Agile Backward Design: Planning and Designing Higher Education Curriculum

and Teaching

Richard Dazeleya, Anitra Goriss-Hunterb*, Grant Meredithc, Peter

Sellingsd, Sally Firmine, Jenene Burkef ; and Barbie Pantherg.

a
School of Information Technology, Deakin University, Geelong 3220, Victoria,
Australia; bInstitute of Education, Arts and Community, Federation University, Ballarat
3353, Victoria, Australia; cGlobal Professional School, Federation University, Ballarat
3353 Victoria, Australia; dInstitute of Education, Arts and Community, Federation
University, Ballarat 3353, Victoria, Australia; eGlobal Professional School, Federation
University, Ballarat 3353, Victoria, Australia; fInstitute of Education, Arts and
Community, Federation University, Ballarat 3353, Victoria, Australia; g Teaching
Capability and Innovation, Deakin University, Burwood 312, Victoria, Australia.

*Dr Anitra Goriss-Hunter. Email: a.goriss-hunter@federation.edu.au

Agile Backward Design: Planning and Designing Higher Education Curriculum

and Teaching

Abstract

In the last two decades there has been an increase in research and discussion regarding

curriculum in Higher Education (HE). The literature in this field tends to focus on

curriculum change at either the whole institution or individual program or unit level.

Formal writing on HE curriculum also does not offer a framework that openly draws

upon context, learner needs, pedagogical approaches, and industry requirements to

formulate a collaborative model of curricular development. To fill these gaps in HE

curriculum discussion and literature, this paper will examine a new approach to

curricular design - a cross-disciplinary model applicable to both unit (academic module

that makes up a program) and program (degree) levels of curriculum development. This

model has been developed by drawing on elements of Agile mindset and Backward

Design and we call it Agile Backward Design (ABD).

In ABD, the researchers have constructed a dynamic, and responsive framework that

has been foundational in the design and development of innovative curriculum and

pedagogy at the unit and program level of undergraduate degrees in both IT and

education discipline areas. A case study approach is used to discuss the transformation

that was made at the program and unit level.

Keywords: higher education curriculum, Agile mindset, Backward Design

Introduction
In the last two decades there has been a marked increase in research and discussion

regarding Higher Education (HE) curriculum (Hicks, 2018). This increased attention

has been in response to universities’ attempts to accommodate a range of sometimes

competing elements including government policies, institutional vision, diverse student

populations, academics’ pedagogical approaches and industry requirements.

Discussions of curriculum at tertiary level have tended to be contained within academic

staff dialogue, university policy and within official bodies like Academic Boards’ sub-

committees focused on curriculum. These factors lead to a lack of shared understanding

and language regarding curriculum and curricular development in academia (Fraser &

Bosanquet, 2006).

Much of the HE curriculum literature rests on a general definition of curriculum

as a process of developing engaging and purposeful learning opportunities for students.

This concept of curriculum perceives it as “the architecture of the body of knowledge,

skills and applications that students engage with across the entire suite of learning

activities and experiences” (USC, 2022). While this definition is useful for identifying

the education process or actions involved in curriculum creation, it does not fully

acknowledge the multi-layered nature of curriculum at whole-institution, program

(degree) and unit level. Each HE institution has its unique combination of internal and

external factors including student demographics, academics’ pedagogical approaches,

university, industry, and accreditation requirements as well as government policies that

influence curriculum development.

In this paper we move beyond generalised definitions of curriculum to be

cognizant of the complexities inherent in contemporary HE curriculum design. Being

mindful of this complexity, the authors define curriculum as a process in which content,
structure, context, institutional vision, and industry demand intersect in the development

of rich learning experiences and sequences for students.

Wiggins and McTighe’s (1998) concept of Backward Design and Biggs’ (2014)

notion of constructive alignment feature in a number of tertiary institutions’ curriculum

development plans and documents including Bournemouth University, (2022),

Federation University, (2022), and Waikato University, (2022). However, the authors

argue that these notions are more suited to HE curriculum development at the unit level

and do not have the capacity for encompassing the diverse elements of curriculum

design at the program1 and institution level. The authors contend that there is a lack of

discussion and literature focusing on HE curriculum design in a holistic way that

outlines a realistic, thorough, academic, and collaborative process that could be applied

in a range of different circumstances. Anecdotally, multi-level curriculum reform does

occur in tertiary institutions, but it tends to be ad hoc without a guiding methodology,

and it is not published. So, there is an absence within HE of a coherent and consistent

model that could be used for the development of curricula at the unit and program level.

To address the gap in HE curriculum discussion and literature concerning a

comprehensive and collaborative framework for the development of curriculum at

program and unit levels, this paper will describe and justify a new approach to

curriculum design that has been constructed by drawing on elements of Agile mindset

and Backward Design. The authors call this framework, Agile Backward Design (ABD).

