Curriculum Gaps of Bachelor’s Business Education in Universities of Bangladesh: An Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates about how does a bachelor’s business education curriculum experience different gaps which arise in different phases of curriculum design, development, and implementation process in some selected universities of Bangladesh. This study also proposes a curriculum gap model by defining the different types of curriculum and real-life curriculum gaps. This study conducts a sample questionnaire survey on 155 respondents selected from alumni, employers from different sectors, university faculty members, and students from Jagannath University, ASA University Bangladesh, Jahangirnagar University, University of Dhaka, Dhaka International University through personal contact and interview. Secondary data have been used for this study from different articles, publications, books, speeches in conferences and seminar classes, and from existing master’s and bachelor’s business education curriculum and websites of some selected universities including South China University of Technology, and The University of British Columbia, Canada. This study lists the top most important reasons, such as industry needs are different from university graduation curriculum, there is no connection among university, government, and industry, etc. In Bangladesh, there are no big research projects on industry development and/or business development funded by the companies, conducted by the university, and cooperated by the government. The curriculum gaps also arise while addressing the lessons in the class, there remains a lack of proper sources of information about real life job demand in the context of globalization. This study also lists the top most alternative solutions to minimize curriculum gaps, such as, there should be a thorough study about world-class standard curriculum of different top ranked universities in the world, and employment assessment tests format as per industry needs should be linked with the lessons of university graduation business curriculum, there should be connection among university, government, and industry, etc. This study also proposes a theory by mapping curriculum gap model. These findings and some general comments for improvement have implications to the users of curriculum and decision makers in education sector.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".