Introduction

In the last two decades there has been a marked increase in research and discussion regarding Higher Education (HE) curriculum (Hicks, 2018) in response to universities’ accommodating a range of competing elements including government policies, institutional vision, diverse student populations, academics’ pedagogical approaches and industry requirements. While ‘curriculum’ in HE has been discussed in policy and within advisory bodies, academic teaching staff generally do not consistently draw upon curriculum theory and research and concomitantly, traditional notions of curricula as discipline-specific content tend to predominate (Fraser & Bosanquet, 2006). Due to the lack of ‘serious debate about curriculum per se, the tacit idea of curriculum that is developing is unduly narrow’ (Barnett & Coate, 2005, p. 24).

Much of the literature rests on a general definition of curriculum as “the syllabus: the content of a specific discipline, or the set of units actually offered to the students” (Fraser & Bosanquet, 2006). While this definition is useful, it does not fully acknowledge the multi-layered nature of curriculum at whole-institution, program (degree) and unit level. Each HE institution has its unique combination of internal and external factors including student demographics, academics’ pedagogical approaches, university, industry, and accreditation requirements as well as government policies that influence curriculum development.

In this paper we move beyond generalised definitions of curriculum to acknowledging the complexities inherent in contemporary HE curriculum design. Thus, the authors define curriculum as a process in which content, structure, context, institutional vision, and industry demand intersect in the development of rich learning experiences and sequences for students.

Wiggins and McTighe (1998) concept of Backward Design and Biggs’ (2014) notion of constructive alignment feature in the curriculum development plans and documents of several institutions including Bournemouth University (2022) and Waikato University (2022). However, the authors argue that these notions are more suited to HE curriculum development at the unit level and do not have the capacity to encompass the diverse elements of curriculum design at the programFootnote 1 and institution level. They contend that there is a lack of discussion and literature focusing on HE curriculum design in a holistic way that outlines a realistic, thorough, academic, and collaborative process that could be applied in a range of different circumstances. Anecdotally, multi-level curriculum reform does occur in tertiary institutions, but it tends to be ad hoc, without a guiding methodology, and is not published. So, there is an absence within HE of a coherent and consistent model that could be used for the development of curricula at the unit and program level.

To address the gap in HE curriculum discussion and literature concerning a comprehensive and collaborative framework for the development of curriculum at program and unit levels, the study reported in this paper aimed to develop a new approach to curriculum design and the creation of engaging learning opportunities, drawing on elements of Agile mindset and Backward Design. The authors call this framework, Agile Backward Design (ABD). The Backward Design component enables a student-centred focus when creating learning experiences and assessment at the unit level and the Agile mindset allows dynamic groups of different stakeholders to work iteratively on large projects, including program development. The combination of these two approaches produces a methodology that is dynamic and collaborative which, the authors argue, is necessary to develop engaging curricula at both unit and program levels with the incorporation of a range of contextual factors, pedagogical approaches, industry and accreditation requirements.

The ABD curriculum development framework was used in a project of redesigning and re-developing curriculum and teaching approaches that was embarked upon by the Information Technology (IT) faculty at a regional Australian tertiary institution, Federation University. To discuss the design and development of this model, the authors employed a critical reflective inquiry approach. A case study method was used in this paper to report the transformation that was made at the program and unit level.

In elucidating our approach to developing and implementing a broad-based HE curriculum at program and unit levels, the paper is structured as follows. After the Literature Review and Methodology, it will describe the new model of curriculum development created by the authors—Agile Backward Design. Then, after exploring critical reflective inquiry, the case-study will provide an example of how this model was used in the curriculum development process of an undergraduate IT program. The last section will discuss some of the outcomes of the project.

Literature review

The topic of HE curriculum has increasingly become a focus of investigation in formal writing. Discussion in this literature focuses on the following issues. Researchers have identified a disconnect between research and practice (Lancaster & Bain, 2019; Zundans-Fraser & Bain, 2016) and the need for a theoretical base for curriculum design (Zundans-Fraser, 2014). Despite collaboration being identified as an essential aspect of the design (Bain & Zundans-Fraser, 2017), decision making processes were perceived to be localised rather than broad and inclusive (Thomson et al., 2019) as ‘higher education is often a solitary and isolating profession’ (Zundans-Fraser & Bain, 2016, p. 842). In addition, researchers identified the need to investigate the impact of university structures and practice on curriculum design and reform as ‘There is currently no empirical analysis of the policies, regulations, and guidance offered to course developers that would … provide a baseline for future work’ (Zundans-Fraser & Bain, 2016, p. 843).

