Emerging Attributes of Pedagogy and Curriculum for the “New World Order”

P1: GDX/GGT/GAY P2: GDX/GCRInnovative Higher Education PH053-341604 August 16, 2001 8:19 Style file version March 31, 1999

Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 26, No. 1, Fall 2001 ( c© 2001)

Emerging Attributes of Pedagogy andCurriculum for the “New World Order”

Hitendra Pillay and Bob Elliott

ABSTRACT: This article is a conceptual one designed to start dialogue on educationalissues that are unfolding amidst the changes in other sectors of our society such asproduction, services, and recreation. We first present an overview of the fundamental butprofound changes evidenced in our society and then discuss the nature of these changesand their impact on human ability to function effectively within such an environment.In light of the complexities such as uncertainties and dualistic/multiple perspectives andincongruities, we propose that a model for pedagogy and curriculum development shouldadopt critical thinking as the key attribute—because it has the potential to deliver aneducation system for the “new world order.”

KEY WORDS: new world order; critical thinking; pedagogy; curriculum models.

Our world, immersed in massive global economic, technological, andsocial change, now sees knowledge and the process of acquiring knowl-edge as its primary value (Gee, 1993). It is argued that successful indi-viduals and organisations recognise that success depends on individu-als’ abilities to learn and adapt to changing circumstances (Gee, Hull, &Lankshear, 1996). The continuously changing systems have caused anintensified competition where the concern is not with producing more ata cheaper cost but continuously producing innovative products. Thereis increasing recognition that there is no one absolute design, product ormethod of delivering a service. This has encouraged the need to be con-tinuously innovative and add value to existing elements, services, andproducts and generated an increased emphasis on continuous learn-ing to facilitate constant improvement processes (Ilamel & Prahalad,1994). Consequently, the creation of knowledge and the application ofsuch knowledge in work practices has become a dominant theme in re-cent studies of education and training (Starkey, 1996). This emerging

Hitendra Pillay, BEd MA (USP) MSc PhD (UNSW), Senior Lecturer and Deputy Direc-tor, Centre for Cognitive Processes in Learning, Queensland University of Technology,Australia. Interests: Adult and higher education, learning and cognition, spatial problem-solving, technology-based learning environments. Bob Elliott, BSc BEd(Hons) PhD (UQ),Associate Professor and Acting Head, School of Professional Studies, Faculty of Educa-tion, Queensland University of Technology, Australia. Interests: Professional learningand development, curriculum and pedagogy for developing dispositions towards criticalthought, international development.

7 C© 2001 Human Sciences Press, Inc.


8 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

phenomenon is evidenced in new world order concepts such as “learn-ing organisations” and “learning factories” (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995),“learning universities,” “knowledge worker” (Drucker, 1946), and “sym-bolic analysis” (Reich, 1992) and new organisations such as “LearningLeadership.”1 Such concepts and organisations embody a significantshift from a previous focus mainly on quantitative increases in pro-duction to ideas that affect qualitative measures of how we produce,consume, and service products. This change is evident in the movementaway from mass produced products in the market place to customisedand boutique services. Technological innovation and the informationoverload have further confounded the above noted changes. Individ-uals are expected to make judgements about what is appropriate forthem at a given time and how to resolve conflicting options. Associ-ated with such a shift has been a transformation of our conception ofwhat it means to be educated and successful. The changing conceptobviously has affected what is valued as appropriate attributes in ed-ucation, which allow individuals to deal with the competencies of thenew world order.

Against this backdrop of social and economic change there is anemerging set of ideas in both the academic and popular literature, whichelaborate upon this new world order. However, there is little writtenabout the educational implications in specific terms. What little liter-ature exists in this area focuses on managerial and human relationsaspects. Specifically there are very few ideas that inform pedagogy inclassrooms and curriculum models to assist implementation. We seekhere to address these gaps by (a) outlining some fundamental issues as-sociated with the new world order and (b) some issues associated withpedagogy and curriculum which are based upon the need for criticalthought to be embedded in all educational reasoning.

Background

The new world order is fundamentally characterised by uncertainty,flexibility and incongruities, and an increased access to information.This contrasts with past ideas of certainty, fixture, and information lo-cated with experts. The dilemmas and tensions that present themselvesto individuals in everyday life evidence this change. Giddens (1998) has

1Learning Leadership is a commercial arm of the faculty of Education at Queensland Uni-versity of Technology. It was established to develop cultures in schools and organisationswhich are characterised by learning and thinking.


