The document discusses the past, present, and future of curriculum development. It notes that definitions of curriculum are varied and focus on content, experiences, objectives or processes. Curriculum of the past focused on discipline, control and standardization, while trends are challenging current approaches. Five key trends - personalized learning, mobile learning, open education, informal/social learning, and inclusion/diversity - present challenges around balancing standardization with personalization, sustainability with fast changing technologies, measuring informal learning, and ensuring equal access. The future of curriculum is envisioned as customized, collaborative, skills-focused, available anytime/anywhere, and open/democratic.

1. Curriculum:
PAst, PrEsent, FuTure
Angela Murphy
Australian Digital Futures Institute

2. Education institutions, particularly
higher education, are currently
undergoing significant changes…

3. From:
Learning
Independently

5. From:
Lectures and
notes

7. From:
Memorising
facts

9. • Understanding about the nature and expectations of learning are
changing, driven by trends such as educational technologies, shifts from
teacher to learner centred approaches and government pressure.
• In the backdrop of these challenges, new digital technologies are enabling
new methods of teaching and learning.
• The challenge for educators is to develop curriculums that do not simply
replicate formats from the past but are able to be sustainable and meet
the challenges of the future (Torrisi, 2002).

10. Curriculum of the past…..
It became a scientific truism to claim that the
field of curriculum studies is in a state of crisis
‐ an identity crisis.
(Paraskeva & Steinberg, 2012)

11. "A sequence of potential experiences is set up in
the school for the purpose of disciplining
children and youth in group ways of
thinking and acting.
This set of experiences is referred to as the
curriculum."
(Smith, et al., 1957)
…Discipline

12. "The planned and guided learning
experiences and intended outcomes, formulated
through the systematic reconstruction of knowledge
and experience, under the auspices of the school,
for the learner's continuous and wilful growth in
person-social competence."
(Tanner & Tanner, 1975)
…Planned and controlled

13. "The formal and informal content and
process by which learners gain knowledge
and understanding, develop skills, and alter
attitudes, appreciations and
values under the auspices of the school”
(Doll, 1996)
…Under direction

14. General capabilities in the
Australian Curriculum
A curriculum for the 21st century will
reflect an understanding and
acknowledgment of the changing
nature of young people as
learners and the challenges and
demands that will continue to
shape their learning in the
future.
(ACARA, 2009)
…Challenges and change

15. Needs of the learner
“Permanent” subjects Program of studies
Planned learning
Set of materials
Content
Curriculum Mapping
Subjects useful for Guidance of the school
Activities living
Responsibility of the school
Performance objectives
…Different things to different people

16. • Defining curriculum is problematic as definitions are not
philosophically or politically neutral and as educators
represent a diversity of values and experience it is
difficult to obtain consensus (Yeung, 2012).
• One theme is consistent, there is no straightforward definition.

17. Lunenburg (2011) grouped these definitions into five categories:
Content or
subject matter
Formal course of study
Totality of
Behavioural experience
objectives How subject matter is
Expected learning learned or the process
outcomes of instruction
Plan for
instruction Nontechnical
System for developing, Philosophical, social,
implementing and and personal approach
evaluation
…The first four are all focused on planning and control

18. A number of trends are pressing educational
boundaries even further and will impact extensively on
the curriculum development principles of the present and
of the future.

19. 5 trends are currently
challenging curriculum
development in the present

21. The challenge to current mindsets:
• Personalised learning tailors learning to an individuals learning
objectives and personal needs, skills and preferences (Crick,
2009).
• Learning is self-directed, occurs within a social setting and is
extended over the life path.
• The move towards offering personalised learning experiences will
require breaking of existing mould and challenging standardisation
of learning experiences (Keamy et al., 2007).
• The challenge is how to balance personal needs with
accountability, assessment and formal accreditation.
How do we achieve personalisation within
a set national curriculum?

23. The challenge to current mindsets:
• Mobile technologies allow a user to learn anywhere, anytime and
therefore bridge life-wide and lifelong learning (Beddall-Hill &
Raper, 2010).
• Opens new avenues of communication, disrupts traditional
classroom boundaries and creates and sustains communities of
learners (Garrison, 2011, p.1).
• Education institutions are cautious about investing extensively in
mobile technologies because of the rate of emergence of new
models and the speed with which devices become obsolete.
How do we cater to the need for mobility when
devices change at such a fast pace.

25. The challenge to current mindsets:
• Open education practices encourage open collaboration and
sharing of resources thereby acting as a catalyst for innovation and
change (Geser, 2007).
• There are number of initiatives underway to create formal
credentialing of studies undertaken using OERs which will result in
recognised qualifications (Taylor, 2011).
• Open practices promote innovative pedagogical models, and
respect and empower learners as co-producers on their lifelong
learning path
• Potential to make education opportunities freely available to all
students, particularly those previously excluded from formal
learning (Mackintosh, 2012).
Is free learning for all financially
sustainable for learning institutions?