The Backward Design component of the model enables a student-centred focus when

creating learning experiences and assessment at the unit level and the Agile mindset

1
Universities use different terminology regarding the specific components required to study a
full degree. In this paper we refer to an individual subject of study as a ‘unit’ and a
sequence of units forming a full degree as a ‘program'.
allows dynamic groups of different stakeholders to work iteratively together on large

projects including program development. The combination of these two approaches

produces a methodology that is dynamic and collaborative which, the authors argue, is

necessary to develop engaging curricula at both unit and program levels with the

incorporation of a range of contextual factors, pedagogical approaches, industry and

accreditation requirements.

To illustrate the approach, the ABD curriculum development framework was

used in a project of redesigning and re-developing curriculum and teaching approaches

that was embarked upon by the Information Technology (IT) faculty at a regional

Australian tertiary institution, Federation University. A case study method was used to

discuss the transformation that was made at the program and unit level.

In elucidating our approach to developing and implementing a broad-based HE

curriculum at program and unit levels, this paper is structured in several sections. After

the Literature Review and Methodology, the paper will describe the new model of

curriculum development created by the authors, Agile Backward Design. Then, the

case-study will provide an example of how this model was used in the curriculum

development process of an undergraduate IT program. The last section of the paper will

discuss some of the outcomes of the project.

Literature Review
The topic of HE curriculum has increasingly become a focus of investigation in formal

writing. Current research into curriculum at tertiary institutions tends to focus broadly

on the use of technology, curriculum mapping and internationalization (Gosper &

Ifenthaler, 2014; Spencer, Riddle & Knewstub, 2012; Zou, 2017). There are studies that

report on whole-institution curriculum renewal: James and McPhee, (2012) and Zou

(2017). While these reports address key issues in large scale curricula re-design, the
emphasis on curriculum development is usually focused on upper-level management

and does not have a collaborative focus that the authors of this paper argue is required

to achieve curriculum change that encompasses the variety of elements that have been

identified as being important in the development process (Oliver & de St Jorre, 2018).

Various studies focus on curriculum re-development at either the program or

unit levels of universities (Hicks, 2018; Tran, Le & Nguyen, 2014; Walker & Bedford,

2017). These studies usually refer to professional degrees and the construction of new

units or the re-development of existing units to incorporate specific issues like blended

learning or technological resources (Hicks, 2018). While these papers are useful to

record curriculum change, they generally do not provide a detailed analysis of the actual

processes, discussions, participant involvement and results of the work conducted on

curriculum development. Regarding curriculum development at the program level,

Hicks states “It appears that curricula are reviewed largely on an ad hoc basis …

Research documenting and analysing just what occurs with respect to program curricula

would be enlightening” (2018, p. 17).

The curriculum re-development approach reported in this paper, Agile

Backward Design (ABD), moves towards filling the gap that Hicks identified in their

comments. Agile principles of collaboration and iterative progress have been used in

teaching and curriculum development in tertiary institutions (Pope-Ruark, 2017) in the

form of Scrum meetings where teams set goals, work together, and reflect on progress

with the aim of continual improvement. In this paper, the researchers have constructed

an original model to develop curriculum and pedagogy at macro (whole program) and

micro (unit) levels. This novel approach draws on elements of two well-known

methodologies: the Backward Design approach to curriculum design and the Agile
mindset as used in software development. How these two different approaches have

been brought together in our new model will be discussed in the following sections.

Backward Design
Curriculum can be designed by educators in many ways and can consider a range of

factors including the desired curriculum and learner needs. Wiggins and McTighe

(1998, 2011) explain that one way to design curriculum is by using a Backward Design

process. This backward design process, shown in Figure 1, has three stages known as

‘identify desired results’, ‘determine acceptable evidence’ and ‘plan learning

experiences and instruction’ (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998, p. 3) and can be used to

design units of work. The first stage of identification requires the curriculum designer to

decide what the students should be able to demonstrate at the conclusion of the learning

which is critical to determine what they know and understand (Wiggins & McTighe,

1998). Stage two determines what evidence is required to show achievement of the

learning objectives identified in stage one. This is achieved through a range of

assessment tasks. Wiggins and McTighe (1998) also highlight the importance of using a

range of assessment techniques to collect the evidence of learning. The final stage is to

plan learning activities, where designers need to examine knowledge, skills, possible

teaching methods, activities and resources that can be used to best enable students to

gain the skills and knowledge needed for success (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998).

Figure 1: Backward Design.

There are many studies into the benefits of Backward Design of curriculum. Shumway

and Berrett (2004), explored the use of Backward Design with undergraduate students,

indicating that the concept of Backward Design was one that worked well. While using

this Backward Design process, Shumway and Berrett (2004) suggested modifications to

Wiggins and McTighe’s (1998) three stage approach through exploration beyond stage

three. Shumway and Berrett (2004) recommended that an enrichment stage was needed

as a stage four to add other appropriate standards to the curriculum documentation.