Emerging Attributes of Pedagogy 9

argued that five such dilemmas have featured significantly in everydaylives (p. 27). They are the dilemmas in:

• globalisation,• individualism,• left and right,• political agency,• and ecology.

In order to fully appreciate the significance of these dilemmas and thecomplexities of the issues contained in them, the following section willidentify and discuss some pertinent points.

In considering globalisation we now have new trans-national systemsthat have heightened the priority of competition for scarce resourceswhile at the same time creating strong regional blocks (ASEAN, EU)and a questioning of local customs and ways of life. Thus, it is no longera question of whether individuals are part of the new global order butrather how they deal with being part of that order while at the sametime living and relating to others in local neighbourhoods. Coping witha retreat of tradition and custom while, at the same time, living in andwith that tradition is part of the new order. Balancing what appears tobe a contradictory set of priorities is part of the dilemma.

Many western societies are currently questioning the distinctions be-tween politics of the “left” and “right.” Although these terms still areused to refer to the differences between opposing political discourses,in reality the discourses are often not ideologically different but aremore issues-based. However, such distinctions are not as keenly feltor debated as they once were; there is a core difference in most so-cial debates that concerns equality. While the new world order has re-sulted in increased wealth for some, for others it has sharpened thegap. For example, many African countries are now poorer than theywere a decade ago, and a greater proportion of the wealth of each so-ciety is coming to reside in a smaller proportion of the people. Howone positions oneself with regard to these issues is not simply a mat-ter of taking a position on the left or the right, as both discourses arerelevant to the complexity of most issues confronting a contemporarysociety.

Although it is true that people are becoming more and more disen-chanted with politicians, the fact is that innovative trends for the futurehave not originated in political policies or practices. The identificationof those with agency for change has become problematic. Whereas onceit was the political class which motivated and activated change, now



agency resides in a multitude of areas but primarily within each in-dividual and market force. Accordingly, each individual must discernsources of good ideas and the legitimacy of such ideas. In fact discern-ment of the dislocation of past, current, and future sources is urgentlyrequired. The late twentieth century has seen the failure of all mem-bers of the political class to address fundamental issues such as chronicunemployment, irrespective of which ideology they seek to promote. Asociety waiting for the political elite to “solve the problem of unemploy-ment” will wait in vain as this agency is no longer relevant to suchissues.

The new world order is also associated with a new individualismthat is associated with global mobility, individual skill development,and individual rights. At the same time, the new order has given riseto a sophisticated system of welfare to accommodate those who findliving with such dilemmas difficult or impossible. Welfare is associatedwith the collective, but the contemporary world encourages individualsto take responsibility for the consequences of what they do and thelifestyle they pursue.

With competition for scarce resources becoming more significant ina global context, there is an increasing pressure to exploit the environ-ment for quick profit. At the same time there is increasing recognitionthat sustaining current levels of environmental capital is significantnot only for future wealth but also for the health of the members ofcurrent society. This recognition is evident in the growth of alternativemedicines where the aim is to adopt traditional ideas with minimalcosts to the environment and the body. The pressures to both exploitand conserve in the same breath has posed significant dilemmas andtensions for the new world order. Such fundamental rethinking involv-ing what were previously imponderable dilemmas has meant the needfor a new knowledge base, one with a capital in ideas. Central to thisnew knowledge base are ideas associated with value-adding to naturalresources rather than resource exploitation.

The five dilemmas discussed by Giddens (1998) are paralleled by asimilar set noted earlier by Delors (1996). The UNESCO Report of theInternational Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century(Delors, 1996) has argued that it is important to identify such dilemmasin order to confront and overcome them. The tensions they note arebetween:

• globalisation and localisation,• universality and individuality,



• tradition and modernity,• long-term and short-term considerations,• and competition and equity.

Nowhere are the dilemmas and tensions evidenced more in the newworld order than in the relationship between work and learning. Ac-cording to popular representation of change, individuals previously soldtheir labour—often with little mental, emotional, or social investmentin the task, whereas now in the new world order they are asked to thinkcritically, reflectively, and creatively and invest their heart, mind, andbody in work. Also, responsibility for education and training is increas-ingly located with the individual. Workers are required to recogniselearning opportunities and learn on the job (Mayer, 1992; Carmichael,1992). Managerial responsibility is seen in terms of “standard setting.”

