Curriculum representations

November 2009

1

CBM (2009) framework overview

• 4 views have been identified to represent a course:

1. Pedagogy profile

2. Course map

3. Cost effectiveness

4. Course performance

+ supporting narrative & good practice principles

2

Selecting exemplars

Faculties are identifying courses that are

• Pedagogically effective• Innovative• Deliver high levels of student satisfaction and

performance• Cost effective• Aligned with one or more Strategic Objectives

Historical and forward looking – an on-going process.3

View 1 Pedagogy profile

4

• How we want to teach

• Deconstructing learning activities

• Analysing student tasks and time

• Challenging ‘content heavy’ approaches

• Encouraging variety

Block 1

Block 2

Block 3

Total

Pedagogy profile

Maps types of student tasks against course structure

Block 1

Block 2

Block 3

Total

Block 1 5 3 4 1 0 0 4

Block 2 6 3 3 3 3 2 4

Block 3 6 3 3 3 4 3 4

Total 17 9 10 7 7 5 12

Pedagogy profile widget

7

Guidance & support

Evidence & demonstration

Communication & interaction

Information & experience

Thinking & reflection

View 2 Course mapFive components of any structured learning provision

Guidance &support

Evidence & demonstration

Information & experience

Communication &interaction

Thinking & reflection

Course map/At a glance representation

Guidance and support “Learning pathway”Course structure and timetableCourse calendar, study guide, tutorials

Information and experience “Content and activities”Could include course materials, prior experience or student generated contentReadings, DVDs, podcasts, lab or field work, placements

Communication and interaction “Dialogue”Social dimensions of the course, interaction with other students and tutorsCourse forum, email

Thinking and reflection “Meta-cognition”Internalisation and reflection on learningIn-text questions, notebook, blog, e-portfolio,

Evidence and demonstration “Assessment”Diagnostic, formative and summativeMultiple choice quizzes, TMAs, ECA

Information & experience

PDF resources

Links to e-journal articles and other websites

Evidence & demonstration

6 TMAs – submitted online (505 of overall score)

3hr examination (50% of overall score)

Thinking & reflection

Activities throughout learning guides (4-7 per guide)

5 website ‘interactives’

Journal space in MyStuff

Core questions, thinking points and summaries in course books

Communication & interaction

Course-wide Café forum

Tutor group forums with sub-forums for each block

F2F tutorials near beginning, middle and end of course (some regional variation)

Guidance & support

Study planner

20 Learning guides

General assessment guidance

TMA questions

Course guide

Study calendar

KE312 Working Together for Children60pt course over 32 weeks3 blocks/20 learning guidesWhole weeks devoted to TMAsConsolidation week (week 22)

• Practice related• Aligned to latest prof framework for mult-agency working• Rich case studies• Read – relate to practice – reflect – write

3 co-published course books (21 chapters/ 960pp)

DVD – videos of 3 practice settings + interviews (XXmin)

Plus own experience and practice

Tutor support – 1:20; 21 contact hrs; band 7

Course map example

11

View 3 Cost effectiveness• Relationships between:

– Income– Student numbers

– Production activities– Presentation activities

– Central (non IUPC) costs

• Comparison with other similar courses / models and norms

Market driven, external influences

CAU, LTS and SS influences

Internal, central allocations

12

Current data sources

• Post launch review process– General ledger– RPT– LTS IUPC analysis– SS IUPC analysis– PLANET (for student numbers)– TRAC (for staff resource)

CL

13

CL

14

Staf f (CAU) Staf f (CAU)Non staf f (CAU)

Non staf f (CAU)

LTS / IUPC

LTS / IUPC

SS / IUPC

Tuition

SS non IUPC

Student support

LTS non IUPC

Other non IUPC

Fee income

Grant income

Production

Presentation

Non IUPC

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Production Presentation Non IUPC Total Income Total Costs

Inc

om

e/c

os

ts (£

'00

0)

Co

sts

(£'0

00)

K208 - Course financial profile

37%33%30%

51%

21%

2%

20%

7%

75%

25%

31%

7%

62%

20%

28%

27%

25%

Key characteristics- Wraparound- 60 point course, - 14 presentations,- 7 years- 3,649 students @ 1/3

Pre investment:- Total contribution = 65% (£4.1m)- Contribution per student = £1,137- No of students to breakeven = 142Post investment:- Total contribution = 62% (£4.0m)

Key types of costs Income / cost comparison

Key assumptionsTutor : student - 20AL salary band 75 TMAs (standard)Examinable component - projectProduction resource: [simple print etc?]Staf f [x] days

[Can we list other key factors which af fect the major costs?]Link to "data statement and spreadsheet for detailed adjustments?]

Example – K208 Effective practice in youth justice

Comparison of course costs

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Co

sts

(£'0

00)

K208 K216 KE308 KE312

Non IUPC

Tuition

SS IUPC

LTS IUPC

Presentationcosts CAU

Total productioncosts

Practice basedWraparound

30%

30%

6%

20%

12%

30%

7%

8%

17%

36%

30%

8%

20%

17%

22%

18%

22%

6%

33%

18%

Std Level 3Std Level 3

CL

15

View 4 Course performance - basic Derived from IET student survey data

16

KPI Distribution: Minimum, Latest, Maximum Course CAU OU

Quality ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██○████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 84.76 80 78

Experience ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██○██████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 77.44 78 90

Value ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██○███████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 73.25 82 85

Support ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒○████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 77.16 88 80

Materials ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██○██████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 75.61 45 68

Workload ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██○████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 31.1 80 78

Difficulty ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██○██████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ . 78 90

