Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] Date: 11 January 2016, At: 19:45
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Critical Success Factors in the Curriculum
Alignment Process: The Case of the College of
Business at Abu Dhabi University
Pitzel Camba & Vlad Krotov
To cite this article: Pitzel Camba & Vlad Krotov (2015) Critical Success Factors in the Curriculum Alignment Process: The Case of the College of Business at Abu Dhabi University, Journal of Education for Business, 90:8, 451-457, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1095704
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1095704
Published online: 29 Oct 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 29
View related articles
Critical Success Factors in the Curriculum
Alignment Process: The Case of the College of
Business at Abu Dhabi University
Pitzel Camba
Abu Dhabi University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Vlad Krotov
Murray State University, Murray, Kentucky, USA
The main goals of this article are to (a) assist business schools in understanding the curriculum alignment process, and (b) uncover critical success factors in curriculum alignment. Based on a case study conducted at the College of Business at Abu Dhabi University, a detailed curriculum alignment process description is provided. The process consists of the following broad stages: preparation, alignment, finalizing alignment, and communicating the results. Each stage involves specific steps that need to be implemented together with the critical success factors associated with each step.
Keywords: alignment, curriculum, critical success factors, process
INTRODUCTION
Business schools must continuously revise their curriculum in response to new technologies, market demands for new competencies, accreditation standards, changing institu-tional practices, and pedagogical innovations (Cowan, George, & Pinheiro-Torres, 2004). In order for these changes to be effective, business schools need to ensure alignment among the course content, teaching strategies, learning activities, assessment strategies, and many other elements of their curriculum (Harvey & Baumann, 2012). While there is a plethora of literature on the theory behind an effective curriculum, very little attention has been paid by researchers to the practical (or managerial) aspects of curriculum alignment (The Glossary of Education Reform, 2015). Thus, we aimed to achieve the following goals: (a) to provide business schools with a better understanding of the curriculum alignment process from a managerial point of view; and (b) to uncover critical success factors in the process of curriculum alignment. The College of Business
Administration (COBA) at Abu Dhabi University (ADU), a private institution of higher learning in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), was used as a site for this study.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Curriculum
Curriculum describes what is taught and how (Squires, 2012). A curriculum is formalized using a document or a plan that defines an educational program in terms of the content to be taught and the teaching and assessment meth-ods to be used in conjunction with this content (English, 2000). There are many other elements that influence a cur-riculum (see Table 1). All these elements must be properly aligned to ensure effective development of the desired com-petencies among students (Glatthorn, 1999).
Curriculum Alignment
English (2000) conceptualized curriculum alignment as a triangle with the following three cornerstones: curriculum, teacher, and test (see Figure 1).
Correspondence should be addressed to Pitzel Camba, Abu Dhabi Uni-versity, College of Business Administration, P.O. Box 59911, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emierates. E-mail: [email protected]
Color versions of one or more figures in this article are available online at www.tandfonline.com/vjeb.
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1095704
The model shows the need for the three elements to be connected or aligned. Educational goals that are targeted by the curriculum become the basis of defining the work to be done by teachers. Formal testing (or assessment) is used to evaluate the degree to which teachers further deliver the educational goals set forth by the curriculum. Thus, a
well-aligned curriculum can also be viewed as a self-sufficient quality control system. This model is similar to Biggs (1999) principle of alignment, where learning outcomes of a course, teaching or learning activities, and assessment support each other and ensure compatibility (or alignment) within the curriculum.
There is an abundance of literature offering both theoretical and practical advice on curriculum alignment. Some articles recommend starting curriculum alignment with abandonment of the restrictions of the usual written, taught, and tested curric-ula and focusing on innovative ways of delivering the curricu-lum (Glatthorn, 1999; Squires, 2012). Others recommend testing and evaluating issues encountered in curriculum devel-opment and implementation (Armstrong & Suddards, 1999; Kuhn & Rundle-Thiele, 2009; Wraga, 1999); building inte-grated methodologies for continuous institutional, staff, and curriculum improvement (Cowan et al., 2004); and exploring new strategies and tools (e.g., word cloud analysis) for investi-gating student and faculty thoughts and reflections on curricu-lum (Harvey & Baumann, 2012). Most of these studies focus more on the tools and methodologies for designing an effective curriculum. Yet there are no studies that take on a managerial perspective and offer practical and holistic advice on curricu-lum alignment in business schools. To fill in this gap in the lit-erature, this study aims to address the following research questions:
Research Question 1(RQ1): What are the stages and steps that business schools need to follow to ensure success-ful alignment of their curricula?
