Reflection – Learning Launch- Curriculum and Syllabus Design    Challenge and Selection  As a member of the Curriculum and Syllabus Design committee and a member of Board of studies of  School of Computing for the past 20 years, I have come across many challenges in designing a  curriculum and framing syllabus especially in the dynamically changing field of Computer Science  and Engineering and its related domains. The first challenge comes from the industry requirements  of graduates with right and latest skills. The next challenge comes from the expanding opportunities  of higher studies abroad. Unless one has a curriculum to balance both sides it is tough to survive in  the education market as there are many private competitors who challenge with new avenues and  programmes.     The target for the entire process was fixed as three months, so that after little iteration we could  launch it from the next academic year.    The project scope includes launching new specialization programmes in upcoming fields, revamping  or updating the existing programme curriculum.    Considering the inexperience of faculty members who are going to be assigned the task as part of a  team, there are certain quick actions needed with regard to the entire workflow. The reason is that  mostly syllabus are framed by referring to curriculum of premier institutes and leading universities  abroad. This will not be competitive enough for the future students which in turn affect their career  scope. We need to apply learning launch tool in quickly testing an idea, in order to make our  curriculum and syllabus more competitive.    Application  As a First learning launch, we formed multiple teams in key domains consisting of senior professors,  middle level and junior faculty within the school. Each team had representations from other allied  departments, few bright students, alumni, an industry advisor and an academician from other  leading institutes. These teams were briefed about their smaller milestone targets for every week for  four weeks as given below, in order to identify the key terms in their domain.      a. Exploring the industry requirements and higher studies opportunities       b. Identifying the key terms from them and do a mapping of the requirements for those key terms.      c. Chart out the prerequisites and fundamentals needed to learn those key terms      d. Bring out a flow diagram with the list of subjects required to master that domain  The smaller milestones followed a Scrum model with daily short meetings within the team, review of  process and challenges, correcting or iterating them with a deadline of a week for each of the above  milestone. The external members participated either physically or through online.    After four weeks of brainstorming within the team, our Second learning launch was that each team  were asked to participate in cross domain presentations in series of workshops over a period of 10  days. The teams were asked to debate and learn, then to eliminate/co-create key terms again. The  entire agile process was more liked by the members as the curative environment made them more  participative and productive.    The teams were given again a week’s time to quickly have few meetings to fine tune those key terms  and also given the task of identifying which of those key terms will go as core and which can be  made as professional or open electives. A prototype document was prepared by each team for  circulating among members of the apex Curriculum and Syllabus committee with experienced faculty  in respective domains. The suggestions and improvements were recorded and the teams presented  their study before the apex committee. The curriculum for that specialization programme was  framed in the meeting with the following category of courses for each specialization programme.    Basic Sciences , Engineering Sciences, Humanities and Management, Professional Core, Professional Electives, Open  Electives, Multi-disciplinary Projects, Internships, MOOCs, Industry supported etc.

Insight and Approach  This whole exercise was planned and executed within three month timeline. As learned from the  members through informal chats and feedback, the entire journey was liked by most members  rather than the specific task which obviously is a collective behaviour. This literally shows how agile  methodology with smaller tasks in the form of learning launch could impact the inexperienced  member. Very interestingly few non interested members (initially) became more active and  participative after a week as there were tiny tasks. It is beautifully said by BJ Fogg in his book on  “Tiny Habits” that the anatomy of tiny habits are very simple three steps  a. Anchor moment,            b. New tiny behaviour,  c. Instant celebration. In fact learning launch tool is not only making non  participative member to learn, but also to enjoy and celebrate the task.     Finally we were able to bring out one of the best curriculum for many Engineering programmes with  specializations under the School of Computing in one and half months. The next one and half  months were devoted by the team following the same process in bringing out the syllabus for those  courses. This time they involved one industry expert and one academician (outside the organization)  for each of the course for syllabus framing. In this entire three months process, the team also  referred the standards and recommendations by various government bodies, accreditation  committee and international standardizations.     As a whole, the application of Design Thinking process in the Curriculum Design and Syllabus framing  has changed the perspectives and made the purpose more clear. Usually a boring and laborious task  has become more enthusiastic and participative.