There are many clear benefits to the use of Backward Design (Fox & Doherty,

2012) however, there are also challenges and limitations. In the processes of Backward

Design, curriculum developers can become too focused on details and attempt to

include material that is beyond the scope of the unit (Michael & Libarkin, 2016).

Although Backward Design is an effective method for planning units or lessons, the

process does not account for the broader contexts of program and institution that the

unit sits within including student needs, market requirements for attracting students and

industry requirements.

To construct a model for developing HE curriculum at both program and unit

levels, the researchers added to the Backward Design method by combining it with an

Agile mindset. The Agile approach to curriculum development in HE complements

Backward Design as it brings a dynamic and responsive way of working with diverse

groups to ensure that a range of requirements are met through a collaborative process.

Agile Mindset
The term ‘Agile’ is an acronym for ‘Align, Get-set, Iterate and implement, Leverage

and Evaluate’ and has been often associated with software development (Nogeura et al.,

2018). In this field, ‘Agile’ refers to fluid, iterative and collaborative processes. Beck et

al. (2001) produced what have become key values and principles of software design in
The Manifesto for Software Development (Scrum Alliance, 2022). These foundational

elements of Agile methods include the use of collaborative team environments, where

software is constructed through feedback, reflection, stakeholder involvement and

incremental and iterative testing and development. The Agile method or mindset also

uses a framework to manage work known as a Scrum that involves processes and roles

and relies on ‘sprints’ or ‘iterations’ - short periods of time in which goals can be

achieved. This process of iterative development promotes analysis, experimenting and

learning (Ozkan, Gök, & Köse, 2020).

Academics assert that the use of Agile methods in HE teaching approaches

promotes team diversity, collaboration, goal-setting, communication, accountability,

problem-solving capabilities and the ability to apply new knowledge to rapidly

changing situations (Lang, 2017; Noguera et al, 2018; Pope-Ruark, 2017). Agile

approaches have been found to assist students to learn efficiently (Putra, Ferdiana, &

Hartanto, 2019) and to promote the application of knowledge to real life situations

(Lang, 2017). The provision of continuous and instantaneous feedback was found to

increase student engagement and learning (Gary & Xavier, 2015). Agile methods also

facilitate the development and sharing of collective knowledge through the adoption of

collaborative learning environments (Noguera et al, 2018).

Some of the suggested disadvantages of an agile learning approach include an

increased teaching workload; a greater chance of students falling behind; and, an overall

slower learning process. A study by Cubric (2008) found teachers reported a heavy

workload in the form of bi-weekly feedback when utilising an agile learning and

teaching approach. Lang (2017) stated that students reported feeling pressure to keep up

with weekly tasks.

Agile Backward Design
While general curricula development approaches like Backward Design and Agile

Learning are well-used in HE, these frameworks are not able to be directly applied

without adjustment for institutional, industry and degree requirements. To address this

problem and fill the gap in curricula frameworks, the researchers have combined aspects

of Agile methods including a Scrum based iterative process, collaboration, and small

team work as well as elements of Backward Design in terms of planning outcomes

before assessment and learning activities to create a new curriculum development model

called Agile Backward Design (ABD), which is illustrated in Figure 2. The

combination of these elements enabled the development of a reflexive and flexible

methodology that is transferable and adaptable as it can be used to construct and

articulate goals, learning objectives, success criteria and assessment regimes for

individual units or entire degree programs.

Figure 2: The Agile Backward Design (ABD) model draws on stakeholder inputs and is comprised of three backward
design cycles with iterative phases where participants collaborate to create, examine and refine curriculum and
pedagogy.

At its core, ABD aims to move away from the isolated development of individual units

and ensure units and the program as a whole are developed using a coordinated and

reflective approach. The model requires close collaboration between stakeholders and

their respective requirements, such as industry/government needs, accreditation

requirements, student interests, staff specialisations, university marketing and

community expectations. Using these collaborations, the model consists of three

backward design cycles (C1-C3), each of which are underpinned by Agile principles:
 C1. Identify desired results. Program and unit learning outcomes are established to

identify what students are required to understand, know, and do. The

identification of learning outcomes at the sequence and unit levels makes it

possible to ensure that the final sequence outcomes are fully scaffolded

throughout the unit.

C2. Determine acceptable evidence. Assessment tasks are designed and developed

to enable students to demonstrate their understanding and knowledge relevant

to the key learning goals stated in cycle 1. Coordinating the development of

engaging assessment within units and across programs also ensures learning

outcomes of both the program and individual units are robustly addressed.

C3. Plan learning experiences and instruction. Learning activities are developed

that scaffold students’ understanding, knowledge and skills and engage them in

learning. This process leads to the desired results determined in cycle 1. Using

a team-based development approach ensures key learning concepts are fully

integrated and scaffolded over the unit sequences.