Research Question 2(RQ2): What are the critical success factors associated with the stages or steps of the curric-ulum alignment process?
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
Lewin’s Change Management Framework
Lewin’s process-based change management model (see Figure 2) is used as a base for recommending an effective curriculum alignment process (Kaminski, 2011).
Lewin’s three-step model is one of the earliest and most widely used change management frameworks. Burnes (2004) stated that this approach focuses on “forming an integrated approach to analyze, understand and bring about change at the group, organizational and societal levels” (p. 985).
The first stage (unfreeze), aims to prepare for the desired changes by having clear and open communication within the organization. In this stage, people involved analyze the current situation and should be convinced that new struc-tures and processes must be put in place to achieve desired improvements. In the second stage (change), the group implements the intended changes. This phase is considered to be time-consuming, confusing, and costly. The third TABLE 1
Curriculum Elements
Curriculum
element Description
College mission Defines the ultimate aim of a college, its main reason for its existence
Market conditions Economic marketplaces often dictate which professions or competencies are in demand in the workplace
Compliance standards
Accreditation and governing bodies often mandate competencies that a particular program needs to develop
Program learning outcomes
High-level goals (or competencies) that students are expected to attain as a result of completing a particular program of study
Course learning outcomes
Specific course-level objectives (or competencies) that students are expected to attain as a result of completing a specific course
Course materials Training materials used as a part of a course: textbooks, books, journals and journal articles, and electronic and multimedia materials
Pedagogy Various theories, methods, or tools employed to develop competencies among students
Technology Information and communication technologies used to deliver course content
Physical resources Physical facilities (e.g., classrooms, labs, specialized equipment) allocated to a course or program Credit hours Amount of face-to-face or online interaction between
a student and an instructor devoted to a particular course of program
Assurance of learning
How attainment of particular learning outcomes (or competencies) is assessed and reported at the course and program level
FIGURE 1. English (2000) curriculum alignment model.
452 P. CAMBA AND V. KROTOV
stage (refreeze) is when change is stabilized. The main con-cern in this phase is to ensure that change becomes a perma-nent part of the normal process and the system does not revert to the old ways and habits.
Critical Success Factors
The critical success factors (CSFs) approach intends to dis-cover those few things that must go well to guarantee mana-gerial or organizational success in a particular area. Rockart (1979), who is considered to be one of the founders of the CSFs method, described CSFs as “the few key areas where ‘things must go right’ for the business to flourish” (p. 85). In this study, CSFs are specific important areas within each step that are critical for ensuring a well-aligned and effec-tive curriculum.
METHODOLOGY
Site of the Study
The College of Business Administration (COBA), one of the five colleges at ADU, was used as a site for this study. COBA offers undergraduate and graduate programs in busi-ness. COBA was the first college within the UAE to fully align its curricula with Qualifications Framework Emirates (QFE)—a competency framework mandated by the Minis-try of Education of the UAE for all institutions of higher learning in the country (NQA Board, 2012). Thus, COBA represents a rich site for understanding the steps of the cur-riculum alignment process and related CSFs.
Data Collection and Analysis
First, a preliminary curriculum alignment process frame-work together with corresponding CSFs was created based on Lewin’s theoretical framework, analysis of archival documents of COBA, and the authors’ direct experience with curriculum alignment projects at COBA. After that, a group of COBA faculty and staff who participated in the curriculum alignment process was invited for a focus group interview. The group included six members: the dean, asso-ciate dean, assistant dean, two faculty and discipline coordi-nators, and an administrative assistant.
During the focus group study, the preliminary process model, together with the CSFs were presented to the group. The participants were asked about their opinions on the model, areas of improvement, and missing CSFs, and so on. Responses were recorded using a digital voice recorder and then transcribed. The transcripts were analyzed by fre-quent iterations between the research model and the tran-scribed qualitative data. Common themes and categories were derived from the transcript and then merged with the existing model and CSFs to refine and readjust the frame-work. A similar analysis procedure is used in the grounded theory tradition (Glaser & Strauss, 2009).
Because this study relies on a single case, there are inher-ent limitations to the generalizability of findings of this study. But case studies have a different approach to findings and generalizability (Krotov & Silva, 2005). The case study method recognizes that each context is unique. The main goal of this case study was not to offer universal generaliza-tions but to provide insights on the curriculum alignment process carried out at the COBA at ADU and provide some tentative recommendations for other business schools.
RESULTS
Consistent with Lewin’s change management framework, we identified three broad stages of curriculum alignment: preparation (unfreeze), alignment (change), and finalizing alignment and communicating the results to faculty (refreeze). Each phase contains several steps (or recommen-dations) for those in charge of a curriculum alignment proj-ect. These recommendations are followed by specific examples from the site of this study. Specific and succinct CSFs are formulated for each of the steps.
