Complete thesis - Murdoch University

in current practice, through the ‘levels of text’ assigned by publishers (and reviewers) of whatbecome the prescribed texts of the discipline. The influence of these is seen as significant,further suggesting that the alliance between academic authors and publishing editors appearsseminal in influencing the boundary decisions, at least at a competency level, withina discipline (Watson et al, 2002). The implication is that, in a nutshell, for the purpose ofcurriculum development (model or otherwise), levels of competence may be arbitrarily basedon such pragmatic considerations as the choice of prescribed text.Watson et al (2002) attempt a mapping between these disciplinary levels and Bloom’s taxonomyand, although neither generally acknowledged nor universally accepted, at least givessome indications (at a macro level) of an implicit correspondence:Level 1 – the expectation at this level is that students will engage with this introductorymaterial in a manner that asks them to comprehend the new knowledgeand be able to describe and explain itLevel 2 – the expectation at this level is that students will engage with this moreadvanced material in a manner that asks them to analyse the interrelationshipsbetween models, tools and contexts in particular situations and applythis understanding in more challenging situationsLevel 3 – the expectation at this level is that students will engage with this advancedmaterial in a manner that asks them to evaluate the interrelationships ofmodels, tools and contexts in particular situations and synthesis and designoriginal ways via their adapted models and tools to address such situations.[original emphasis](Watson et al, 2002, p 710)This mapping indicates some mismatch between what is espoused and what is assumedin the practice of teaching. While, almost unanimously, the model curricula and (wherecompetency levels are indicated) BoKs define undergraduate competency up to Bloom’s level3 - Application, Watson suggests this is within (his) level 2 material attainable in the secondyear of a (3 year) undergraduate programme. By the final year, students have engaged inhigher order thinking and competency levels, not mirrored in the Model Curricula and BoKs.Computing Curricula modelsThis first section looks at the classic model curricula for IT, all developed under the umbrellaof the Computing Curricula (CC) project (Shackelford, 2005). The subsequent section examines,albeit briefly, alternate approaches advocated. What is important is that these addressa perceived need to move away from CC.79