The three backward design cycles included the following structure and iterative phases

incorporating Agile principles:

C1. Identify Desired Results

 Plan: Learning outcomes are identified for the whole program. This is

undertaken by the program’s entire teaching team to ensure full buy-in from

staff. These outcomes should align to industry expectations and requirements.

 Design: Unit sequences are identified for each of the learning outcomes and

staff teams are organised to work on each sequence. Each team ensures that

learning is scaffolded throughout the unit sequence to achieve the learning

outcomes.
  Develop: This phase is specifically focused on ensuring well formulated

learning outcomes. Draft unit documentation is prepared providing details

required by the university, such as unit names, descriptions, and learning

outcomes.

 Evaluate: These first drafts are evaluated initially by the unit sequence team to

ensure the final learning outcomes required of the unit sequence are achieved

and are well-scaffolded throughout. They are subsequently evaluated by the

whole program design team and stakeholders to ensure unit sequences align and

fit the program structure.

 Progress: This evaluative process may reveal shortcomings in the previously

developed plan, design or developed units, resulting in the revisiting of certain

phases. If the evaluation stage satisfies all stakeholder needs, then the process

can progress to determine acceptable evidence.

C2. Determine acceptable evidence:

 Plan: With agreement on the learning outcomes, the unit sequence teams

determine what evidence is required by students to illustrate their achievement

of the learning outcomes. Teams identify all types of evidence required (essay,

exam, problem solving task, analytical argument, oral presentation) and then

determine where the assessment task is best placed. The aim is to ensure a wide

range of assessment experiences throughout unit sequences and to avoid all units

using similar assessment, as is commonly the result when units are developed in

isolation.

 Design: Unit designers form new Scrum meetings to ensure assessments are

appropriately scheduled throughout units and programs to minimise student

 overload. The aim is to facilitate the cross-pollination of ideas and learning

across units, thus promoting deeper learning, and understanding.

 Develop: Unit documentation, started in C1, is completed with details of

assessments for each unit ensuring it includes key details about how assessments

may work across units.

 Evaluate: These final unit drafts and their complete assessments are evaluated,

first by designers of different units, secondly by the unit sequence team and

finally by the program team. Each evaluation ensures that the assessments meet

the requirements of the unit and the unit sequences. Drafts of these final

assessments are discussed with relevant stakeholders to ensure the evidence

provided by the students meets their expectations.

 Progress: This evaluation may reveal shortcomings in the previously developed

plan, design or developed units, resulting in certain stages or the complete cycle

being revisited. If the evaluation stage satisfies all stakeholder needs, then the

process can progress to the planning of learning experiences and teaching

approaches.

C3. Plan learning experiences and instruction:

 Plan: With unit learning outcomes and assessments fully determined, unit

designers plan the learning experiences required for students to achieve the

learning outcomes. The aim is to ensure learning opportunities not only scaffold

learning but also map out a diverse range of learning opportunities to maintain

student engagement.

 Design: With the learning experiences mapped out, unit designers can flesh-out

details of each of these activities.

  Develop: Unit materials and lesson plans are developed for each unit with

repeated Scrum meetings to maintain the ABD approach across units.

 Evaluate: Materials developed are examined to ensure alignment of outcomes,

assessment and learning activities. These final documents are showcased to the

unit sequence teams, program design team and stakeholders.

 Launch: Once the program and units are complete it is expected that the typical

university review process will occur over the life-cycle of the program delivery.

It is recommended that this review includes all stakeholders to ensure units do

not drift from the original design.

The ABD process differs from standard consultation procedures as industry and

students are closely involved in the entire process with feedback from these

stakeholders being discussed in meetings and integrated into potential solutions.

Method
This paper adopts a case study methodology to investigate and report on the broad-

based curriculum design process that resulted in a re-designed IT degree. Yin (2012)

recommends that, as an empirical inquiry, the scope of case study design is to

investigate a “contemporary phenomenon” (case) “in depth and within its real world

context” (p. 16) particularly when the phenomenon and context have unclear

boundaries. According to Yin, defining the unit of analysis (the case) is vital in case

study research. Cases can be bounded by various combinations of factors (Miles &

Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2012) to control the scope of the research. Regarding the features

of a case study, Yin (2012) stresses the importance of in-depth inquiry of the

phenomenon under inquiry (the case), the triangulation of evidence, and the need to

have “more variables of interest than data points’ (p. 24). In this paper, the process of

curriculum re-design is described within the specific context of a Higher Education

Information Technology degree and within the defined time-period from the beginning

of the design process to the first offering of the degree. These two factors (process and

context) that bound this case in time and must be considered in tandem, will be

examined in this paper.

Case Study: IT Discipline

The ABD model was employed in the design and development of a new undergraduate

IT degree. At the time, the University had engaged in two significant restructures in as

many years, and staff showed signs of being resistant to change. Staff, however, were

aware of the challenges and progression issues associated within the existing program.

