster were as follows:

  1. Challenge - how to make large scale changes in the current climate?
  2. Challenge - interlinking processes/ systems make step changes difficult
  3. Integration of LD tools with production systems is key to institutional embedding
  4. The balance between mainstreaming and creating specific 'check-points' regarding accessibility is difficult to understand and manage. I see that E&D have an input and I know IET & LTS are actively involved (as is DSS) but so many stakeholders need to be involved as accessibility is/ought to be a seamless integrated but very explicit component of course production.
  5. Not sure why this seems to focus on the formalities of stage gates - looks like confusion of governance and management. The stage gate process isn't any sort of description of what curriculum designers and course teams actually do.
  6. Yes, but...unless it's attached to approval structures, then adoption will be very tricky
  7. Is this mandatory, recommended, or "there if you want it"?
  8. Brave new world.Time and money. Need to ensure that this process adds no time & costs no additional resourses (staff time or other). This means the LD project must describe clearly the benefits in terms of students, time & money.

Gráinne Conole
4:02pm 29 January 2010

Feedback from plenary discussion on this:

  • Conversations around the poster were similar to conversations Paul has had with people around the university over last six months about the ‘as is’ curriculum mappings. Nature of trying to work in the stage gate process. Introduced five years ago, but now doesn’t reflect today’s more agile design and development approaches, committees etc. don’t meet at appropriate points.
  • Issue about whether the current stage gate process is a one size fits all approach, so very rigid and doesn’t give the flexibility needed for different types and sizes of courses.
  • Benefit of doing the curriculum design activity – people find the representations useful and are starting to use them in their work within the faculties. Highlighted a number of issues in the stage gate process – lack of process improvement over five years, doesn’t reflect today’s market. Lack of process management of the whole thing – in fact found there were parallel projects looking at stage gate process.
  • It’s not true that stage gate five years ago actually represented really what we did in terms of curriculum design in reality. There is a tendency to have one size fits all,  – but again its not centre of curriculum design award process. There is craft knowledge about this that is so important.
  • Four levels of design currently about governance etc rather than real design – where is the pedagogy? How can we take the toolbox out to the faculties and how might that help. Complexity of diagrams says it all!!! We can’t go on like this.

Contribute to the discussion

Please log in to post a comment. Register here if you haven't signed up yet.