Current research into curriculum at tertiary institutions tends to focus on curriculum-as-planned rather than curriculum-as-enacted and specifically on the use of technology, curriculum mapping and internationalisation (Aoki, 2005; Gosper & Ifenthaler, 2014; Pinar, 2019; Spencer et al., 2012). Some studies report on whole-institution curriculum renewal (James & McPhee, 2012; Zou, 2017). While they address key issues in large scale curricula re-design, the emphasis on curriculum development is usually focused on upper-level management and does not have a collaborative focus that this paper argues is required to achieve curriculum change encompassing various elements that have been identified as important in the development process (Oliver & de St Jorre, 2018).

Other studies focus on curriculum re-development at either the program or unit level in universities (Hicks, 2018; Tran et al., 2014; Walker & Bedford, 2017). They usually refer to professional degrees and the construction of new units or the re-development of existing units to incorporate specific issues like blended learning or technological resources (Hicks, 2018). While useful in recording curriculum change, they generally do not provide a detailed analysis of the actual processes, discussions, participant involvement and results of work on curriculum development. Hicks observes that in curriculum development at the program level, ‘curricula are reviewed largely on an ad hoc basis … Research documenting and analysing just what occurs with respect to program curricula would be enlightening’ (2018, p. 17).

The curriculum re-development approach reported in this paper, Agile Backward Design (ABD), moves towards filling the gap that Hicks identified. The researchers have constructed an original model to develop curriculum and pedagogy at macro (whole program) and micro (unit) levels. This novel approach draws on elements of two well-known methodologies: the Backward Design approach to curriculum design and the Agile mindset as used in software development. Agile principles of collaboration and iterative progress have also been used in teaching and curriculum development in tertiary institutions (Pope-Ruark, 2017) in the form of Scrum meetings where teams set goals, work together, and reflect on progress with the aim of continual improvement. How these two approaches have been brought together in our new model will be discussed in the following sections. In this paper, there is a focus on curriculum as ‘planned’ or designed by academics with feedback from other stakeholders rather than the lived experience of teaching academics and students (Pinar, 2019).

Backward design

Curriculum can be designed by educators in many ways and can consider factors including the desired curriculum and learner needs. Wiggins and McTighe (1998, 2011) explain that one way to design curriculum is by using a Backward Design process, shown in Fig. 1, which has three stages known as ‘identify desired results’, ‘determine acceptable evidence’ and ‘plan learning experiences and instruction’ (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998, p. 3) and can be used to design units of work. The first stage requires the curriculum designer to decide what the students could demonstrate at the conclusion of the learning, which is critical to determine what they know and understand (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). Stage two determines what evidence is required to show achievement of the learning objectives identified in stage one, achieved through a range of assessment tasks. Wiggins and McTighe (1998) also highlight the importance of using a range of assessment techniques to collect evidence of learning. The final stage is to plan learning activities where designers need to examine knowledge, skills, possible teaching methods, activities and resources that can be used to best enable students to gain the skills and knowledge needed for success (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Backward design

Full size image

There are many studies of the benefits of Backward Design of curriculum. Shumway and Berrett (2004), explored the use of Backward Design with undergraduate students, indicating that the concept was one that worked well. In addition, Shumway and Berrett (2004) recommended that an enrichment stage was needed as a stage four to add other appropriate standards to the curriculum documentation.

There are many clear benefits to the use of Backward Design (Fox & Doherty, 2012) however, there are also challenges and limitations. In the processes of Backward Design, curriculum developers can become too focused on details and attempt to include material that is beyond the scope of the unit (Michael & Libarkin, 2016). Although Backward Design is an effective method for planning units or lessons, the process does not account for the broader contexts of program and institution including student needs, market requirements for attracting students and industry requirements.