To achieve both a bottom-up staff-lead development while maintaining a level of top-

down strategic influence the department developed and used the ABD model, repeating

cycles using a Scrum framework with regular sprint meetings.

Stakeholders
Throughout the ABD process a diverse range of stakeholders needed to be considered

and included through each sprint cycle:

 Students: The student population at the regional university in this case study

comprised a mix of high achieving, overseas [35% (Good Universities Guide,

2020)], first-in-family, rural/regional and low SES students [29% (Devlin &

McKay, 2017)]. It is noted that attrition rates for first-in-family, low SES, rural

and regional students can be high (Devlin & McKay, 2017). While overseas

students have lower attrition rates, they were increasing up to 9.4% in 2016

(Parliament of Australia, 2022). Student representatives involved in the learning

and teaching committee were directly involved as stakeholders in the

development process.
  IT industry: An essential component of the program is that graduates attain the

knowledge, skills and experience required to gain employment in industry. The

faculty had developed an extensive IT Industry Advisory Group (ITIAG), which

was directly involved in all Scrum cycles. ITIAG includes representatives from

a wide range of IT disciplines.

 Australian Computer Society (ACS): Accreditation is essential, and the panel

had expressed concerns about many issues in the prior program design including

high student attrition rates. Faculty leadership, with deep understanding of ACS

accreditation requirements, were directly involved in all stages of ABD to

ensure these were met.

 Staff: The expertise and interest of staff directly impacted on the direction of

development. Staff expertise included the following: big data and analytics,

business information systems, games development and digital media,

networking and security, mobile app development, cloud and enterprise

computing, and software development. Through collaboration in the design and

development processes, staff were able to feel a high level of ownership of the

resulting program.

 University: Faculty leadership were involved in all Scrum collaborations.

Leadership ensured that the design process was informed by strategies and

target areas determined by university and faculty objectives expressed in

vision/mission statements, policies, marketing, and graduate learning outcomes.

C1 – Identify Desired Results

The aim in the first stage was to clearly identify the learning outcomes that were

required for students to graduate with the knowledge, skills and experience to gain

employment in the IT industry.

C1 Planning - Identifying Career Roles: The first stage of the development process,

from Figure 2, was to determine what career roles were currently in demand within

industry so that curriculum planning could focus on the attainment of relevant skills and

knowledge. To do this the faculty utilized industry feedback combined with an IT

specific SFIA (Skills Framework for the Information Age), which we refer to as a SFIA

driven development process, as illustrated in Figure 3. While this framework is specific

to IT, any discipline can use their own approach to identifying career roles. The most

appropriate target career roles for students were carefully chosen in consultation with

stakeholders. The choices of career roles discussed in C1 were from sources such as the

ACS (2013), Queensland Government (2017) and Knosky, Miller, and Jones (2014) and

those identified by the ITIAG.

For the program core, the career role of Data Modeller was selected, which best

addressed all the faculty’s requirements. The ability to understand methods of data

storage, processing and analysing are key to almost all IT roles and therefore the skills

covered in the core would be relevant to all specializations. From our discussions with

the ITIAG it was clear, that along with problem solving, skills for a data modeller

underpinned current needs as well as expected future skill requirements. Furthermore, it

allowed us to have a career role that did not put programming at its core and so was

more appealing to our students. The skills required by the Data Modeller role also

supported career roles that were identified for potential major sequences, such as:

software developer, mobile developer, network analyst, cloud developer, games

developer, business analyst.

Figure 3: SFIA driven development process identifies the overall career roles which identifies the general skills
required. These skills however also help identify the appropriate career roles – hence the bidirectional arrow. These
skills are mapped into unit structures so they can be scaffolded over time.

C1 Design – Skills and Knowledge mappings: The second stage of this utilization of the

SFIA driven framework, Figure 3, with feedback from industry, was carried out in the

C1 Design cycle, Figure 2. Faculty drew on staff and ITIAG expertise and used SFIA

as a starting point when considering the recommended skills for the career role and

whether they addressed industry needs.

At this stage faculty decided the streams of learning required to address the

various SFIA skills identified. For each stream the faculty formulated unit sequence

teams, which the school referred to as Sub-Discipline Groups (SDGs). These groups

worked in sprint meetings to ensure that the recommended skills were appropriate for

students to study and staff had relevant expertise. The teams identified what unit

sequences scaffolded the development of required skills. SDGs then refined these

structures through a series of Scrum meetings combined with discussions with

stakeholders until all unit sequences were developed into a workable program structure.

C1 Develop – Unit Structures: With program and unit structures developed, unit

documentation could be developed. SDGs developed the required learning outcomes for

their unit that addressed the skill requirements recognised in earlier stages. SDGs

identified overlap or gaps in the scaffolding of learning outcomes throughout unit

sequences.