Such changes are not new to civilisation. The situation is similar tothe difficulties experienced with the transition from feudal to capitalistsocieties, where Marx observed workers grapple with the conceptionsof labour as a commodity for sale (Sayer, 1983). The inseparable con-ceptions of labour and work held by individuals at that time made itdifficult to reconceptualize labour as a commodity, separate from theself and which could be sold for a fee. A response to such changes atthat time required a review of the education system and a realignmentof it with the needs of the capitalist world.

During the industrial and post-industrial era, work was seen as phys-ical labour, and learning was something very detached from work andother every day activities. The emerging new world order envisageswork as an opportunity for workers to further their knowledge andskills, because it is their knowledge that workers sell when they go towork. For example, workers use their knowledge to manipulate ma-chines to perform tasks. They do not perform the physical tasks them-selves. They trade information and knowledge, hence the need to thinkand extend one’s mental capacity by continuously learning.

Previously there had been an expectation of closure in every activity.This is no longer a possibility, thus we need to adopt different lensesto see the world. The difficulty is that we need to wear multiple setsof lenses at the same time. We now have to deal with conflicting sit-uations, often where consideration of opposing ends at the same timeis necessary in order to address an issue although both may have dif-ferent values. We need to recognise dilemmas, resolve them to the bestof our abilities, and live with that resolution until further thought pro-vides other insights. Thus, these dilemmas are not to be solved in a



finite sense or in a finite time frame, but lived with it in the best possi-ble way. The ability to deal with this fragmented self requires a totallynew focus to education. We cannot conceive a new education model bylooking through old and mono lenses.

Confounding the work/learning context are the changes imposed bythe information explosion. The innovative communicative technologieshave enormously increased access to information. However, having in-creased access to information is not sufficient to create educated citi-zens. There is an overwhelming need for people to have the skills todecipher good information from bad, question the authenticity of theclaims, understand the explicit and implicit meanings, analyse the ba-sic assumptions, and engage in personal meaning making. Consideringthe current rhetoric that market will regulate quality, it is even moreimperative that the market not become exploited through the ignoranceof consumers.

These are the issues that need to be taken into consideration whendiscussing new curriculum and pedagogy for the 21st century. Whilstthere seems to be some consensus regarding the need to do things dif-ferently, the question that needs addressing is change to what. What isthe nature of this change that we wish to achieve? How do we achievethe changes? The assumptions that underpin many of the anticipatedchanges are deeply rooted in our values, and it can be very de-stabilisingwhen they are challenged. There are educational and learning theoriesthat have assisted our thinking in this regard. For example, Mezirow(1990) has developed the idea of “transformational learning” and Frerie(1970) the “pedagogy of the oppressed.” Common to both these theoret-ical models is the assumption that individuals are capable of engagingin critical discourse and critical self-examination. Critical thinking andthe ability to rationalize issues are perhaps the most important assetsthat individuals need to succeed in the next century.

Focus on Critical Thinking

In the old order, policy provided direction and assurance for individ-uals within a known framework. It set out directions for the societyand informed individuals of appropriate actions for them. In the neworder, policy at the national and international levels can only be drivenby the immediate and pragmatic. It becomes vacuous because there isno framework appropriate for disorder. Thus, policy can no longer pro-tect individuals against risk. There is a need in the new order to move



from a focus on policy and the state to the individual. Policy can nolonger assist individuals in a run-away world. To protect against risk,individuals need to have the capacity to think critically and constructpersonal meaning. Furthermore, the withdrawal of control and regula-tory systems associated with the increasing importance of market forcesto monitor quality ultimately assumes the existence of citizens who candiscriminate, evaluate, and question assumptions behind rhetoric, ad-vocacy, and promotion.

Critical thinking belongs to a network of concepts such as problemsolving, decision making, metacognition, rational thinking, reasoning,intelligence, and self-reflection. These concepts reflect a cognitive per-spective, even if it is unintentional; thus there is a need to combinethem with dispositional dimensions (Tishman, Jay, & Perkins, 1993).Tishman et al. argue that, while the above concepts provide a reason-able psychological perspective, there is a need to include the disposi-tional, cultural, and philosophical dimension as well. This is particu-larly important as it captures the potential variations that will emergewhen global views are adopted. Also, enculturation of such thinkingdisposition is necessary to ensure that critical thinking skill and knowl-edge are operationalized. Perry (1981), Schommer (1993) and their col-laborators have shown the influence of epistimological disposition onindividuals’ actions. Thus, in a global model one has to be cognizant ofthe socio-cultural influence on individual dispositions and how it mayfacilitate critical thought.

