EDLC Education Development Lifecycle

Claims to test

Research agenda

The EDLC is a proposal. Each study below tests one of its core claims.

# Claim to test Proposed study Indicative measures
1 Early gates reduce rework Compare programs built with and without gated review Revision hours after each stage; defects found at validation
2 Writing assessment first improves alignment Expert alignment audits of assessment-first and content-first programs Share of outcomes with adequate evidence; unassessed content
3 Versioned releases let results be attributed Track outcome changes across successive releases of the same program Result changes linked to specific design changes
4 Observing delivery surfaces defects earlier Introduce item-level analytics in programs being delivered Time from defect to detection; defects found by data versus complaints
5 Curriculum debt can be measured and predicts problems Develop a debt index and test it against later incidents and audit findings Correlation between index and incidents
6 The model transfers across sectors Case studies in higher education, schools, corporate learning and self-directed courses Fit of stages and gates; adaptations required

Open questions

  • What is the smallest useful set of delivery signals for a provider with no learning-analytics capability?
  • Should a change request always re-enter at Architect (stage 3), or only at the earliest stage it affects? What triage rule decides?
  • How should programs that cluster several standards share assessment tasks without losing per-standard traceability?
  • Who should own a program across its lifecycle when design and delivery sit in different teams or organisations?
  • How can observation be designed to respect learner privacy and avoid becoming surveillance?

Known limits of this draft

The model has not yet been tested empirically. Its practitioner grounding is concentrated in one sector, Australian vocational education and training, and one jurisdiction. If you can help with either, see Contribute.