C1 Evaluation: SDGs met with stakeholders to ensure the development was still

addressing their expectations. Gaps were identified in the outcomes and so previous

cycles were revisited until stakeholders were satisfied. The outcome of this stage was a

full suite of unit documentation identifying the respective learning outcomes of each

unit.
C2 - Determine acceptable evidence
Working with ITIAG and student stakeholders it became evident that when developing

assessments and learning activities it was important to introduce topics within the

context of their application to solving real-world problems. Anecdotally, an industry

focus is well established as attractive to overseas students and it was felt that this focus

would allow us to engage low-SES and first-in-family students, while also providing a

unique perspective to the background knowledge high-achieving students may already

have, and hence, ensure all students were engaged by introductory material in the first

year of the degree. This industry-focused approach became the basis of all thinking

through this cycle.

C2 Planning: Once again, the faculty used the iterative process involving SDGs in

general Sprint meetings to determine the structure of the program. This was achieved by

working through the four stages of C2 where SDGs planned a varied range of industry-

focused assessments. Similarly, SDGs ensured all assessments were relevant and

purposeful and required skills were assessed at the appropriate standard.

C2 Design/Development/Evaluation: Moving away from a traditional approach where

units are developed in isolation, individual unit development teams were formed from

SDGs and each unit was assigned a lead developer with two support developers. This

enabled the design of assessments that were constructed to align with industry issues

and a wide range of industry-related experiences were provided. Unit documentation

was prepared detailing the final assessments and presented to SDGs and stakeholders to

be evaluated. This evaluation was done iteratively during the design and development

phases allowing stakeholder input to ensure unit assessment remained aligned to

requirements.
C3 - Plan learning experiences and instruction
In C3, the focus was on finalising program and unit design through the development of

engaging and authentic learning activities tailored to the specific student cohorts present

at the university. Drawing on their knowledge of student cohorts at the university,

academics developed learning activities that were designed to be engaging for a diverse

range of learners. As a result of this focus on engaging diverse learners, academics

shifted from using conventional classroom activities within a linear curriculum to

scaffolding student understanding and thinking using authentic learning activities within

a cohesive and interlinking curriculum at both the unit and program level.

To accomplish the design of authentic activities to promote student learning, the

unit development teams regularly presented learning activities to other members of the

SDG and stakeholders to ensure alignment of units to stakeholder needs and the

University’s own graduate attributes. Cycles could be re-visited until satisfactory

completion at program and unit levels allowed it to be launched. SDGs evaluated the

curriculum designs and presented them to the broader IT discipline for final approval.

Discussion/Outcomes
The ABD approach differs from more conventional curriculum and pedagogical

development processes that focus on content. It aligned with the top-down SFIA driven

approach used at the program level and worked well with the faculty focus of delivering

context-based learning experiences, rather than the previously employed traditional

approaches. In this section we will briefly review some successful outcomes and

identify some of the issues that arose from using the ABD approach.
Successful outcomes
Significant outcomes included the sense of ownership staff reported experiencing

during the program’s development which was expressed in staff forums. The faculty

had just undergone two restructures, staff were change-weary and initially reluctant to

consider a major development project. However, the ABD model encouraged continual

collegial interaction where staff experience, values and ideas were fundamental to

project development. Thus, staff were enabled to enjoy a significant level of agency in

driving the curriculum development project which fostered a high degree of motivation

to achieve innovative outcomes and best practice. The process also allowed faculty to

set boundaries on the inclusion of skills and topics which ensured that the identified

focus was maintained without the direct imposition of rules.

In contrast to traditional program design, ABD facilitated a focus on industry

involvement which is highlighted by ITIAG’s collaboration. From ITIAG’s

involvement, Work Integrated Learning (WIL) was incorporated in every semester of

the program through zero credit point units. These Professional Engagement units

required students to demonstrate active engagement in the IT field and to illustrate

through a portfolio how their studies directly related to industry. Students decided the

nature of their engagement with IT and this typically included attendance at industry

expos, seminars, recruitment events, international webinars, visiting workplaces, and

interviews with industry professionals. The combination of student driven WIL,

authentic unit assessments, industry placements, and industry capstones, created a

complete suite of industry preparation opportunities for students. This approach enabled

students to contextualise their learning and to connect theory with industry practice.

This feature was later commended in the following ACS accreditation.

ABD also facilitated the development of unit structures, authentic assessments

and active learning approaches that focused on solving real-world problems and tasks.
This approach inevitably led to conceptualising units from holistic and industry-based

perspectives rather than focusing on individual skill development. Rather than a

traditional approach of teaching discrete units of programming, databases, hardware,

and networking, first year units developed with ABD constituted ethical hacking, game

development, big data analytics, and app development. By framing learning within

industry contexts, students learnt relevant knowledge and skills as they explored

broader topics. For example, when engaged with the industry problem of ethical

hacking, students learned about network protocols when they were working out how to

hack a website.