In response to the question of whether we teach critical thinkingindependent of the context or absorb it within teaching of the content,we think the discussion has gone beyond that. Of greater importancenow is the question of a conceptualization of learning that pervades alllearning contexts, not whether one learning context is more appropriatethan another for teaching particular issues. The emerging complexityof our society will not allow us the luxury of adopting one of the givenapproaches, rather it will expect us to function just as effectively ina number of approaches. The fragmented approach to understandinglearning has caused much tension in identifying the most appropriateapproach to teaching.

We must realize that this singularly focused research cannot formthe basis for our understanding of something that involves a multitudeof variables. Thus, to develop an understanding of learning one mustfirst identify and understand the variation inherent in the elements of aconcept and, subsequently, the interaction between those elements andthat of other concepts. The need to consider all elements of a concept can



be seen in the social construction of meaning (Vygotsky, 1978) in dis-tributed cognition learning models (Pea, 1993) and distributed controlsystems (Kelly, 1994). These authors argue that meaning cannot beachieved without considering the elements themselves, which consti-tute the concept and their interaction. What is argued here is thatan understanding of learning requires a full understanding of the ele-ments of which it is constituted and the dynamic interaction of thoseelements.

Furthermore, Spiro and Jeheng (1990) argue that to comprehend thenature and scope of variability of a concept such as learning requiresan understanding of the structural and functional aspects of knowledgestructures. Functional aspects refer to the content while structural as-pects refer to the format and the logic of thinking evident in problemtypes. Such a theoretical position implies the need for a view of learn-ing in which individuals become conscious of what they are trying toachieve, question the issues or problems in hand, and understand theframe of reference (socio-cultural and technical) within which the prob-lem has been cast. It implies as well a need for learning to incorporatethe empirical and conceptual dimensions of reasoning; the assumptionsabout the issues being considered; the implications and consequencesof actions; and, finally, the inferences one can make from learning.

Accordingly, we propose a model of for all learning contexts whichhas, at its heart, a dynamic interaction of a range of elements. It is thevalue attached to each of the four elements in the model as well as theirinteractions that are important. The model posits that critical thinkingrequires the exercise of dispositions and strategies in the context ofsubstantive knowledge and socio-technical learning tools. Examples ofsuch elements are noted below.

Dispositions• Openness to questioning beliefs• Awareness of self and others’ emotions• Acceptance of the risks associated with stepping outside current

norms• Challenge to the faith in current systems and ideologies to provide

a safe futureStrategies• Dialogical and dialectical thinking• Socratic questioning• Teaching through dilemmas• Cooperative learning



Substantive Knowledge• Discipline knowledge• Function and structure of knowledge

Socio-Technical Learning Tools• Communicative knowledge• Pedagogical resources

The operative element in critical thinking is reasoning, and this maybe present at the perception stage (the questioning of assumptions) orat the final stage (action). What is important is that reasoning is thekey tool to ensure critical engagement and personal meaning-making.Embedded in the reasoning are standards for making judgements; andaccordingly, reasoning takes different forms in the context of differentknowledge and with the availability of different socio-technical learn-ing tools. This idea of the dynamic interplay of elements is central tounderstanding the level of sophistication in our reasoning. The sophis-tication of our reasoning will in turn, we believe, equip individuals withthe ability to function effectively with the uncertainty, flexibility, andincongruities evidenced in our society.

Pedagogy for the New World Order

In the last millennium research in human learning has greatly bene-fited our understanding and the development of new pedagogical mod-els. However, the majority of these models concentrated on dealing withcircumstances that are reasonably stable and not reflective of the am-bivalence inherent in the new world order. Thus, to conceptualise apedagogy for the new world order requires a fresh approach because wecannot solve the problems of the future by thinking in ways of the past.As noted in the previous section, pedagogical models for the new worldorder should promote attributes that assist individuals in dealing withparadoxes which have a multitude of variables necessary to considerwhen making decisions and judgements.

