2. This presentation guides you through a
critical exploration of
› Principles within curriculum design
› Using curriculum frameworks
› Practical issues in planning learning,
teaching and assessment
2
c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
2
3.
Think of a course or programme you are
familiar with
Present it as a ‘mind map’ to give an
overview of
› the different modules at each level (4, 5 & 6)
› links that cross the levels, for example discipline
themes, topic threads, skills extension and
competence-building
› assessment methods
Identify your overarching philosophy that
underpins the design
3
c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
3
4.
curricula reflect ideological influences
and philosophical approaches to
knowledge, to teaching & learning,
and to the student
and to what is “higher education”
It is argued that we are moving to
‘performativity’ in terms of curriculum
focus and that academic knowledge
is changing from ‘is it true’ to ‘what use
is it’, and how can we measure it. Barnett
& Coate (2005)
c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
4
4
5. Activity 2
consider
1. how you would define the term
curriculum in your own context, and
write a brief definition down
2. What underpinning philosophies and
values influence the
courses/programmes you are currently
involved in teaching
5
c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
5
6. Fraser and Bosanquet (2006) found 4
distinct categories of descriptions of
the curriculum:
A - the structure and content of a unit
B – the structure and content of a
programme of study
C – the students’ experience of learning
D – a dynamic and interactive process
of teaching and learning
6
c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
6
7. Fraser and Bosanquet (2006) link these findings to
Habermas’s 3 fundamental human interests:
› Technical interest A&B – relates to subject
knowledge
› Practical (communicative) interest C – relates to
learning that results from reflection and making
meaning of the subject matter to enable
appropriate action
› Emancipatory interest D – learners are active
creators of knowledge, with content negotiated
7
c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
7
8.
identify which of these knowledgeconstitutive interests relates to the
curriculum you mapped at the start of
the session
Put notes onto your map in a different
colour that indicate where the technical,
practical and emancipatory interests
feature, and in what proportion
8
c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
8
9. Barnett & Coates (2005) in their recent
research into the changing HE
curricula formulate a general schema
made up of 3 elements: Knowledge,
Action & Self
They argue that the philosophical
position of the different disciplines is
recognisable in the dominance and
interaction of these three elements.
9
c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
9
10. all those aspects of
teaching and learning
required for discipline
specific competency
KNOWLEDGE
The competencies
acquired through
doing
S
ACTION
SELF
The development
of an educational
identity e.g..
reflective
practitioner,
critical evaluator
General Curriculum Schema
10
c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
10
11.
identify which of these three
schematic elements relates to the
curriculum you mapped at the start
of the session
Again – Put notes onto this in a
different colour/font that indicate
where development of Knowledge,
Skill and Self occur in the
programme
11
c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
11
15. Activity 5
Spend a few minutes to summarise your
thinking about
How these two different models align with
your experiences of curricula that you
are/have been involved with teaching and
learning?
What are the connections with Anderson &
Krathwohl’s (2001)taxonomy dimensions
15
c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
15
16. What factors will influence/direct
curriculum design and delivery?
How will these articulate with the
theoretical models?
First on a micro level – your own teaching
….
16
c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
16
17. Process Focus:
Content Focus:
Deep learning
• Applying concepts
• Evaluating evidence
• Analysing/ synthesizing
• Creating
Using the language of the
discipline
Making an argument
Defending a viewpoint
Clarifying and
understanding
Exploring the ‘rules’ of the
(From: Exley & Dennick
(2004)Small Group Teaching
discipline
Communication Skills
Presenting
Listening
Responding
Questioning
Personal Development
Reflective Practice
Group working
Collaboration & learning
from others
Routledge)
18.
Learning in the workplace or practice
setting:
› Draw learning out through reflection on
seemingly random events
› Identify themes of learning
› Relate to skills/knowledge frameworks
› Use formative processes and action planning
Manage a coherent learning process
even when not in control of the overall
module or programme
c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
18
19.
Learning in lectures and seminars:
› Present ideas in a structured manner
› Make links to prior knowledge, module
learning outcomes, assessment activities and
programme themes
› Use a range of different examples
› Include short focused activities to activate
understanding, introduce higher level
thinking skills and vary pace
› Limit ‘input’ time to 10 minute bursts
c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
19
20.
DESIGN IN
› Constructive alignment
› Well structured knowledge-base
› A high degree of meaningful and coherent
activity that develops critical thinking
› Emphasis on depth of learning (principles)
rather than breadth of coverage
› Interaction with others (collaboration)
› Choice that facilitates pursuing personal
interests and enables INCLUSIVITY
20
c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
20
21. DESIGN OUT surface learning conditions i.e.
› High class contact using didactic
›
›
›
›
approaches, excessive course materials;
isolated information –giving
Expectations of student learning
potential too low or too high
Lack of choice in learning
Negative or cynical perspectives
Assessment that tests and rewards lowlevel outcomes
21
c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
21
22.
attractiveness/marketability – is it viable?
diversity, inclusivity and accessibility; Widening
participation and flexibility; employability links
teaching-learning-assessment philosophies
and values; strategies, methods
content – knowledge, skills, levels of learning,
and ways of knowing; threshold and
troublesome knowledge
delivery strategies –when and where to learn
i.e. F2F, specialist placement, FDL & e-learning
22
c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
22
23.
