1. Course design as a collaborative enterprise: Incorporating interdisciplinarity into a backward mapping systems approach to course design in Higher Education Elizabeth Thomson & Caroline Robinson HERDSA June 28, 2017

2. Scope Background What the literature says: collaboration
backward design (iterative design)
The course design process
The review of the Bachelor of Physiotherapy
Team reflections on the review process

3. Background drivers for change
Quality education & compliance
TEQSA from 2011
Industry standards, eg Australian Standards for Physiotherapy
Graduate Attributes
Increased competition
Distance Education and online learning
The Higher Education sector in Australia is no longer protected by its national border. Traditional universities across Australia are experiencing competition unlike anything that has occurred in the past (Universities Australia 2013; Norton 2013). This includes: increased private ‘unbundled’ provision of education; reduction in Federal government funding; a move away from the traditional correspondence model of education to online learning; marketing which posits learning as anywhere, anytime; competition with not only domestic but also international providers; and the introduction of massive online open courses (MOOCs) (Ernst & Young 2012; Maringe and Sing 2014; Stromquist and Monkman 2014;), to name a few changes.
CSU: quality improvements in learning and teaching playing a key role in lifting the student experience.
The university is addressing the quality of the student experience by introducing a university-wide course design process, amongst other strategies. Through a process of backward mapping, learning outcomes, learning experiences and authentic assessment tasks are aligned with a set of graduate attributes comprising both industry and professional standards.
To address this cottage industry approach to course design and the risks it poses to course quality, universities need to consider institution-wide, systematic approaches to course design which place a ‘quality’ student experience at the core of the endeavor. Not only can a systematised approach address TEQSA requirements, it is assumed that it could also lift quality to positively impact the student experience.

4. The CSU Course Design Process
A process and a technology –CourseSpace- for a university-wide approach to course design and approval
Based around a course team approach of collaboration
a process of backward design of learning outcomes, authentic assessment tasks and learning experiences
aligned to TEQSA standards, graduate attributes comprising both industry and professional standards

5. collaboration Multi-disciplinary diversity Leadership AND teamship
Dispersed leadership
Shared goals and accountability
Friend & Cook (2013) : a collaborative style as having a number of defining characteristics including being multidisciplinary,
voluntary in nature; requiring parity among participants; being based on mutual goals; involving shared responsibility for participation and decision making; sharing resources; and sharing accountability
Problem solving occurs collaboratively, through the collective intelligence within a group, providing solutions that reflect the capacities of the group rather than an individual.

6. Backward design
Learning, evidenced in student output, is the focus of backward design.
Backward design systematically maps a clear pathway to specific and explicit learning goals, positioning a range of experiences and opportunities along the pathway to support learners to successfully complete assessment tasks that demonstrate achievement of the goals.
Students know where they are heading as they learn. The destination is always in mind and visible.
Backward design allows for layering, whereby student achievement at both subject and course level can be described

7. Identify desired results
Determine acceptable evidence
Plan learning experience and instruction

8. Constructive alignment Constructive alignment
Constructive alignment – from standards, products, assessments to subjects
Constructive alignment
Constructive alignment
Constructive alignment

9. Review of the Bachelor of Physiotherapy
Existing course outcomes aligned to the Physiotherapy professional standards
Subjects in the course were designed in relative isolation
Instability in the course team negatively impacted the process of subject review and development

10. Interdisciplinary collaboration for course review
Knowledge, skills and attributes required for an entry-level Physiotherapist

11. Interdisciplinary collaboration for course review
Graduate Learning Outcome Advisors
Knowledge, skills and attributes required for an entry-level Physiotherapist

12. One of the essential components of threshold competence for initial and continuing registration as a physiotherapist in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand is:
‘Consider each client as a whole, adopt client-centred and family/whānau focused (where relevant) approaches and prioritise cultural safety and cultural respect’.

13. Interdisciplinary collaboration is an important feature of this course review because it facilitates new perspectives on the knowledge, skills and attributes required for an entry-level physiotherapist

14. Team reflections on the course review process
Collaboration breaks down barriers which can be built around individual subjects
Academics became less protective about the subjects they coordinate
Collaboration with colleagues external to the physiotherapy course team enabled new perspectives on the course and constituent subjects
Every member of the course team contributed to constructive alignment of the individual parts to form the whole
Risks in the process are lack of dedicated time and subsequent modification of aligned assessment tasks

15. Thank you Assoc Prof Elizabeth Thomson ethomson@csu.edu.au
Dr Caroline Robinson