Abstract

The development of digital capabilities has received significant attention in higher education (HE) in recent years, with various attempts made to develop digital frameworks to support curriculum design. However, few studies have articulated these generic capabilities in terms of specific disciplines. This paper addresses the gap by exploring how digital capabilities are planned in HE curricula in two professional disciplines, engineering and management, at the two UK universities. Originality of the study is achieved in part through a newly proposed conceptual framework that weaves Shulman’s notion of signature pedagogies together with Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC)’s Digital Capability Framework (DigiCap). This study employed a multiple-case study methodology, drawing on documentary sources and academic, professional and student perspectives via interviews and focus groups. This study offers insight into the digital capabilities in engineering and management education, as well as the digital practices of engineers and managers. Findings report on which DigiCap elements are prioritised, and how, in the two professions, followed by a discussion of their most distinct ‘signature digital capabilities’. These indicate that the development of digital capabilities is aligned with the respective discipline’s signature pedagogies. This study argues that, simply just using a descriptive, typological framework is not sufficient to identify signature digital capabilities of a subject without tending to their disciplinary aspects. It is the combination of a typological DigiCap framework through the lens of signature pedagogies, which can be effective in identifying disciplinary digital capabilities. This approach is one of the major outcomes of this study.

Highlights

  • In this paper, digital capabilities are defined as those ‘which fit someone for living, learning and working in a digital society’ (JISC 2017b)

  • In addition to the detailed findings of engineering and management’s digital capabilities, this study argues that the research process is more important than the findings themselves in that it can produce itself in future years, as well as being appropriate to be used with other disciplines to arrive at their signature digital capabilities

  • This paper focuses on a sub-set of research questions: (1) How are digital capabilities conceptualised in modules of two disciplines? (1.1) What digital capabilities are planned by academic staff in intended learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, and assessment tasks? (1.2) What are the digital practices of engineers and managers?

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Digital capabilities are defined as those ‘which fit someone for living, learning and working in a digital society’ (JISC 2017b). If universities have a central role in developing professionals’ digital capabilities (Payton 2012; Sinclair 2013), higher education (HE) curriculum teams need to articulate what digital capabilities mean in their disciplinary contexts (Belshaw 2012; Warren 2011) to be able to design them into their course. This gap leads to the overarching research question of this paper: ‘How are digital capabilities conceptualised in different disciplines?’ and whether the research ­process designed for this investigation could be used to explore additional disciplines. This elicitation and co-construction process is one of the main outcomes of this study, in addition to identifying disciplinary digital capabilities in engineering and management, enhancing the plethora of typological frameworks in a way that makes them applicable to any disciplinary context

Literature review
Findings
Summary
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call