Stage 1: Preparation (Unfreeze)
Step 1.1: Announce the Alignment Initiative and Assign Meaning
Recommendation. The first step in the unfreeze stage should involve a senior leader of the college announc-ing the curriculum alignment initiative to all the relevant stakeholders (e.g., college faculty, staff, advisory board FIGURE 2. Lewin’s change management model.
members) and explaining why the curriculum needs to be revised.
Lessons learned. The dean of COBA did a great job informing everyone in the college about the curriculum alignment project and assigning meaning to it. He clearly explained that curriculum alignment was mandated by our accreditation bodies (the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business and the Ministry of Education in the UAE) and succeeded in persuading COBA’s faculty and staff that the revisions would make everyone’s job easier by eliminating redundancies and contradictions in the cur-riculum and improving quality of the curcur-riculum in general. All this helped neutralize faculty and staff resistance. Thus, the following CSF can be formulated for this step:
CSF 1.1: Support of Senior Leaders
Step 1.2: Adjust Administrative Structure
Recommendation. College leaders need to adjust the organizational structure within the college to make sure there are clear lines of authority and responsibility in rela-tion to the curriculum.
Lessons learned. Prior to the start of the curriculum alignment project, the dean of COBA appointed several area coordinators (faculty in charge of specific disciplines), sev-eral assessment coordinators (faculty in charge of collecting assessment data from specific programs), an assistant dean of graduate studies, and an academic quality assurance coor-dinator (responsible for all the documentation related to the curriculum, assessment and accreditation).This was done to make sure that someone is in charge to each important areas of the curriculum and that there will be no substantial over-laps. These changes to the organizational structure helped prevent conflicts and improve efficiency of the curriculum alignment process. Thus, the following is important for an effective curriculum alignment project:
CSF 1.2: Appropriate Organizational Structure
Step 1.3: Introduce Faculty Incentives
Recommendation. Senior administrators should introduce appropriate rewards or incentives for the faculty in relation to the curriculum alignment process.
Lessons learned. The COBA’s success in introduc-ing and enforcintroduc-ing these reward and punishment mecha-nisms was somewhat limited. Active participants in the curriculum alignment received only oral praise from the dean, while the ones who avoided or even sabotaged curric-ulum alignment were rewarded with free time for research and personal matters. This resulted substantial employee
morale problems which could had been prevented with the following:
CSF 1.3: Establishing Reward and Recognition Systems
Step 1.4: Form an Alignment Team
Recommendation. A cross-disciplinary curriculum alignment team should be formed to work on the alignment project.
Lessons learned. At the COBA, the dean appointed several faculty and staff champions from various areas to the curriculum alignment team to make sure that every dis-cipline is adequately represented. These curriculum align-ment team champions were the people who (a) were very passionate about their classes, (b) had a strong sense of ownership of the curriculum, (c) were likely to make a pro-ductive contribution to the curriculum alignment process, and (d) pushed others toward achieving the goals of the project. Thus, the following is important for this step:
CSF 1.4: Identifying Curriculum Alignment Champions
Step 1.5: Prepare and Organize Documentation
Recommendation. All the documents to be used in curriculum alignment (e.g., current course syllabi, lists of pro-gram and course learning outcomes, competency framework manuals and handouts) need to be prepared and organized.
Lessons learned. A curriculum alignment project can involve frequent revisions of hundreds of documents. Get-ting lost in various versions of the same document is very easy in the absence of a formal document management sys-tem. ADU had a document management system called Microsoft SharePoint (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA) installed. However the system was not utilized fully. The dean of COBA appointed the academic quality assur-ance coordinator (one of the staff champions) as the college administrator of SharePoint. Appointing a dedicated staff member to be in charge of SharePoint helped ensure that all document flows were automated and streamlined with the help of the software. Therefore, the following needs to be done in relation to curriculum-related documents:
CSF 1.5: Setting Up an Effective Document Management and Support System
Stage 2: Alignment (Change)
Step 2.1: Allocate Time
Recommendation. The person in charge of a curricu-lum alignment project needs to allocate distraction-free time to the project.
454 P. CAMBA AND V. KROTOV
Lessons learned. Curriculum alignment at COBA required close collaboration and mental focus among the alignment team members. COBA created distraction-free time by organizing a full day off-campus retreat for the cur-riculum alignment team. Food and refreshments were avail-able throughout the day to help the team members rest and maintain focus on their tasks. Thus, the following CSF can be derived for this step:
CSF 2.1: Allocating Distraction-Free Time
Step 2.2: Study the Competency Framework
Recommendation. Ample time should be devoted to familiarization with the standards against which the curric-ulum needs to be aligned.