Schedule ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██○███████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ . 82 85

Outcomes ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒○████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 82.5 88 80

Recommend ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██○██████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 73.01 45 68

Expectations ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██○████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 75.93 80 78

Enjoyed ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██○██████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 81.48 78 90

Demographic Course CAU OU

<25 years ███████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 11 20 56

FAF ██████████████████████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 26 25 46

Low SES ██████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 10 80 28

HE qualification █████████████████████████████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 33 5 26

+2 A levels (oe) ███████████████████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 23 6 65

<2 A levels (oe) █████████████████████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 25 9 35

No formal quals ███▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 3 70 75

not White ███████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 7 5 62

Disability ███▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 3 61 45

non UK ██████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 6 16 23

no AWINT ████████████████████████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 28 65 6

Presentation Registration Figures Course CAU OU

2009B ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ 824 827 832

2008B █████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ 760 763 768

2007B ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ 682 685 690

2006B ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ 788 791 796

2005B ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ 892 895 900

2004B ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ 596 599 604

2003B ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ 647 650 655

2002B █████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ 738 741 746

2001B █████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ 771 774 779

2000B ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ 865 868 873

Presentation Pass and Complete Figures Course CAU OU

2009B ;

2008B █████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▒▒▒ 58 ; 4

2007B ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████▒▒▒▒ 55 ; 5

2006B ███████████████████████████████████████████████████▒▒▒▒ 52 ; 5

2005B ███████████████████████████████████████████████████▒▒ 51 ; 3

2004B ███████████████████████████████████████████████ 48 ; 1

2003B ██████████████████████████████████████████████▒ 47 ; 1

2002B ██████████████████████████████████████████████▒▒ 46 ; 3

2001B █████████████████████████████████████████████▒▒ 45 ; 2

2000B ████████████████████████████████████████████████▒ 49 ; 2

Course performance – basic plus

17

Demographics: % Reported

GlossaryAWINT Award IntentionCourse Latest Figures from the last time the course was surveyed

NotesDemographics are non-additive, i.e. an individual reporting disability and low SES will be countedtwice in the relevant percentages of cohort.

11.0%

26.0%

10.0%

33.0%

23.0%

25.0%

3.0%

7.0%

3.0%

6.0%

28.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

<25 years

FAF

Low SES

HE qualif ication

+2 A levels (oe)

<2 A levels (oe)

No formal quals

BME

Disability

non-UK

no AWINT

<25 years FAF Low SES

HE qualificat

ion

+2 A levels (oe)

<2 A levels (oe)

No formal quals

BME Disabilitynon-UKno

AWINT

OU Average 56 46 28 26 65 35 75 62 45 23 6

CAU Average 20 25 80 5 6 9 70 5 61 16 65

Course 11 26 10 33 23 25 3 7 3 6 28

Registrations and Retention Rates

Statistic 2000B 2001B 2002B 2003B 2004B 2005B 2006B 2007B 2008B 2009BRegistrations 865 771 738 647 596 892 788 682 760 824Comp 435 367 360 310 290 481 446 405 470 .Pass 422 349 340 301 286 456 408 373 440 .Completion Rate 50.3% 47.6% 48.8% 47.9% 48.7% 53.9% 56.6% 59.4% 61.8%Pass Rate 48.8% 45.3% 46.1% 46.5% 48.0% 51.1% 51.8% 54.7% 57.9%

K ey Performance Indicators: % Agree

PRESENTATION

84.877.4

73.3 77.2 75.6

31.1

0.0 0.0

82.573.0 75.9

81.5

87.0 74.2 70.7 79.1 69.0 25.2 80.1 81.0 86.2 70.7 80.7 84.483.5 77.3 71.4 78.2 70.8 26.8 86.2 70.7 83.1 68.1 80.5 81.5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Course Latest

CAU Average

OU Average

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2000B 2001B 2002B 2003B 2004B 2005B 2006B 2007B 2008B 2009B

Co

mp

leti

on

/Pas

s R

ate

Reg

istr

atio

ns

Presentation

Registrations

Completion Rate

Pass Rate

Average completion

rates:CAU 62.5%OU 60.5%

Averagepass rates:

CAU 48.5%OU 59.5%

18

‘View 5’ Supporting narrative and good practice principles

Design decision variable Example

Production/pedagogical approach •Course guidance: Tutor-directed – student-directed•Learning approach: Passive-learning – active-learning

Production/content •Course team produced: bought in wrap around•Reuse: free standing assets – bespoke/contextualised (within faculty & cross-faculty)

Production/staff resource •Staff resource (academic): 12 months – 18 months•Consultancy: 0 -100%

Production/timeliness (fit to market) •Time scale: 6 months – 2 years•Aligns with current subject trends: √

Presentation •Tutor/student ratio: N/A , (1-30) – (1-10)•Tuition management: centrally managed – hub – regionally managed

•Under development. Some examples below:

Relationship with CBM (2008) Course Types

Looking to develop exemplars with reference to this classification, recognising in practice we are likely to have hybrids:

• OU classic• Bought-in• Wraparound• ‘Empty Box’• Web 2.0• Disaggregated curriculum assets

19

Framework Exemplars Course Types Views

Next steps• Developing the 5th view which profiles a course in

relation to a set of key variables• Continue to refine and consolidate all views• Finalise list of exemplar courses and check that all

course types represented• Produce complete set of views for a selection of

exemplars• Disseminate discussion document, analysis of exemplar

courses and toolkit for faculties to use• Arrange further workshops and presentations• Integrate this work with Stage Gate Process review,

PLANET redevelopment and other initiatives20