Quality Assurance Agency for HE (QAA)
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/ for academic
standards and subject benchmarks
University - threshold criteria for validation
Faculty Portfolio
Professional Bodies
Employers
Potential students
23
c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
23
24.
Balancing a range of methods for
learning, teaching and assessment
across the whole course
Appropriate to levels of study
Developmental approach to
knowledge, skills and understanding
Support for course development –
course developers guide & CDEPP
http://www.cumbria.ac.uk/Services/AdminServices/AcademicOffice/Course%20Developers.as
24
c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
24
25. Activity 6.
In summary, reflect on the issues in this
presentation and how they relate to
› Your current practice
› The practice you observe in peer reviews
› Writing for your module assignments
What actions will you take as a result of
considering these curriculum design
issues?
c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
25
25
26. Barnett R., Parry G., & Coates K. (2001) Conceptualising Curriculum Change. Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 6, 4 ,
435-449
Barnet R & Coate K (2005) Engaging the Curriculum in Higher education. Maidenhead, Open University Press
Carnell E (2007) Conceptions of teaching in Higher education: extending the boundaries. Teaching in Higher Education
Vol.12, 1, 25-40
Donnelly R (2004) Fostering of creativity within an imaginative curriculum in higher education. The Curriculum Journal
Vol. 15, 2, 155-166
Fraser SP., & Bosanquet AM., (2006) The Curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t it? Studies in Higher Education Vo 31, 3,
269-284
Hussey T., & Smith P. (2008) Learning Outcomes: a conceptual analysis. Teaching in Higher education Vol.13, 1, 107-115
Light G. & Cox R (2001) Learning & Teaching in Higher Education – the reflective professional: London, Paul Chapman
Publishing.
Kemmis S. & Fitzclarencwe L (1986) Curriculum Theorizing: beyond reproduction theory. Waurn Ponds, Deakin University
Margolis E. (ed) 2001 The Hidden Curriculum in Higher Education: London, Routledge [e-book available through UoC
library
Pithers RT., & Soden R. (2000) Critical thinking in education: a review. Educational Research Vol. 42, 3, 237-249
Pratt D., Boll S., Collins JB. (2007) Towards a plurality of perspectives for nurse educators. Nursing Philosophy vol. 8 49-59
Taylor R (2005) Creating a connection: tackling student attrition through curriculum development. Journal of Further and
Higher Education Vol. 29, 4, 367-374
Toohey S. (1999) Designing Courses for Higher Education: Milton Keynes, SRHE & OUP
Univeristy of Cumbria Course Developers Guide
http://www.cumbria.ac.uk/Services/AdminServices/AcademicOffice/Enhancement/CourseDevelopers/course%20develop
26
c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
26
Hinweis der Redaktion
Welcome and introductions
This session will look particularly at developing curricula – programmes, courses, modules, linked sessions that have some coherence together.
Intended learning links to all module ILO's, but maybe has particular resonance with:
2. Use an evidence-based approach to the design, implementation and evaluation of teaching, learning and assessment informed by knowledge of their work context and subject material.
3. Create climates for effective learning and show awareness of the issues and skills involved in providing individual guidance and support systems for diverse learners.
Whilst participating in this workshop, it will be useful for you to bear in mind current teaching you are involved with, and how that fits into the course as a whole, and also what questions you are starting to ask in relation to assignment 3.
This is an opening ‘warm-up’ exercise to start you thinking about issues involved in curriculum design
YOU ONLY HAVE 10 MINUTES!
If you are unsure of what a whole programme looks like, go to the programme specification, either of a programme you are involved in teaching/supporting or use the one in the back of the MA Academic Practice programme handbook on the Blackboard site.
Ideological influences and approaches will include work you have read so far on learning theories such as constructivism (eg Vygotsky, Brown & Campione), constructive alignment (eg Biggs) teacher and student conceptions of learning (eg Kember, Saljo) learning communities and environments (eg Eraut) and co-constructing knowledge (Carnell)
Higher education: changing concepts from elitist to massification and widening participation; what is specific to HE – ie. Levels of thinking, analysis, research and developing new knowledge (Barnett & Coate 2005, Pithers & Soden, 2000) Shaped by the values and practices of the different knowledge fields
Changing focus to a more practical outcomes-based and employment-driven focus to programmes; graduates in employment expected to bring a problem-solving approach and a range of skills
Barnett and Coate (2005) argue that academic freedom is becoming curtailed, and HE is no longer the ‘search for truth’; Performativity implies doing rather than knowing and performance rather than understanding– is this true of our own programmes? And is it what we want?
5 MINUTES for this
Collect general feedback and put keywords onto white board
How does this link to current arguments of elitism v massification, and to UoC strategy of widening particpation, progression and LLL, FDL?
