Curriculum Development Strategies Training Course

Participants can write measurable outcomes and use backward design to establish curriculum intent.

• Backward design starts with transfer goals before selecting learning content
• Programme aims translated into measurable graduate attributes and curriculum outcomes
• Bloom's revised taxonomy separates factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive learning
• Constructive alignment links outcomes, teaching methods, assessment and learning activities
• Outcome statements use observable verbs, conditions and acceptable performance criteria
• Threshold concepts identify troublesome knowledge requiring deliberate instructional sequencing

Participants can structure curriculum content into a coherent sequence with visible progression.

• Curriculum maps show progression, coverage, reinforcement and assessment of outcomes
• Vertical alignment sequences prerequisite knowledge from introductory through advanced units
• Horizontal alignment removes duplication between subjects taught during one period
• Credit and contact-hour calculations test workload against intended learning outcomes
• Scope-and-sequence matrices balance breadth, depth, pacing and cognitive demand
• Dependency analysis exposes bottlenecks between modules, placements and assessment points

Participants can design valid assessment systems that produce evidence of intended learning.

• Constructive alignment audit identifies mismatches between outcomes, activities and assessment evidence
• Assessment blueprints allocate marks against outcomes, cognitive levels and content domains
• Validity evidence examined through content coverage, response processes and consequences
• Reliability checks address marking consistency, sampling and scoring criteria
• Authentic assessment designs replicate workplace decisions, constraints and professional standards
• Rubrics define performance levels using observable criteria and quality descriptors

Participants can identify and reduce barriers to participation, learning and assessment.

• Universal Design for Learning offers multiple means of engagement, representation and action
• Accessibility reviews address readable formats, captions, colour contrast and assistive technology
• Equity impact analysis tests participation barriers, hidden assumptions and differential outcomes
• Culturally responsive content selection examines voice, examples, language and representation
• Reasonable adjustments distinguish essential requirements from avoidable assessment barriers
• Trauma-informed teaching principles support predictability, choice, safety and learner agency

Participants can select teaching approaches and learning activities suited to intended outcomes.

• Teaching strategy selection follows outcome type, cohort profile and resource limits
• Problem-based learning structures inquiry around ill-defined professional problems
• Case method design uses evidence packs, decision points and competing interests
• Scaffolding plans fade prompts as learners gain independent performance
• Microlearning segments complex content into purposeful, assessable learning units
• Learning activity briefs specify instructions, timing, grouping, materials and evidence

Participants can plan equivalent and accessible learning pathways across classroom and online delivery.

• Technology selection applies the SAMR model to intended learning improvements
• Learning management system structures support pacing, communication, resources and submissions
• Online and classroom pathways maintain equivalent outcomes and assessment standards
• Digital content standards address copyright, licensing, attribution and data protection
• Accessibility testing checks keyboard access, captions, headings and alternative text
• Academic integrity controls combine assessment design, source literacy and proportionate monitoring

Participants can establish curriculum review processes based on relevant evidence and decision rules.

• Curriculum review cycles combine scheduled monitoring with evidence-triggered revision
• Kirkpatrick evaluation levels distinguish reaction, learning, behaviour and results evidence
• Student feedback instruments separate teaching experience, workload and curriculum coherence
• Learning analytics identify progression risks, engagement patterns and achievement gaps
• External benchmarking compares outcomes, credit expectations and disciplinary standards
• Version control records rationale, approvals, implementation dates and superseded documents

Participants can plan and manage the controlled introduction of a revised curriculum.

• Implementation plans sequence approvals, staff preparation, pilots, communication and rollout
• Change impact assessments identify affected roles, processes, systems and materials
• Faculty development plans address subject knowledge, pedagogy and assessment calibration
• Resource models estimate staffing, facilities, technology, materials and development time
• Pilot criteria define success measures, feedback sources, decision gates and contingencies
• Risk registers assign owners, mitigations, triggers and review dates

Participants can produce a justified curriculum improvement plan for immediate workplace application.

• Curriculum design brief consolidates learner needs, constraints, outcomes and success measures
• Design decisions justified using evidence, alignment logic and stakeholder requirements
• Peer review protocols test clarity, feasibility, inclusion and assessment coherence
• Implementation roadmap prioritises actions, dependencies, owners and near-term milestones
• Evaluation plan selects indicators, collection methods, review points and decision rules
• Personal application commitments identify a live curriculum improvement within ninety days