To construct a model for developing HE curriculum at both program and unit levels, the researchers added to the Backward Design method by combining it with an Agile mindset. The Agile approach to curriculum development in HE complements Backward Design as it brings a dynamic and responsive way of working with diverse groups to ensure that a range of requirements are met through a collaborative process.

Agile mindset

The term ‘Agile’ is an acronym for ‘Align, Get-set, Iterate and implement, Leverage and Evaluate’ and has been often associated with software development (Noguera et al., 2018). In this field, ‘Agile’ refers to fluid, iterative and collaborative processes. Beck et al. (2001) produced what have become key values and principles of software design in The Manifesto for Software Development (Scrum Alliance, 2022). These foundational elements of Agile methods include the use of collaborative team environments, where software is constructed through feedback, reflection, stakeholder involvement and incremental and iterative testing and development. The Agile method or mindset also uses a framework to manage work known as a Scrum that involves processes and roles and relies on ‘sprints’ or ‘iterations’—short periods of time in which goals can be achieved. This process of iterative development promotes analysis, experimenting and learning (Ozkan et al., 2020).

Academics assert that the use of Agile methods in HE teaching approaches promotes team diversity, collaboration, goal-setting, communication, accountability, problem-solving capabilities and the ability to apply new knowledge to rapidly changing situations (Lang, 2017; Noguera et al., 2018; Pope-Ruark, 2017). Agile approaches have been found to assist students to learn efficiently (Putra et al., 2019) and to promote the application of knowledge to real life situations (Lang, 2017). The provision of continuous and instantaneous feedback was found to increase student engagement and learning (Gary & Xavier, 2015). Agile methods also facilitate the development and sharing of collective knowledge through the adoption of collaborative learning environments (Noguera et al., 2018).

Some of the suggested disadvantages of an Agile learning approach include an increased teaching workload; a greater chance of students falling behind; and, an overall slower learning process. A study by Cubric (2008) found teachers reported a heavy workload in the form of bi-weekly feedback when utilising an Agile learning and teaching approach. Lang (2017) stated that students reported feeling pressure to keep up with weekly tasks.

Agile backward design

General curricula development approaches like Backward Design and Agile Learning are well-used in HE. Backward Design promotes an intentional approach in which ‘deliberate connections between student outcomes and course structure, content and delivery methods’ (Emory, 2014, p. 123) enable constructive alignment. Student learning outcomes and evidence of attainment can be grouped into various units and linked to program level outcomes. However, this framework does not take into account the transfer of skills that may be required in program-level curriculum design and development. Agile learning approaches generally focus on collaborative and iterative learning that is project or unit specific rather than linking to other units or groups. These frameworks are not able to be directly applied to HE curriculum development without adjustment for institutional, industry and degree requirements. To address this problem and fill the gap in curricula frameworks, the researchers have combined aspects of Agile methods including a Scrum based iterative process, collaboration, and small team work as well as elements of Backward Design in terms of planning outcomes before assessment and learning activities to create a new curriculum development model called Agile Backward Design (ABD), which is illustrated in Fig. 2. The combination of these elements enabled the development of a reflexive and flexible methodology that is transferable and adaptable as it can be used to construct and articulate goals, learning objectives, success criteria and assessment regimes for individual units or entire degree programs.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The Agile Backward Design (ABD) model draws on stakeholder inputs and comprises three Backward Design cycles with iterative phases where participants collaborate to create, examine and refine curriculum and pedagogy

Full size image

ABD moves away from the isolated development of individual units to enable units and programs to be developed using a coordinated and reflective approach. The model requires close collaboration between stakeholders and their respective requirements, such as industry/government needs, accreditation requirements, student interests, staff specialisations, university marketing and community expectations. Using these collaborations, the model consists of three backward design cycles (C1-C3), each of which are underpinned by Agile principles:

  1. C1.

    Identify desired results. Program and unit learning outcomes are established to identify what students are required to understand, know, and do. The identification of learning outcomes at the sequence and unit levels makes it possible to ensure that the final sequence outcomes are fully scaffolded throughout the unit.

  2. C2.

    Determine acceptable evidence. Assessment tasks are designed and developed to enable students to demonstrate their understanding and knowledge relevant to the key learning goals stated in cycle 1. Coordinating the development of engaging assessment within units and across programs also ensures learning outcomes of both the program and individual units are robustly addressed.