How does this fit into your definition?
A & B conceptualise the curriculum as a definable product that can be taught;
C is both structure and process,
and D views it as a dynamic, emergent and collaborative process of learning for both student and teacher
Based on the premis that CURRICULUM IS A SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONSTRUCTION, THE FORM AND PURPOSE OF WHICH ARE DETERMINED BY HABERMAS’S THREE FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN INTERESTS:
Technical interest – is product-orientated, value neutral in that it is separate from the sociocultural contexts, and power is held by the teacher who constructs the learning outcomes. Knowledge is regarded as a commodity, discipline based, bounded and ‘out there’, discipline based and measurable, designed in advance.
Relates to A & B – teacher implements the curriculum, students’ learning is controlled
Practical interest – aims at reaching an understanding that enables appropriate action to be taken. Aims to uncover bias and presuppositions, to interact with the subject matter, and to clarify meanings. Relates to C
Emancipatory interest – aims for empowerment, rational autonomy and freedom
‘emancipating others from false ideas, distorted forms of communication and coercive forms of social relationships that constrain human action’ Kemmis & Fitzclarence (1986)
Teaching and learning is a shared effort and consists of a dialogical relationship between teacher and student
The curriculum develops through a dynamic relationship between action and reflection, and the crtiique of all knowledge is inherent in the curriculum
This latter model has resonance with Carnell’s conception of a ‘co-constuctivist approach to learning and teaching with the emphasis on collaboration in co-constructing knowledge
DOES THIS SOUND LIKE THE PGC? THIS COULD ALSO BE SEEN IN PBL/EBL METHODS – IF NOT TOO RIGIDLY CONSTRUCTED, WHICH SOME ARE
Relates back to 1st activity, relating theoretical model
A different curriculum model ...
This model of ‘knowing, acting, being’ identifies three elements within the curriculum, and the balance of these alters depending on the ‘knowledge field’, as will be seen in the following slides.
Exemplifies that the curriculum is a dynamic balance of different interests
The knowledge domain – discipline specific competences that maybe equate with threshold concepts; or Biggs’ declarative knowledge
Action domain – competences acquired by doing: equates with procedural knowledge
Self domain – an educational identity: meta cognitive knowledge
Barnett and Coates identified that different discipline areas Next three slides exemplify generalisations across the se main ‘knowledge fields’ or discipline areas’
Look at the balance of the three domains
Looking at practical implementation of the theoretical models
This can be done in your own sections of the module, or even a single classroom session
It can also be done in practice by helping students to reflect on their learning process and maintain a focus for and on their learning
It should include your understanding of which dimensions of knowledge and cognitive processing you aim to develop
You may not have control of the deign process, but you will have influence – especially if you present workable alternatives/solutions
When there is a surfeit of content – pick one area as an example, then get students to research other areas and teach each other
Make connections – link to prior learning and experiences, signal forward to new learning
Offer alternatives – in topics for assessment, in areas for discussion, in reading materials, in different theoretical perspectives
Don’t set your expectations for students’ learning ability to low – they will probably just work to this
Conversely, don’t have unrealistic expectations of what they can achieve as they may just give up!
Stay positive – bring critical discussion in rather than cynicism
Think expansively and creatively about assignments for assessment
external influences and stakeholder interests - see next slide (#21)
attractiveness/marketability – is it viable? – will it attract sufficient students, what about the competitors – has your course got something different to offer?
diversity, inclusivity and accessibility; Widening participation and flexibility; employability links: can you ensure that the teaching and assessment are inclusive – are there any potential students that you would ‘exclude’ and why?
With WP – does it link with prior learning opportunities (eg Fd’s, access programmes, mapping to NVQ’s) …. Can students have the opportunity for APEL?
teaching-learning-assessment philosophies and values; strategies, methods: link to what you have learnt on the course so far, e.g. SOLO, constructive alignment, types of knowledge (e.g. factual, procedural, conceptual, metacognitive, Anderson & Krathwol 2003 or Biggs 2003 p42 declarative, procedural, conditional, functioning); learning outcomes (Hussey and Smith 2008) (SEE slide #17 & 18 as an example)
Philosophies may be influenced by concepts of teaching and learning, Habermas’s knowledge-constitutive interests and your prior experiences (Kember’s 1997 conceptions of teaching and learning)
This will also include having an overview of the course itself – where and when different concepts are learnt, practiced, criticised
content – knowledge, skills, levels of learning, ways of knowing – links to Barnet’s model of knowledge - action- self; cannot be seen in isolation to values and strategies – and this also affects
delivery strategies –; when and where to learn i.e. F2F, DL & e-learning:
SO EVEN THOUGH COMPONENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY, THEY ARE ALL INTERLINKED AND INFLUENTIAL UPON EACH OTHER
These will control to a greater or lesser extent the content, conditions for learning teaching and assessment
Each of these stakeholders will influence your programme, and meeting all their needs can sometimes require the management of significant tensions
Drawing together the themes of the patch and its relationship to the module themes and learning outcomes