27. The challenge to current mindsets:
• Informal learning occurs through everyday experiences.
• Social learning is conceptualised as a process of social change in
which people learn from each other (Reed at al., 2012).
• Learning is both an individual and a social process, which relates
to both understanding and behaviour.
• Adoption of a ‘community of learning’ approach and cultivation
strong relationships between adults and students (Keamy et al.,
2007).
How do we measure, assess and accredit
informal learning?
When does formal education end and informal
begin?

28. Inclusion and Diversity

29. The challenge to current mindsets:
• Increased movement of higher education institutions towards
online course provision.
• Large number of institutions are withdrawing support for
incarcerated students and eliminating exceptions handling
processes.
• Access to the internet in prison is prohibited.
• Results in further exclusion of the already socially excluded.
• Choice of courses increasingly influenced by extent to which
course requires internet access.
How do we ensure all students have access to
education in a digital world when not all
students have access to the internet?

30. So what are we hoping for
in a curriculum of the
future?

31. • Customised and collaborative:
Embraces personal values and motivations, self-evaluated and socially
constructed.
• Emphasis of skills over facts:
Development of 21st century skills including entrepreneurship, critical
thinking, innovation and creativity, self-direction and information literacy.
• Anywhere, anytime:
Learning is lifelong, available at any time and a part of everyday life.
• Democratic and open:
Learning is available to all regardless of location, the children of the poorest
people are able to get access to the same quality education as the
wealthiest.

33. References:
• Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, ACARA. (2009). General capabilities in the Australian Curriculum.
Retrieved from: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/GeneralCapabilities/Overview/General-capabilities-in-the-Australian-
Curriculum.
• Beddall-Hill, N., & Raper, J. (2010). Mobile devices as ‘boundary objects’ on field trips. Journal of the Research Center for
Educational Technology, 6(1), 28-46.
• Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education the long tail and learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 63–32.
• Crick, R. D. (2009). Pedagogical challenges for personalisation: integrating the personal with the public through context-driven
enquiry. The Curriculum Journal, 20(3), 185-189.
• Doll, R. C. (1996). Curriculum Improvement: Decision making and process. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Garrison, D.R. (2011). Elearning in the 21st century (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
• Geser, G. (2007). Open Educational Practices and Resources – OLCOS Roadmap 2012. Salzburg, retrieved from
http://edumedia.salzburgresearch.at/images/stories/EduMedia/Inhalte/Publications/olcos_roadmap.pdf
• Keamy, K.R., Nicholas, H., Mahar, S. & Herrick, C. (2007). Personalising Education: from research to policy and practice, paper
no. 11. State Government Victoria: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem based and inquiry learning: A
response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.
• Lunenburg, F. C. (2011) Theorizing about Curriculum: Conceptions and Definitions. International journal of scholarly academic
intellectual diversity, 13(1), 1-5. Smith, B.O., Stanley, W.O., & Shores, J.H. (1957). Fundamentals of curriculum development. New
York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
• Mackintosh, W. (2012). Opening Education in New Zealand: A Snapshot of a Rapidly Evolving OER Ecosystem. In J. Glennie, K.
Harley, N. Butcher, T. van Wyk (Eds.), Open Educational Resources and Change in Higher Education: Reflections from Practice,
263-279.
• Reed, M. S., A. C. Evely, G. Cundill, I. Fazey, J. Glass, A. Laing, J. Newig, B. Parrish, C. Prell, C. Raymond, and L. C. Stringer.
2010. What is social learning? Ecology and Society 15(4). Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/resp1/
• Paraskeva, J.M. & Steinberg, S. (2012). The Curriculum. Decanonizing the Field. Retrieved from:
http://www.umassd.edu/seppce/centers/cfpa/divisionofsocialpolicyeducationcurriculum/publications/
• Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (1975). Curriculum development: Theory into practice. New York: Macmillan.
• Taylor, J.C. (2011). The OER university: From logic model to action plan. Keynote Address. Open Planning meeting for the OER
assessment and credit for students project, Otago Polytechnic, 23 February 2011, Dunedin, New Zealand. Retrieved from
http://wikieducator.org/OERU_meeting_summary
• Torrisi, G. (2002). "Technology for the Sake of Learning"- A planning approach for integrating new technologies in tertiary learning
environments. Paper presented at AusWeb 02: the eighth Australian World Wide Conference. Retrieved from
http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw02/papers/refereed/torrisi/paper.html
• Yeung, S.S.Y. (2012). Theoretical Foundation of Curriculum. In S.S.Y. Yeung, J.T.S. Lam, A.W.L. Leung & Y.C. Lo Editor (Eds.),
Curriculum Change and Innovation (27-58). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.