  3. C3.

    Plan learning experiences and instruction. Learning activities are developed that scaffold students’ understanding, knowledge and skills and engage them in learning. This process leads to the desired results determined in cycle 1. Using a team-based development approach ensures key learning concepts are fully integrated and scaffolded over the unit sequences.

The three backward design cycles included the following structure and iterative phases incorporating Agile principles:

C1. Identify Desired Results

  • Plan: Learning outcomes are identified for the whole program. This is undertaken by the program’s entire teaching team to ensure full buy-in from staff. These outcomes should align to industry expectations and requirements.

  • Design: Unit sequences are identified for each of the learning outcomes and staff teams are organised to work on each sequence. Each team ensures that learning is scaffolded throughout the unit sequence to achieve the learning outcomes.

  • Develop: This phase is specifically focused on ensuring well formulated learning outcomes. Draft unit documentation is prepared providing details required by the university, such as unit names, descriptions, and learning outcomes.

  • Evaluate: These first drafts are evaluated initially by the unit sequence team and then the whole program design team to ensure the final learning outcomes required of the unit sequence are achieved and are well-scaffolded throughout. They are subsequently evaluated by the whole program design team and stakeholders to ensure unit sequences align and fit the program structure.

  • Progress: This evaluative process may reveal shortcomings in the previously developed plan, design or developed units, resulting in the revisiting of certain phases. If the evaluation stage satisfies all stakeholder needs, then the process can progress.

C2.Determine acceptable evidence:

  • Plan: With agreement on the learning outcomes, the unit sequence teams determine what evidence is required by students to illustrate their achievement of the learning outcomes. Teams identify all types of evidence required (essay, exam, problem solving task, analytical argument, oral presentation) and then determine where the assessment task is best placed. The aim is to ensure a wide range of assessment experiences throughout unit sequences and to avoid all units using similar assessment, as is commonly the result when units are developed in isolation.

  • Design: Unit designers form new Scrum meetings to ensure assessments are appropriately scheduled throughout units and programs to minimise student overload. The aim is to facilitate the cross-pollination of ideas and learning across units, thus promoting deeper learning, and understanding.

  • Develop: Unit documentation, started in C1, is completed with details of assessments for each unit ensuring it includes key details about how assessments may work across units.

  • Evaluate: These final unit drafts and their complete assessments are evaluated, first by designers of different units, secondly by the unit sequence team and finally by the program team. Each evaluation ensures that the assessments meet the requirements of the unit and the unit sequences. Drafts of these final assessments are discussed with relevant stakeholders to ensure the evidence provided by the students meets their expectations.

  • Progress: This evaluation may reveal shortcomings in the previously developed plan, design or developed units, resulting in certain stages or the complete cycle being revisited. If the evaluation stage satisfies all stakeholder needs, then the process can progress.

C3.Plan learning experiences and instruction.

  • Plan: With unit learning outcomes and assessments fully determined, unit designers plan the learning experiences required for students to achieve the learning outcomes. The aim is to ensure learning opportunities not only scaffold learning but also map out a diverse range of learning opportunities to maintain student engagement.

  • Design: With the learning experiences mapped out, unit designers can flesh-out details of each of these activities.

  • Develop: Unit materials and lesson plans are developed for each unit with repeated Scrum meetings.

  • Evaluate: Materials developed are examined to ensure alignment of outcomes, assessment and learning activities. These final documents are showcased to the unit sequence teams, program design team and stakeholders.

  • Launch: Once the program and units are complete it is expected that the typical university review process will occur over the life-cycle of the program delivery including all stakeholders to ensure units do not drift from the original design.

  • The ABD process differs from standard consultation procedures as industry and students are closely involved in the entire process with feedback from these stakeholders being discussed in meetings and integrated into potential solutions.

To further develop understanding of the ABD model and how curricula might be designed to provide engaging learning opportunities for students, the author/researchers employed a qualitative approach focusing on reflective inquiry reported in a case study.

Method

This paper reports on the design and development of a novel framework for developing curriculum. Ethics approval for the study was gained through the university Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number 19-078). The study investigated the design and development of units in the Bachelor of Information Technology in 2015. This research involved the researchers’ analysis of their reflective writing and publicly available documents such as unit descriptions.