Furthermore, models should encapsulate the emerging integratedknowledge of academic, work, and everyday life experiences, which areincreasingly becoming a cornerstone of educational experience. In a lim-ited way, response to these new challenges has seen an emergence ofpedagogical models promoting self-regulated learning, empowermentof learners, student-centred pedagogy for the oppressed, and the trans-formational learning model. While the above models have been useful,the downside is that they have conjured a universality and absoluteness



in their advocacy rather than being an addition or alternative to othermodels. For example, do all students, all the time, subscribe to a student-centered pedagogical model? How is cultural variance or learning stylesaddressed? The interesting thing, however, is that the active engage-ment of the individual to think critically and understand the issues athand, underlies most of the above innovative pedagogical models.

While there is considerable literature on the importance of criticalthinking in the new world order, the translation of this into pedagogicalforms is not yet fully realised. We suggest that this pedagogy needs tobe characterised in particular ways. For example, there is a need torecognise the following.

• Boundaries between formal and informal learning need to beblurred, and the emphasis should be on the types of knowledgerather than models of instruction.

• Individuals need to continually question fundamental beliefs, in-cluding epistemological beliefs.

• Outcomes of learning must address equity in the context of com-petition.

• Individuals need to be encouraged to accept best practice while, atthe same time, question it.

• Networks for learning which cross-institutional boundaries aresignificant and continually growing.

Compatible with these ideas is a fundamental position about learningwhich we adopt in our conceptualization. This position is drawn fromthe Vygotskian tradition, viz that learning is mediated by interper-sonal dynamics (Elliott, Brooker, Macpherson, & McInman, in press).As socio-cultural theorists such as Wertsch (1985) have noted, learn-ing proceeds from the interpersonal to the intrapersonal. We suggestthat uncertainty and tension are characteristics of individuals as muchas social contexts. Dealing with two apparent contradictory positionsmeans that the individual has to be conceived not just as multifacetedbut possibly as a contradictory being.

What is required for success in the new world order is a pedagogythat enables students to adopt a critical thinking approach to each po-sition they hold. The outcome of such pedagogy is not a certain res-olution of any particular issue. Rather it is a constant re-examiningof the current position with regard to new relationships and conse-quent new knowledge, and it is developing an inquiring mind. May(1975) claims that this gives rise to a particular type of paradox“that we must be fully committed, but we must also be aware at the



same time that we might possibly be wrong” (p. 12). Such a paradoxmay be regarded as a second order dilemma for individuals. Inother words, dealing with dilemmas at one level gives rise to furtherdilemmas.

Renshaw (1998) has recently reported on an approach called “col-lective argumentation” as a strategy for educating for difference. Hisposition is that “Each step . . . challenges the students to adopt differentspeaking positions or voices” (p. 94). The intention of the strategy isone of enabling students to become “aware that different task interpre-tations and emphases are commonplace, and that fellow students canhave quite different but equally adequate ways of considering the task”(p. 94). Such an intention is compatible with the concept of distributedcognition in that individual meanings are constructed through collab-orative efforts. However, it does not address the need for individualsto grapple with the difficulty of holding apparently incongruous viewsabout particular issues.

Such a difficulty, however, can be addressed through an extensionof the ideas of Renshaw (1998) if the idea of “collective” is applied tothe individual. In other words, a plural view of the self is adopted inwhich an individual is conceived as multi-voiced. This extension of “col-lective” applied to the individual offers promise in enabling students toreveal and clarify a variety of interpretations of phenomena. In otherwords interpersonal variety as well as intrapersonal variations can beaddressed through a multi-voice approach to teaching.

Applying this idea to consider pedagogy for the new world order, webelieve that a “multi-voice” approach to teaching would enable students:

• to verbalise a variety of positions they may hold about a particularissue,

• to facilitate a variety of reconstructions of new knowledge thatbecomes available to them,

• to justify a range of positions with respect to a particular viewpoint,• to hold equally valid positions about a particular argument,• and to question particular views they might hold.

This multi-voice approach would assist students in developing a va-riety of “possible-selves” in relation to the future. Cross and Markus(1991) indicate that “possible selves represent those selves that theperson could become, would like to become, or is afraid of becoming”(p. 424). The significant point here is that the various voices that areencouraged enable each student to adopt a variety of positions withregard to a particular issue, a number of possible selves. It is in this



way that each student can be educated not only to cope with a worldthat appears to be disordered, but also to make positive contributionsthrough not being confused and concerned about the disorder or illusionof absolute truth.

