Application of Curriculum Design Maturity Model at Private Institution of Higher Learning in Malaysia: A Case Study

  • Chee Ling Thong
  • Yusmadi Yah Jusoh
  • Rusli Abdullah
  • Nor Hayati Alwi
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 229)

Abstract

Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is applied as a process improvement model not only in software industry but also in education sector. This study proposes a maturity model, which constructed based on CMM, in guiding curriculum designers in Institution of  Higher Learning (IHL) in Malaysia to design quality curriculum. The proposed maturity model possesses process and product elements; and it contains a set of key process areas and best practices. A case study is carried out in a private IHL in Malaysia to perform a pilot test on the proposed maturity model. The results may also help the institution to be informed of current as well as future improvement process, finally aid in producing quality curriculum for IHL in Malaysia.

Keywords

Capability maturity model Curriculum design Curriculum design process Curriculum designer Institution of higher learning Quality curriculum 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Universiti Putra Malaysia, under the Research University Grant (RUGS:9308600).

References

  1. 1.
    Christof L, Andrew LR, Gilian D, John H (2007) A maturity model for computing education conference in research in information technology (CRPIT). Australian Computer Society, Inc. Ninth Australasian computing education conference (ACE2007), Ballarat, Victoria, Australia, Feb 2007Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thong CL, Jusoh YY, Abdullah R, Alwi NH (2012) Applying capability maturity model to curriculum design: a case study at private institution of higher learning in Malaysia, lecture notes in engineering and computer science: Proceedings of the world congress on engineering 2012, WCE 2012, U.K., London, 4–6 July, pp 1070–1075Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Neuhauser C (2004) A maturity model: does it provide a path for online course design? J Interact Online Learn 3(1):17 http://ncolr.org Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ng MLY, Mustafa R (2012) Higher Education and Human Capital Development Malaysia and CLMV: Towards Strategic Partnerships and Alliance. Higher Education Monograph 17/2012. Chap. 3:39–70Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ng MLY, Tan C, Rahman SA, Abduallah NA, Kaur S (2012) Higher Education and Human Capital Development Malaysia and CLMV: Towards Strategic Partnerships and Alliance. Higher Education Monograph 17/2012. Chap. 5:145–157Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morshidi S (2008) Trends in international higher education and regionalism: issues and challenges for Malaysia. Paper presented at the international symposium on Asian cooperation, integration and human resources, Waseda University, Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    MOHE (2011) National higher education action plan 2007–2010: triggering higher education transformation. Kementerian Pengajian Malaysia, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paulk M, Weber C, Curtis B, Chrissis MB (1995) The capability maturity model: guidelines for improving the software process. MA: Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hafeez M (1999) Application of SPICE (ISO/IEC 15504) in an Academic Environment. http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/499756.html
  10. 10.
    Dennis D, Minnie YY (2008) Controlling curriculum redesign with a process improvement model. J Inf Syst Educ 19(3):331–342Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marshall S, Mitchell G (2002) An e-learning maturity model. In: Proceedings of EDUCAUSESE ’02:19th annual conference of Australian society for computers in learning in tertiary education (Auckland, Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, 2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Malaysian Qualification Agency (2008) Code of practice for programme accreditation (COPPA). Petaling Jaya, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Malaysian Qualification Agency (2010) Programme standards: computing. Petaling Jaya, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bloom BS (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: the cognitive domain. David McKay Co Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Squires DA (2005) Aligning and balancing the standard-based curriculum. Corwin Press, California, Thousand Oaks, pp 57–59Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maier AM, Moultrie J, Clarkson JP (2012) Assessing organizational capabilities: reviewing and guiding the development of maturity grids. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 59(1):138–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chee Ling Thong
    • 1
  • Yusmadi Yah Jusoh
    • 2
  • Rusli Abdullah
    • 2
  • Nor Hayati Alwi
    • 3
  1. 1.School of IT, Faculty of Business and Information ScienceUCSI UniversityKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Information System, Faculty of Computer Science and Information TechnologyUniversiti Putra MalaysiaSerdangMalaysia
  3. 3.Department of Educational Foundation, Faculty of Educational StudiesUniversiti Putra MalaysiaSerdangMalaysia

Personalised recommendations