Critical reflective inquiry

Building on the feedback elements of the meetings (outlined in the ABD model), the researchers employed a critical reflective inquiry process (Brookfield, 2017). Reflective inquiry is a cognitive process through which the careful investigation of an individual’s experiences with the aim of gaining more information can enable a fuller understanding of people’s assumptions and interpretations of events (Hébert, 2015). The critical dimension of this process is, as Brookfield (2017) states: ‘the sustained and intentional process of identifying and checking the accuracy and validity of our … assumptions’ (p. 3). Critical reflective inquiry was employed to allow IT academics to reflect on and examine challenges and questions regarding curriculum development in a supportive environment where education academics acted as critical friends. This approach enabled academics to undertake reflections in and on practice (Schon, 1992) to develop the ABD model to engage diverse learners.

Materials and methods

The research project collected qualitative data to answer the following research questions:

What kinds of curricula and learning activities do IT students find engaging and help with their learning?

What are the practical implications for curriculum design and policy in university IT departments?

Throughout and after the framework development process, the researchers, who are also the authors of this paper, reflected on process and outcomes with education academics acting as critical friends to prompt discussion of issues. Four researcher/authors taught in the IT discipline area and three in education. The authors collected data from 2015 to 2019 from professional reflections on practice, journalling, curriculum documents, and industry documentation. This data was examined by researchers individually and then collectively in research group meetings. After examination, the data was coded and common themes were collaboratively analysed in online meetings using Guest’s (2014) notion of Applied Thematic Analysis (ATA) which employs coding to identify emerging themes and enhances the reliability of the study by mitigating analytical biases (Guest et al., 2011). Once themes are identified, data reduction techniques are applied, allowing the flexibility to explore trends researchers deemed pertinent to investigation. The rigor and transparency of the ATA approach, through the creation and organisation of themes, validates the ‘credibility’ of the qualitative data, (Ulin et al., 2005). Employing the ATA methodology led the research team to acknowledge the importance of the following: developing engaging curricula that considers context, learner requirements, industry conditions and teaching approaches.

The findings are reported through a case study. Yin (2012) recommends that case studies investigate a ‘contemporary phenomenon’ ‘in depth and within its real world context’ (p. 16). In this paper, the process of curriculum re-design is described within the specific context of a Higher Education Information Technology degree and from the beginning of the design process to the first offering of the degree. These two factors (process and context) that bound this case in time, will now be examined.

Case study: IT discipline

The ABD model was employed in the design and development of a new undergraduate IT degree. At the time, the University had engaged in two significant restructures in as many years, and staff showed signs of being resistant to change. However, they were aware of the challenges and progression issues associated with the existing program. To achieve both bottom-up staff-lead development while maintaining a level of top-down strategic influence the department developed and used the ABD model, repeating cycles using a Scrum framework with regular sprint meetings.

Stakeholders

Throughout the ABD process a diverse range of stakeholders needed to be considered and included through each sprint cycle:

  • Students: The student population at the regional university in this case study comprised a mix of high achieving, overseas [35% (Good Universities Guide, 2020)], first-in-family, rural/regional and low SES students [29% (Devlin & McKay, 2017)]. It is noted that attrition rates for first-in-family, low SES, rural and regional students can be high (Devlin & McKay, 2017). While overseas students have lower attrition rates, they were increasing up to 9.4% in 2016 (Parliament of Australia, 2022). Student representatives involved in the learning and teaching committee were directly involved as stakeholders in the development process.

  • IT industry: An essential component of the program is that graduates attain the knowledge, skills and experience required to gain employment in industry. The faculty had developed an extensive IT Industry Advisory Group (ITIAG), which was directly involved in all Scrum cycles. ITIAG includes representatives from a wide range of IT disciplines.

  • Australian Computer Society (ACS): Accreditation is essential, and the panel had expressed concerns about many issues in the prior program design including high student attrition rates. Faculty leadership, with deep understanding of ACS accreditation requirements, were directly involved in all stages of ABD to ensure these were met.