Lessons learned. At COBA, many faculty members developed their own unique understanding of the compe-tencies mandated by the UAE Ministry and how they had to be implemented. During the off-campus retreats study ses-sions involving reading and discussing the framework were organized. This helped the alignment team develop a shared understanding of the standards. Thus, it very important to ensure the following during this step:
CSF 2.2: Familiarization With Competency Framework
Step 2.3: Analyze and Revise Program Learning Outcomes
Recommendation. The third step in the change stage is for the alignment team to analyze and modify existing program learning outcomes (PLOs) to ensure that all dimensions of the competency framework are properly addressed.
Lessons learned. It was discovered that some faculty members at COBA, while being knowledgeable in the sub-jects they teach, often paid little attention to other areas of the curriculum and the overall program learning goals. For example, it was discovered that ethics, while being included in program learning goals of several programs, was not cov-ered at all in certain accounting courses. The instructor teaching these courses told the alignment team that he did not have enough classroom hours to cover ethics. Because of that, the alignment team had to work closely with their colleagues to make sure that they know about program goals and contribute to these goals via course-specific topics and activities. Thus, the following CSF can be derived:
CSF 2.3.1: Familiarization with the PLOs. Creativity and innovation turned out to be very important for ensuring
that all dimensions of a particular competency framework were addressed with limited credit hours devoted to the pro-gram. Thus, another CSF is important for this step:
CSF 2.3.2: Creativity and innovation.
Step 2.4: Link PLOs to the Competency Framework
Recommendation. PLOs need to be formally linked (or mapped) to the dimensions of the competency frame-work. This is necessary to ensure full compliance of the curriculum with the competencies recommended by the framework.
Lessons learned. The alignment team should resist the temptation of overcomplicating the PLOs in an effort to make sure that each required competency is addressed from different angles. Keeping PLOs and their linkages to the competency framework simple helped COBA avoid mis-takes, reduce the amount of work and make sure that fac-ulty actually understood the linkages. The champions from the alignment team used Bloom’s taxonomy and corre-sponding action verbs for creating simple and measurable PLOs for COBA programs. Thus, the following CSF can be derived for this step:
CSF 2.4: Simplicity of PLOs and Their Linkages to a Competency Framework
Step 2.5: Revise CLOs and Their Mapping to PLOs
Recommendation. The last step in the change stage is to ensure that once PLOs are adjusted and linked to a com-petency framework, the linkages between PLOs and CLOs need to be revisited.
Lessons learned. Cascading changes in program PLOs down to the course level required adjustments to the CLOs and their linkages to the updated PLOs. Course-level changes were carried out by discipline-based teams of fac-ulty (some of them were also a part of the alignment team). Communication across disciplines was also necessary to ensure that PLOs were properly targeted across the curricu-lum, eliminate redundancy (e.g., unnecessary emphasis on one PLO in several courses), and improve coordination (e.g., competencies developed in lower level courses sup-port competencies emphasized in higher level courses). At COBA, discipline-based teams and cross-discipline teams worked in an iterative fashion to ensure proper alignment between the competency framework, PLOs and CLOs. Thus, the following CSF can be derived for this step:
CSF 2.5: Organizing Discipline-Based and Cross-Discipline Teams
Stage 3: Finalizing Alignment and Communicating the Results to Faculty (Refreeze)
Step 3.1: Engaging Individual Faculty
Recommendation . The first step in the refreeze stage is for the alignment team members to meet with faculty within their respective disciplines and discuss the new PLOs, fine-tune CLOs and their linkages to PLOs based on the feedback received from the faculty, and discuss possible ways of assessing attainment of CLOs and PLOs.
Lessons learned. This particular step has great politi-cal importance for COBA. Communicating with each indi-vidual faculty and getting their feedback helped COBA to not only improve quality of the curriculum, but also to ensure commitment to implementing these changes from faculty. Thus, the following is important for this step:
CSF 3.1: Ensuring Faculty Involvement and Buy-In
Step 3.2: Ensure Use of Updated Syllabi
Recommendation. Once the curriculum and assess-ment tools are fine-tuned via the discussions within specific disciplines, updated and finalized syllabi need to be announced and distributed among the faculty for implemen-tation in the target semester.
