With WIP-II course requirements mostly coming from, and being delivered through COO, COO the CSI focus is now on subjects. This page (and it's children) are to document our analysis around subjects (whereas the analysis of courses is mostly in the COO workspace).
"Rationalise":
...
- Keith Bolland (Unlicensed) after the discussion with Ian I realise more input is required on subjects. I have put the task ico at the "ratioinalise" only as an indication of one decision point. Please lend some assistance and let Chrissi Dean (Unlicensed) know how we can best draw the core team in here. By
...
Challenging assumption
Background documents for WIP-II identified a statement that this project should "rationalise the subject listing for a web/online purpose". In treating this as an assumption (even before figuring out what was meant by "rationalise"?) I was unable to find any written record of why we need to rationalise. Further, there is good work on how this could be achieved (and even a proposed new and shorter subject list) but no compelling reason or driver for this to be an objective or aim for the subject domain. The three best reasons (and a response) are:
...
The argument to rationalise the subject list, if this means reduce, is underwhelmingHowevernot compelling. However, I believe it is always a good idea to ask stakeholders if their current subjects are working for them and their customers. In this context rationalise might be seen as "review" or "reflect".
Two authoritative sources
...
- Organised alphabetically by code to support the above purpose, but creating challenges finding an entry if you have a subject in mind.
- Historic, as in set at a point in time and slow to change. For evidence of this note the modern subjects that do not have a code (e.g.Ecology and Biodiversity)
- This could means that a modern subject has less print exposure than more established subjects
- Updated inconsistently, as in all schools are given the same opportunity to update content but not all respond with the same energy.
- Poor link back to the web, because we have not reconciled the differences very well.
...
Conclusions/Recommendations
I suggested that we:
- Ask schools if the subjects that they already have "approved" are the correct ones and update as we work with each school.We can posit ways to "rationalise" and listen to the feedback)Define subjects as (primarily) a marketing construct. As such it should be driven by the user needs, or at least the University's business needs around recruitment.
- Accept that there is an imperfect link to the subject list sourced from Banner and the major list for programmes. This means that we can live with differences and an imperfect mapping (if we have such requirements)
- Obtain student input into the subject listing and taxonomy (i.e. how we classify the areas or domains where we offer courses)
- Seek to understand the process by which a subject change (new one added, old one removed, or multiple combined/collapsed) is approved, especially the burden of proof or threshold that much be reached.
- With the aim of "inserting" Marketing in the process (check-list).
- Ask schools if the subjects that they already have "approved" are the correct ones and update as we work with each school.
- We can posit ways to "rationalise" and listen to the feedback)
- Take the sum of the subjects offered by each school as the subject listing.
- Explore better ways to use metadata/tags to cover concepts like alternative terms, related subjects, and recommendation systems.
- Ensure that the UI supports easy navigation.
- Refine search so that it is powerful, accurate and easy to use.
...