  • Staff: The expertise and interest of staff directly impacted the direction of development. Staff expertise included the following: big data and analytics, business information systems, games development and digital media, networking and security, mobile app development, cloud and enterprise computing, and software development. Through collaboration in the design and development processes, staff were able to feel a high level of ownership of the resulting program.

  • University: Faculty leadership were involved in all Scrum collaborations. Leadership ensured that the design process was informed by strategies and target areas determined by university and faculty objectives expressed in vision/mission statements, policies, marketing, and graduate learning outcomes.

C1—Identify desired results

The aim in the first stage was to clearly identify the learning outcomes that were required for students to graduate with the knowledge, skills and experience to gain employment in the IT industry.

C1 Planning—Identifying Career Roles. The first stage of the development process, from Fig. 2, was to determine what career roles were currently in demand within industry so that curriculum planning could focus on the attainment of relevant skills and knowledge. To do this the faculty utilised industry feedback combined with an IT specific SFIA (Skills Framework for the Information Age, 2016), which we refer to as a SFIA driven development process, as illustrated in Fig. 3. While this framework is specific to IT, any discipline can use their own approach to identifying career roles. The most appropriate target career roles for students were carefully chosen in consultation with stakeholders. The choices of career roles discussed in C1 were from sources such as the ACS (2013), Queensland Government (2017) and those identified by the ITIAG.

Fig. 3
figure 3

SFIA driven development process identifies the overall career roles which identifies the general skills required. These skills also help identify the appropriate career roles—hence the bidirectional arrow. These skills are mapped into unit structures so they can be scaffolded over time

Full size image

For the program core, the career role of Data Modeller was selected, which best addressed all the faculty’s requirements. The ability to understand methods of data storage, processing and analysing are key to almost all IT roles and therefore the skills covered in the core would be relevant to all specialisations. From our discussions with the ITIAG it was clear that along with problem solving, skills for a data modeller underpinned current needs as well as expected future skill requirements. Furthermore, it allowed us to have a career role that did not put programming at its core and so was more appealing to our students. The skills required by the Data Modeller role also supported career roles that were identified for potential major sequences, such as: software developer, mobile developer, network analyst, cloud developer, games developer, business analyst.

C1 Design – Skills and Knowledge mapping. The second stage of this utilisation of the SFIA driven framework, Fig. 3, with feedback from industry, was carried out in the C1 Design cycle, Fig. 2. Faculty drew on staff and ITIAG expertise and used SFIA as a starting point when considering the recommended skills for the career role and whether they addressed industry needs.

At this stage faculty decided the streams of learning required to address the various SFIA skills identified. For each stream the faculty formulated unit sequence teams, which the school referred to as Sub-Discipline Groups (SDGs). These groups worked in Sprint meetings to ensure that the recommended skills were appropriate for students to study, and staff had relevant expertise. The teams identified what unit sequences scaffolded the development of required skills. SDGs then refined these structures through a series of Scrum meetings combined with discussions with stakeholders until all unit sequences were developed into a workable program structure.

C1 Develop – Unit Structures. With program and unit structures created, unit documentation could be developed. SDGs developed the required learning outcomes for their unit that addressed the skill requirements recognised in earlier stages and identified overlap or gaps in the scaffolding of learning outcomes throughout unit sequences.

C1 Evaluation. SDGs met with stakeholders to ensure the development was still addressing their expectations. Gaps were identified in the outcomes and so previous cycles were revisited until stakeholders were satisfied. The outcome of this stage was a full suite of unit documentation identifying the respective learning outcomes of each unit.

C2—Determine acceptable evidence

Working with ITIAG and student stakeholders, it became evident that when developing assessments and learning activities it was important to introduce topics within the context of their application to solving real-world problems. Anecdotally, an industry focus is well established as attractive to overseas students and it was felt that this focus would allow us to engage low-SES and first-in-family students, while also providing a unique perspective to the background knowledge high-achieving students may already have, and hence ensure all students were engaged with introductory material in the first year of the degree. This industry-focused approach became the basis of all thinking through this cycle.

C2 Planning. Once again, the faculty used the iterative process involving SDGs in general Sprint meetings to determine the structure of the program. This was achieved by working through the four stages of C2 where SDGs planned a varied range of industry-focused assessments. Similarly, SDGs ensured all assessments were relevant and purposeful and required skills were assessed at the appropriate standard.