Reflection – Learning Launch- Curriculum and Syllabus Design Challenge and Selection As a member of the Curriculum and Syllabus Design committee and a member of Board of studies of School of Computing for the past 20 years , I have come across many challenges in designing a curriculum and framing syllabus especially in the dynamically changing field of Computer Science and Engineering and its related domains . The first challenge comes from the industry requirements of graduates with right and latest skills . The next challenge comes from the expanding opportunities of higher studies abroad . Unless one has a curriculum to balance both sides it is tough to survive in the education market as there are many private competitors who challenge with new avenues and programmes . The target for the entire process was fixed as three months , so that after little iteration we could launch it from the next academic year . The project scope includes launching new specialization programmes in upcoming fields , revamping or updating the existing programme curriculum . Considering the inexperience of faculty members who are going to be assigned the task as part of a team , there are certain quick actions needed with regard to the entire workflow . The reason is that mostly syllabus are framed by referring to curriculum of premier institutes and leading universities abroad . This will not be competitive enough for the future students which in turn affect their career scope . We need to apply learning launch tool in quickly testing an idea , in order to make our curriculum and syllabus more competitive . Application As a First learning launch , we formed multiple teams in key domains consisting of senior professors , middle level and junior faculty within the school . Each team had representations from other allied departments , few bright students , alumni , an industry advisor and an academician from other leading institutes . These teams were briefed about their smaller milestone targets for every week for four weeks as given below , in order to identify the key terms in their domain . a. Exploring the industry requirements and higher studies opportunities b. Identifying the key terms from them and do a mapping of the requirements for those key terms . c. Chart out the prerequisites and fundamentals needed to learn those key terms d. Bring out a flow diagram with the list of subjects required to master that domain The smaller milestones followed a Scrum model with daily short meetings within the team , review of process and challenges , correcting or iterating them with a deadline of a week for each of the above milestone . The external members participated either physically or through online . After four weeks of brainstorming within the team , our Second learning launch was that each team were asked to participate in cross domain presentations in series of workshops over a period of 10 days . The teams were asked to debate and learn , then to eliminate / co - create key terms again . The entire agile process was more liked by the members as the curative environment made them more participative and productive . The teams were given again a week ’s time to quickly have few meetings to fine tune those key terms and also given the task of identifying which of those key terms will go as core and which can be made as professional or open electives . A prototype document was prepared by each team for circulating among members of the apex Curriculum and Syllabus committee with experienced faculty in respective domains . The suggestions and improvements were recorded and the teams presented their study before the apex committee . The curriculum for that specialization programme was framed in the meeting with the following category of courses for each specialization programme . Basic Sciences , Engineering Sciences , Humanities and Management , Professional Core , Professional Electives , Open Electives , Multi - disciplinary Projects , Internships , MOOCs , Industry supported etc . Insight and Approach This whole exercise was planned and executed within three month timeline . As learned from the members through informal chats and feedback , the entire journey was liked by most members rather than the specific task which obviously is a collective behaviour . This literally shows how agile methodology with smaller tasks in the form of learning launch could impact the inexperienced member . Very interestingly few non interested members ( initially ) became more active and participative after a week as there were tiny tasks . It is beautifully said by BJ Fogg in his book on “ Tiny Habits ” that the anatomy of tiny habits are very simple three steps a. Anchor moment , b. New tiny behaviour , c. Instant celebration . In fact learning launch tool is not only making non participative member to learn , but also to enjoy and celebrate the task . Finally we were able to bring out one of the best curriculum for many Engineering programmes with specializations under the School of Computing in one and half months . The next one and half months were devoted by the team following the same process in bringing out the syllabus for those courses . This time they involved one industry expert and one academician ( outside the organization ) for each of the course for syllabus framing . In this entire three months process , the team also referred the standards and recommendations by various government bodies , accreditation committee and international standardizations . As a whole , the application of Design Thinking process in the Curriculum Design and Syllabus framing has changed the perspectives and made the purpose more clear . Usually a boring and laborious task has become more enthusiastic and participative .