Lessons learned. The academic quality assurance coordinator who was in charge of the document manage-ment system played an important role in disseminating updated syllabi among the faculty. Continuously informing the faculty about availability of updated syllabi was essen-tial for a timely implementation of the new curriculum at COBA. Thus, the following CSF can be derived for this step:
CSF 3.2: Effective and Continuous Communication Process
Step 3.3: Finalize the Assurance of Learning Plan
Recommendation. The third and final step in the refreeze stage is for the assurance of learning (AOL) plan to be finalized based on the updated curriculum.
Lessons learned. In the beginning, the AOL system instilled in COBA programs was quite complicated: every CLO was assessed in every course and assessment data was aggregated and reported using a complicated procedure involving many people and several layers of supervision. This led many faculty members to view AOL as a tedious bureaucracy. Eventually, the COBA simplified the AOL plan by reducing the number of courses in which CLOs and
PLOs were assessed, introducing standard rubrics across all programs and simplifying the reporting structure in relation to assessment. Thus, success of assurance of learning based on the updated curriculum requires the following:
CSF 3.3: Simplicity of the AOL Plan
CONCLUSION
Aligning the curriculum is a complex, iterative and multidi-mensional process relying on numerous stakeholders and resources. This study outlined three stages for the curricu-lum alignment process. First is the preparation or unfreeze stage where the leader announce the initiative and identify champions. The main goals of the preparation stage are to ensure that all the stakeholders are aware of the upcoming curriculum alignment initiative, motivate the stakeholders to carry out the curriculum alignment and prepare the nec-essary infrastructure that would support the curriculum alignment project. Second is the alignment or the change stage where intended changes are reinforced. The main goals of the alignment stage are to do the required adjust-ments to the curriculum and capture the changes in the form of course syllabi, PLOs, CLOs, and AOL plans. This is the most complex and time-consuming step in the curric-ulum alignment process: it typically requires close commu-nication and collaboration among the alignment team members and numerous iterations between the documents before the new curriculum is finalized. The last stage involves finalizing curriculum alignment and communicat-ing the results of the project to faculty (refreeze stage). Communication, universal faculty involvement, and sim-plicity of assurance of learning based on the updated curric-ulum are important in this stage to make sure that everyone is fully aware and committed to the changes.
REFERENCES
Armstrong, D. H., & Suddards, C. (1999). Engaging teachers in curriculum alignment.Education Canada, 39(3), 32–34.
Biggs, J. B. (1999).Teaching for quality learning at university. Bucking-ham, England: Society for Research in Higher Education and Open Uni-versity Press.
Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal.Journal of Management Studies, 41,977–1002. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-6486.2004.00463.x
Cowan, J., George, J. W., & Pinheiro-Torres, A. (2004). Alignment of devel-opments in higher education.Higher Education, 48,439–459. doi:http:// dx.doi.org.adezproxy.adu.ac.ae/10.1023/B:HIGH.0000046722.64326.dc English, F. W. (2000).Deciding what to teach and test: Developing,
align-ing, and auditing the curriculum. San Francisco, CA: Corwin Press. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2009).The discovery of grounded theory:
Strategies for qualitative research. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction. Glatthorn, A. A. (1999). Curriculum alignment revisited.Journal of
Cur-riculum and Supervision, 15,26.
Harvey, M., & Baumann, C. (2012). Using student reflections to explore curriculum alignment.Asian Social Science, 8(14), 9–18.
456 P. CAMBA AND V. KROTOV
Kaminski, J. (2011). Theory applied to informatics—Lewin’s change the-ory.Canadian Journal of Nursing Informatics, 6(1).
Krotov, V., & Silva, L. (2005). Case study research: Science or a literary genre?AMCIS 2005 Proceedings,paper 50.
Kuhn, K.-A. L., & Rundle-Thiele, S. R. (2009). Curriculum alignment: Explor-ing student perception of learnExplor-ing achievement measures.International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21,351–361. NQA Board. (2012). Qualifications framework emirates handbook.
Retrieved from http://www.nqa.gov.ae/En/QFEmirates/Qualifications Framework/Pages/default.aspx
Rockart, J. F. (1979). Chief executives define their own data needs. Har-vard Business Review, 57,81–93.
Squires, D. (2012). Curriculum alignment research suggests that alignment can improve student achievement.The Clearing House, 85,129–135. doi:10.1080/00098655.2012.657723
The Glossary of Education Reform. (2015).Curriculum. Portland, ME: Great Schools Partnership. Retrieved from http://edglossary.org/ curriculum/
Voorhees, R. A. (2001). Competency-based learning models: A neces-sary future. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2001(110), 5–13.
Wraga, W. G. (1999). The educational and political implications of curric-ulum alignment and standards-based reform.Journal of Curriculum & Supervision, 15,4–25.