C2 Design/Development/Evaluation. Moving away from a traditional approach where units are developed in isolation, individual unit development teams were formed from SDGs and each unit was assigned a lead developer with two support developers. This enabled the design of assessments that were constructed to align with industry issues and a wide range of industry-related experiences were provided. Unit documentation was prepared detailing the final assessments and presented to SDGs and stakeholders to be evaluated. This evaluation was done iteratively during the design and development phases allowing stakeholder input to ensure unit assessment remained aligned to requirements.

C3—Plan learning experiences and instruction

In C3, the focus was on finalising program and unit design through the development of engaging and authentic learning activities tailored to the specific student cohorts present at the university. Drawing on their knowledge of student cohorts, academics developed learning activities that were designed to be engaging for a diverse range of learners. As a result of this focus, academics shifted from using conventional classroom activities within a linear curriculum to scaffolding student understanding and thinking using authentic learning activities within a cohesive and interlinking curriculum at both the unit and program level.

To accomplish the design of authentic activities to promote student learning, the unit development teams regularly presented learning activities to other members of the SDG and stakeholders to ensure alignment of units to stakeholder needs and the University’s own graduate attributes. Cycles could be re-visited until satisfactory completion at program and unit levels allowed it to be launched. SDGs evaluated the curriculum designs and presented them to the broader IT discipline for final approval.

Outcomes and limitations

The ABD approach differs from more conventional curriculum and pedagogical development processes that focus on content (Zundans-Fraser & Bain, 2016). It aligned with the top-down SFIA driven approach used at the program level and worked well with the faculty focus of shifting from traditional approaches to delivering context-based learning experiences which are effective ways of engaging learners (Gosper et al., 2014). In this section we will briefly review some successful outcomes, issues, and limitations of the ABD approach.

Successful outcomes

Staff reported experiencing a sense of ownership during the program’s development. This significant outcome has been recognised as enhancing staff professional growth (Bain & Zundans-Fraser, 2017). The faculty had just undergone two restructures, staff were change-weary and initially reluctant to consider a major development project. However, utilising an Agile mindset (Noguera et al., 2018) the ABD model encouraged continual collegial interaction where staff experience, values and ideas were fundamental to project development. Thus, staff enjoyed a significant level of agency in driving the curriculum development project which fostered a high degree of motivation to achieve innovative outcomes and best practice. This correlation between agency and striving for innovation and effective practice is supported in current literature (Bain & Zundans-Fraser, 2017). The process also allowed faculty to set boundaries on the inclusion of skills and topics which ensured that the identified focus was maintained without the direct imposition of rules.

In contrast to traditional program design (Fraser & Bosanquet, 2006), ABD facilitated a focus on industry involvement which is highlighted by ITIAG’s collaboration. From ITIAG’s involvement, Work Integrated Learning (WIL) was incorporated in every semester of the program. These Professional Engagement units required students to demonstrate active engagement in the IT field and to illustrate through a portfolio how their studies directly related to industry and, thus, close the ‘practice-theory gap’ (Lancaster & Bain, 2019). Students decided the nature of their engagement with IT, and this typically included attendance at industry expos, seminars, recruitment events, international webinars, visiting workplaces, and interviews with industry professionals. The combination of student driven WIL, authentic unit assessments, industry placements, and industry capstones, created a complete suite of industry preparation opportunities for students. This approach enabled students to contextualise their learning and to connect theory with practice which facilitates learner engagement and motivation (Zundans-Fraser et al., 2016). This feature was later commended in the following ACS accreditation.

By the use of team-based, iterative, flexible and reflective Agile approaches (Pope-Ruark, 2017) and the foregrounding of intended learning outcomes key to Backward Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2011), ABD also facilitated the development of unit structures, authentic assessments and active learning approaches that focused on solving real-world problems and tasks. This approach inevitably led to conceptualising units from holistic and industry-based perspectives rather than focusing on individual skill development. Rather than a traditional approach (Vreuls et al., 2022) that involved teaching discrete units of programming, databases, hardware, and networking, first year units developed with ABD constituted ethical hacking, game development, big data analytics, and app development. By framing learning within industry contexts, students learnt relevant knowledge and skills as they explored broader topics. For example, when engaged with the industry problem of ethical hacking, students learned about network protocols when they were working out how to hack a website.

