Abstract
This study investigates an inclusive curriculum design based on student-centred approach. This proposed design approach has been applied to Open Channel Hydraulics module (CSE6008-A) at School of Engineering, University of Bradford, United Kingdom. This paper will introduce in step-by-step manner the full curriculum design and how the student-centred approach is being adapted in each step of the design. The required criteria will be designed based on learning outcomes design, curriculum organization, assessment strategies and student achievement evaluation. Besides, a key discussion will also be allocated for the inclusive practice that allows the vastly diverse student group to benefit from this approach, and a separate section will also be utilized to fully discuss this inclusive approach in the proposed curriculum design. This paper proposes a useful student-centred curriculum design concept, which is adaptable for different engineering modules.
Keywords
Inclusive Curriculum Design; Open Channel Hydraulics; Learning Outcomes; Curriculum Organization; Assessment; Student Evaluation.
Cite this Article
Pu, J., H. (2018), Inclusive Curriculum Design: Application to Open Channel Hydraulics Module. International Journal For Empirical Education and Research, 2(6), 1-10.
Pu, J., H. (2018) "Inclusive Curriculum Design: Application to Open Channel Hydraulics Module", International Journal For Empirical Education and Research, 2(6), pp.1-10.
Pu, J., H.. Inclusive Curriculum Design: Application to Open Channel Hydraulics Module. International Journal For Empirical Education and Research. 2018; 2(6): 1-10.
Appeared
Appeared
Pu, J., H.. Inclusive Curriculum Design: Application to Open Channel Hydraulics Module. International Journal For Empirical Education and Research. 2018; 2(6): 1-10.
Pu, J., H.. Inclusive Curriculum Design: Application to Open Channel Hydraulics Module. International Journal For Empirical Education and Research. 2018; 2(6): 1-10.
Reference
<!-- [if !supportLists]-->1. Harris S (2014). Why are Engineering Firms Struggling to Recruit Graduates? The Engineer Magazine. 2. Biggs JB, Tang C (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 3rd edn, SRHE and Open University Press.
<!-- [if !supportLists]-->2. Wright N (2011). CIVE3400 – Open Channel Hydraulics, School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Leeds, UK. (Electronic version: http://webprod3.leeds.ac.uk/catalogue/dynmodules.asp?Y=201516&M=CIVE-3400 last accessed 17/05/2017).
<!-- [if !supportLists]-->3. Mann S, Robinson A (2009). Boredom in the lecture theatre: an investigation into the contributors, moderators and outcomes of boredom amongst university students. British Educational Research Journal, 35(2): 243-258.
<!-- [if !supportLists]-->4. Dickens J, Arlett C (2009). Key Aspects of Teaching and Learning in Engineering, pp.264-281 in: Fry H, Ketteridge S, Marshall SA (eds.) Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice. 3rd edn, Routledge, New York.
<!-- [if !supportLists]-->5. Ramsden P (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. 2nd edn, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, London.
<!-- [if !supportLists]-->6. Grace S, Gravestock P (2009). Inclusion and Diversity: Meeting the needs of all Students. 1st edn, Routledge, London.
<!-- [if !supportLists]-->7. Anderson M (2007). Diversity Learning, Knowledge Diversity and Inclusion: Theory and Practice as Exemplified by Corporate Universities. Equal Opportunities International, 26(8): 743-760.
<!-- [if !supportLists]-->8. Wolffram A, Derboven W, Winker G (2009). Women Withdrawers in Engineering Studies: Identity Formation and Learning Culture as Gendered Barriers for Persistence? Equal Opportunities International, 28(1): 36-49. Kolb DA (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
<!-- [if !supportLists]-->9. Wierstra RFA, de Jong JA (2002). A scaling theoretical evaluation of Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory-2, pp. 431–440 in: Valcke M, Gombeir D (eds.) Learning styles: Reliability and validity. Proceedings of the 7th Annual European Learning Styles Information Network Conference, 26–28 June, University of Ghent, Ghent.
<!-- [if !supportLists]-->10. Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K (2004). Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.
<!-- [if !supportLists]-->11. Kolb AY, Kolb DA (2005). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory – Version 3.1 2005 Technical Specifications. Experience Based Learning Systems, Inc., HayGroup.
<!-- [if !supportLists]-->12. Maclellan E (2001). Assessment for Learning: The Differing Perceptions of Tutors and Students. Assessment ad Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4): 307–318.
<!-- [if !supportLists]-->13. Houghton W (2004). Engineering Subject Centre Guide: Learning and Teaching Theory for Engineering Academics, The Higher Education Academy – Engineering Subject Centre.
<!-- [if !supportLists]-->14. Walker DJ, Palmer E (2011). The Relationship between Student Understanding, Satisfaction and Performance in an Australian Engineering Programme. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(2): 157-170.
<!-- [if !supportLists]-->15. Bamber M (2015). The Impact on Stakeholder Confidence of Increased Transparency in the Examination Assessment Process. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(4): 471-487.
[This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).]