The collaborative approach to unit development in the second and third stages of

ABD significantly assisted with a range of issues including: cooperative sharing of

ideas; staff understanding of the context of topics and skills in the whole program; the

development of integrated assessments; and, peer enhancement of staff teaching

approaches and curriculum design. For example, instead of a discrete introductory

programming unit, programming skills were developed throughout first-year units

within industry-focused activities. For example, students practised complex problem

solving on a range of industry-based problems including experiencing assemble

programming when extracting data from small sensors; writing shell scripts to setup a

network server; using python code to analyse large amounts of data; using graphical

programming to develop an app; and, using object-oriented event driven code with

Javascript to implement complex character responses when developing a game. By the

end of first year, students had completed enough programming across all units to

progress to advanced units.

The integration of programming into core first-year courses rather than being

contained in a single unit was also important for student retention and attraction.
Student feedback from low SES, first-in-family and overseas students has indicated that

they were concerned about enrolling in programming units. Discrete programming units

have also been identified in student feedback as a block to female students entering IT.

Thus, the embedding programming elements in first year courses was another ABD-

enabled approach that sought to attract students who might not have considered

studying IT and also to improve student retention.

Issues identified

Firstly, the ABD approach was applied to the full development of a new program. There

would be significant limitations with the redevelopment of an existing program where

certain components are to be retained. Secondly, the ABD approach was time

consuming and required a significant investment from staff. Our approach of assigning

three staff to each first-year unit with the lead being awarded twice the normal unit

development workload was a significant financial commitment to ensure units were as

innovative as possible. The ABD model is also highly reliant on the significant

commitment of stakeholders. We went into this process with an existing large and

dedicated industry advisory group.

Conclusion
This paper reported a new approach to constructing and framing HE curriculum by

combining elements of Agile mindset and the Backward Design method of curriculum

development that we called Agile Backward Design (ABD). The authors created this

model to enable curriculum development that meets the needs of diverse learners,

academic pedagogical approaches, and industry requirements. The melding of Agile and

Backward Design processes in the Agile Backward Design methodology created an

iterative, dynamic, and collaborative approach to curriculum design and pedagogy that

embedded diversity and authentic learning opportunities at both unit and program level.

A case study approach was employed to interrogate the context and process that

enabled a collaborative and reflective re-designing of curriculum to transform the IT

degree from a linear framework to a dispersed model where ‘big picture’ and higher-

order thinking was embraced from first year onwards. The development of the new

curriculum design was intended to engage diverse learners and ensure that students

gained an understanding of the many different IT domains so that they could make

informed choices about future areas of employment in the industry.

Areas of future investigation for the research team look towards two main areas.

The researchers need to ascertain whether the intended aims of the project were met

regarding curriculum design and teaching approaches. Also, the researchers argue that

as this model combines the flexible, iterative and collaborative nature of Agile mindset

with the reflective and student-centred approach of Backward Design, the ABD model

could be adopted and adapted by a range of academics engaging in curriculum design

both within and outside the IT discipline area. Thus, we argue that our research has

significant implications for academics in tertiary institutions engaged in curriculum

design and the development of pedagogical approaches on a global scale.

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

References
ACS. (2013). Common ICT Job Profiles & Indicators of Skills Mobility: ICT Skills

White Paper. Australian Computer Society.

Beck, K., Beedle, M.A., Bennekum, A.V., Cockburn, A, Cunningham, W., Fowler, M.,

Grenning, J., Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick, B., Martin,
 R.C, Mellor, S., Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J. & Thomas, D.A. (2001). The Agile

Manifesto. Agile Alliance. http://agilemanifesto.org/

Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of

Higher Education, 1, 5-22.

Bournemouth University. (2022). What we mean by curriculum mapping.

www.bournemouth.ac.uk/about/our-people/centre-fusion-learning-innovation-

excellence/innovative-pedagogy-assessment/co-creating-assessment/what-we-

mean-backward-design

Cubric, M. (2008, September). Agile learning & teaching with wikis: building a pattern.

In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Wikis (pp. 1-2).

Devlin, M. & McKay, J. (2017). Facilitating Success for Students from Low

Socioeconomic Status Backgrounds at Regional Universities. Higher Education

Participation and Partnerships Program National Priorities Pool Ballarat. Victoria:

Federation University Australia.

Federation University Australia. (2022). Curriculum Design Mapping.

https://federation.edu.au/staff/learning-and-teaching/curriculum-quality/tertiary-

education-standards/curriculum-design-mapping

Fox, B. E., & Doherty, J. J. (2012). Design to learn, learn to design: Using backward

design for information literacy instruction. Communications in Information

Literacy, 5(2), 144-155. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2012.5.2.109

Fraser, S. P., & Bosanquet, A. M. (2006). The curriculum? That’s just a unit outline,

isn’t it? Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), pp. 269–284.