The collaborative Agile approach (Noguera et al., 2018) to unit development in the second and third stages of ABD significantly assisted with a range of issues including: cooperative sharing of ideas; staff understanding of the context of topics and skills in the whole program; and the development of integrated assessments and curriculum design. For example, instead of a discrete introductory programming unit, programming skills were developed throughout first-year units within industry-focused activities. Students practised complex problem solving on a range of industry-based problems including experiencing assemble programming when extracting data from small sensors; writing shell scripts to set up a network server; using python code to analyse large amounts of data; using graphical programming to develop an app; and, using object-oriented event-driven code with Javascript to implement complex character responses when developing a game. By the end of first year, students had completed enough programming across all units to progress to advanced units.

The integration of programming into core first-year courses rather than being contained in a single unit was also important for student retention and attraction. Student feedback from low SES, first-in-family and overseas students has indicated that they were concerned about enrolling in programming units. Thus, embedding programming elements in first year courses was another ABD-enabled approach that sought to attract students who might not have considered studying IT and to improve the ongoing issue of student retention (Devlin & McKay, 2017).

Issues identified/limitations

Firstly, the ABD approach was applied to the full development of a new program. There would be significant limitations with the redevelopment of an existing program where certain components are to be retained. Secondly, the different responsibilities staff need to undertake throughout curriculum design and development can be challenging with some staff feeling under-prepared to complete their work (Vreuls et al., 2022). In line with current literature, the ABD approach was time consuming and required a significant investment from staff (Pope-Ruark, 2017). Our approach of assigning three staff to each first-year unit with the lead being awarded twice the normal unit development workload was a significant financial commitment to ensure units were as innovative as possible. Support from leadership was vitally important to enable the project to be completed and is not always available in curriculum development work (Zimmer & Keiper, 2021). Cognisant of the importance of leadership in this process, lead researcher and Associate Dean of Learning and Teaching at the time discussed the importance of the project and secured the support of senior leadership.

The ABD model is also highly reliant on a significant commitment from stakeholders. We went into this process with an existing large and dedicated industry advisory group. While the high level of industry involvement is positive as it forges strong connections with potential employers and fosters currency, it also reveals potential limitations of the ABD model including keeping up to date with rapidly changing professional requirements and trends (Vreuls et al., 2022). This approach to curricula development might also become instrumentalist with the goal of promoting ‘job-readiness’ rather than considering learner centred ideologies where curriculum can be a means to develop students’ inherent capabilities and address societal issues, enacting reform (Schiro, 2008). To ensure that academics are teaching and developing curriculum responsively with regard to diverse student cohorts, sessions where the program is evaluated and revised using cycles of the ABD model would need to be held regularly.

Conclusion

This paper reported a new approach to constructing and framing HE curriculum by combining elements of Agile mindset and the Backward Design method of curriculum development that we called Agile Backward Design (ABD). The authors created this model to enable curriculum development that meets the needs of diverse learners, academic pedagogical approaches, and industry requirements. The melding of Agile and Backward Design processes in the Agile Backward Design methodology created an iterative, dynamic, and collaborative approach to curriculum design and pedagogy that embedded diversity and authentic learning opportunities at both unit and program level.

A critical reflective inquiry approach was employed to interrogate the context and process regarding the model’s development that enabled a collaborative re-designing of curriculum to transform the IT degree from a linear framework to a dispersed model where ‘big picture’ and higher-order thinking was embraced from first year onwards. This was reported in a case study. The development of the new curriculum design was intended to engage diverse learners and ensure that students gained an understanding of the many different IT domains so that they could make informed choices about future areas of employment in the industry.

Areas of future investigation for the research team look towards two main areas. The researchers need to ascertain whether the intended aims of the project were met regarding curriculum design. They also argue that as this model combines the flexible, iterative and collaborative nature of Agile mindset with the reflective and student-centred approach of Backward Design, the ABD model could be adopted and adapted by a range of academics engaging in curriculum design both within and outside the IT discipline area. Thus, we argue that our research has significant implications for academics in tertiary institutions engaged in curriculum design and the development of pedagogical approaches on a global scale.