Adopting a “multi-voice” perspective pedagogy, teachers will be ableto adopt the role of challenger to enable students to understand thenature of the contradictions and uncertainty inherent in knowledge.Similarly, teachers will be able to encourage students to test the as-sumptions that underpin their reasoning in a non-threatening mannerbecause they are not forced to defend one position only. Such a role forteachers is compatible with a constructivist role—one that incorporatesboth the transmitter of substantive knowledge but involves studentstaking a critical stance in relation to that knowledge.

The particular strategy advocated would provide students withcourage to deal with the “dialectic relationship between conviction anddoubt” (May, 1975, p. 13), which pervades the new order. In terms ofthe critical thinking model outlined above, students would be encour-aged to develop appropriate dispositions and skills that they could ex-ercise in particular environments. These dispositions would motivatethe adoption of particular skills that involve analysis, flexibility, andfocus, which students can use to challenge the veracity of assertions.In this way they would not merely adopt information in a passive, un-questioning manner but critically evaluate its appropriateness.

Curriculum in the New World Order

Most curriculum models that emerged in the latter part of the twen-tieth century, while claiming to address a new world order, have theirroots in the old order. Contrary to the old models of curriculum, whereconcepts such as relevance were about mapping pedagogical practicesto dominant patterns of expectations and behaviour by the society, wenow have a situation that has no definite or singular pattern againstwhich to benchmark. And even when we do recognise a pattern, it doesnot stay stable long enough to be modelled. Traditional models haveassumed it is possible to capture dominant patterns in change experi-enced by a society and inform citizens about them as if they were sta-ble entities. However, the rapidity and asynchronous nature of changemakes it difficult for these models to capture change, even if it werestable enough for it to be recognised. Such volatile and contradictorycircumstances require curriculum models that are not about teaching



patterns. Rather they challenge the patterns to understand the causes,so that one can either improve the pattern or adapt when the patternschange. Just as political agencies of either left or right persuasion canno longer produce policy to protect individuals from risk in the newworld order, traditional curriculum models are not able to signal howto educate for that future. A classic example of this is the competencymodel that has sought to specify particular competencies for studentsthat will fit them for the future world. In reality, these competenciesare generally short-term and focussed on the issues of employment inthe current world. It is no surprise to see that such a model has its basisin vocational education where the emphasis is often on skill develop-ment for immediate employment, which is contrary to what is reallyneeded—continuous learning and learning to learn.

The competency model together with other outcomes-driven modelshave been in political favour because they allow the political elites todemonstrate what they are doing to address issues of current concernsuch as high youth unemployment and social alienation. However, froma learning perspective such curriculum models seek to articulate stu-dent outcomes of learning and, as such, focus on compartmentalisedlearning. Not only is substantive knowledge fractured within itself, butalso the important dynamic interaction of elements in learning cannotbe articulated.

Current curriculum models are based on the belief in an on-goingideology and knowledge framework. The analysis above indicates thatwhat is required for the future is a framework for curriculum that forgeslinks between student dispositions, skills, and substantive knowledge.This will be different for different knowledge areas, and so the questfor a universal curriculum model across all areas of learning isproblematic.

Curriculum models for the new world order need to have integrationand interaction at their heart. They need to examine how the four ele-ments of critical thought, articulate for a given field of study. It is thisarticulation that will be the basis for learning experiences for studentswho are to live in the new world order. It is this articulation which willassist such students to develop critical thinking abilities to prepare forlife in an uncertain and often contradictory world.

What we are advocating is a curriculum model that enables studentsto think about change. To understand change and deal with it one hasto appreciate the location of meaning of the change. Curriculum modelsbuilt on pure cognitive theories assume that meaning is constructed byindividuals in their minds, while those built on constructivist positions



assume that meaning is constructed through the interaction of the hu-man mind with its environment, yet remains something inherent inthe individual mind. In contrast, we are advocating curriculum modelswhere it is assumed that meaning is resident in a number of things,including the environment, the artifacts, and the individuals’ minds.