Gary, K., & Xavier, S. (2015). Agile learning through continuous assessment. In IEEE

Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.

Good Universities Guide (2020). Federation University Australia Rankings.

https://www.gooduniversitiesguide.com.au/education-blogs/rankings-

ratings/federation-university-australia

Gosper, M., & Ifenthaler, D. (2014). Curriculum design for the Twenty-First Century.

In M. Gosper, & D. Ifenthaler (Eds.) Curriculum models for the 21st Century:

Using technologies in higher education (pp1-14). Springer.

Hicks, O. (2018). Curriculum in higher education: Confusion, complexity and currency.

HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 5, pp.5-30.

James, R. & McPhee, P. (2012). Chapter 10. Case study: The whole-of institution

curriculum renewal undertaken by the University of Melbourne, 2005-2011. In

P. Blackmore & C. B. Kandiko (Eds.), Strategic curriculum change: Global

trends in universities. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12006

Knosky, B. R., Miller, C., & Jones, A. (2014). Assessing the work readiness skills of

ICT Graduates, Australian Council of Deans of Information and Communications

Technology (ACDICT).

Lang, G. (2017). Agile learning: Sprinting through the semester. Information Systems

Education Journal, 15(3), 14-21.

Michael, N. A., & Libarkin, J. C. (2016). Understanding by Design: Mentored

Implementation of Backward Design Methodology at the University Level.

Bioscene: Journal of College Biology Teaching, 42(2), pp44-52.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

source book (2nd ed.). Sage.

Noguera, I., Guerrero-Roldan, A., & Maso, R. (2018). Collaborative agile learning in

online environment: Strategies for improving team regulation and project

management. Computers & Education, 116, 110-129.

Oliver, B., & de St Jorre, T.J. (2018) Graduate attributes for 2020 and beyond:

Recommendations for Australian higher education providers, Higher Education

Research & Development, 37(4), 821-836.

https://doi.org.10.1080/07294360.2018.1446415

Ozkan, N., Gök, M. S., & Köse, B. O. (2020). Towards a Better Understanding of Agile

Mindset by Using Principles of Agile Methods. 2020 15th Conference on

Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), pp. 721-730.

https://doi.org/10.15439/2020F46.

Parliament of Australia. (2022). Overseas students in Australian higher education: a

quick guide.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamen

tary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2021/Quick_Guides/OverseasStudents

Pope-Ruark, R. (2017). Agile Faculty: Practical strategies for managing research,

service, and teaching. The University of Chicago Press.

Putra, E., Ferdiana, R., & Hartanto, R. (2019). Start-up learning path (SLP): A learning

model for start-up employees using agile learning approach. Journal of Physics,

1339, 1-9.

Queensland Government (2017). ICT career streams, Queensland Government Chief

Information Office, ICT career streams diagram, Queensland Government

Enterprise Architecture. https://www.qgcio.qld.gov.au/

Scrum Alliance. (2022). The Key Values and Principles of the Agile Manifesto.

https://resources.scrumalliance.org/Article/key-values-principles-agile-manifesto

Shumway, S., & Berrett, J. (2004). Standards-based curriculum development for pre-

service and in-service: A “partnering” approach using modified backwards design.

The Technology Teacher, 64(3), 26-29.

 https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=ncete

_publications

SFIA (Skills framework for the information age, Version 6). (2016). https://www.sfia-

online.org/

Spencer, D., Riddle., M., & B. Knewstubb. (2012). Curriculum mapping to embed

graduate capabilities. Higher Education Research & Development, 31 (2), 217-

231.

Tran, L., Le, T., & Nguyen, N. T. (2014). Curriculum and pedagogy. In Tran, L.,

Marginson, S., Do, H., Le., T., Nguyen, N.T., Vu, T., & Pham, T. Higher

Education in Vietnam: Flexibility, mobility and practicality in the global

knowledge economy. Palgrave Macmillan.

University of the Sunshine Coast (USC). (2022). Coursework Curriculum Design

Procedures. https://www.usc.edu.au/about/policies-and-procedures/coursework-

curriculum-design-procedures

Waikato University. (2022) Curriculum development and course design.

https://www.waikato.ac.nz/teaching-and-learning/teaching-

development/teaching-resources/course-and-curriculum-design

Walker, R.G. & Bedford, S.B. (Eds.), Research and Development in Higher Education

Curriculum Transformation, 40, Sydney, Australia, 27-30 June 2017.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J., (1998). Understanding by design. ASCD.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J., (2011) Understanding by design guide to advanced

concepts in creating and reviewing units. ASCD.

Yin, R. K. (2012). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.

Zou, T. X. P. (2017). International curriculum in practice: A pilot study of the Common

Core Curriculum in a Hong Kong University. In R.G. Walker & S.B. Bedford
(Eds.). Research and Development in Higher Education: Curriculum

Transformation, 40, pp.445-455). Sydney, Australia, 27-30 June 2017.