Such models highlight the fact that meaning for a specific task isconstructed through the interaction of these elements, and it is therelationships among them that is the powerful force for learning. Rec-ognizing the multiplicity of meanings inherent in relationships amongelements and the lack of closure to every activity, curriculum models forthe new world order need to be multi-dimensional. They need to empha-sise thinking that involves multiple relationships among individuals,problems inherent in the world, substantive knowledge appropriate tothose problems, and tools which assist students to integrate their ideas(such as graphic calculators, material that is “scaffolded”).

Such models contrast markedly with those in current vogue thatstress outcomes to be achieved in terms of knowledge to be retained,skills to be developed, or attitudes toward phenomena. It is only instressing thinking in terms of multiplicity of relationships betweenthese and the products of the existing world that students will be ableto cope with the dilemmas and uncertainties of the future world.

Conclusion

One of the central issues in this article is that multiple-relationshipsneed to pervade educational encounters in the new order. Pedagogyhas to enable students to identify and construct multiple relationshipsamong various information sources, relationships that may not alwaysconform to the social norms or to individuals’ preferences but still havea place in learning to understand a phenomenon. Pedagogy for thenew world order is about building capacities in individuals to criti-cally examine given information at all levels of complexity, to object tothe ideological, to question underlying assumptions and to constructpersonal meaning. It also entails location of responsibility with indi-viduals rather than institutions or others.

The task for curriculum is to identify and re-classify the types ofknowledge valued in the new world order and the relationships betweenknowledge components and between these components and authenticand integrated contexts. Also the modes through which education isdelivered need to be reviewed, because there are certain types of knowl-edge such as emancipatory knowledge that require support through



formal and informal approaches. This raises issues regarding the re-sponsibility of significant others outside the classroom. If we are tobecome a community of learners and wish to promote continuous learn-ing, we need to nurture the inquiring mind beyond expected educationalboundaries. The curriculum for the new world order has to involve thecommunity.

References

Carmichael, L. (1992). Australian vocational certificate training system. Employment andSkills Formation Council, NBEET. Canberra: Australian Government PublishingService.

Cross, S., & Markus, H. (1991). Possible selves across the life span. Human Development,34, 230–255.

Delors, J. (1996). Learning: The treasure within. Report to UNESCO of the InternationalCommission on Education for the Twenty-first Century. Paris: UNESCO.

Drucker, P. (1946). Concept of the corporation. New York: John Day.Elliott, R., Brooker, R., Macpherson, I., & McInman, A. (in press). Curriculum as mediated

action. Teachers and Teaching.Frerie, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herter and Herter.Gee, J. P. (1993). Quality, science and the lifeworld: The alignment of business and edu-

cation. Critical Forum, 2, 3–13.Gee, J. P., Hull, G., & Lankshear, C. (1996). The new work order: Behind the language of

the new capitalism. St Leonards, Australia: Allen and Unwin.Giddens, A. (1998). The third way. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.Ilamel, G., & Prahalad, C. (1994). Competing for the future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.Kelly, K. (1994). Out of control: The new biology of machines, social systems, and the

economic world. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.May, R. (1975). The courage to create. New York: Norton.Mayer, E. (Chair). (1992). Employment related key competencies: A proposal for consulta-

tion. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Mezirow, J. (1990). How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. In J. Mezirow

and Associates, (Eds.), Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transfor-mative and emancipatory learning (pp. 1–20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, A. (1995). The knowledge creating company. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G.Salomon, (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations(pp. 47–87). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Perry, W. G. J. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W.Chickering, (Ed.), The modern American college (pp. 76–116). San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.

Reich, R. (1992). The work of nations. New York: Basic Books.Renshaw, P. (1998). Socio-cultural pedagogy for new times: Reframing key concepts. The

Australian Education Researcher, 25, 83–100.Sayer, D. (1983). Marx’s method: Ideology, science and critique in capital. Sussex, England:

Harvester Press.Schommer, M. A. (1993). Comparisons of beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learn-

ing among postsecondary students. Research in Higher Education, 34, 355–370.Spiro, R. J., & Jeheng, J. C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and tech-

nology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter.



In D. Nix and R. Spiro, (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideasin high technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Starkey, K. (Ed.). (1996). How organisations learn. London: International ThompsonPress.

Tishman, S., Jay, E., & Perkins, D. N. (1993). Teaching thinking disposition: From trans-mission to enculturation. Theory into Practice, 32, 147–153.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of the higher order psychologicalprocesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (originally published, 1930).

Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Documents

Emerging Attributes of Pedagogy and Curriculum for the “New World Order”