Educational Reflectionsthe occasional thoughts of an educational designer

15 November 2010

Models and theories of curriculum design“When teachers are asked to develop a curriculum, part of the requirement is to formalize that undertaking by writing it in the form of a curriculum document. The format of that document is almost invariably a statement of the objectives, content, method, and assessment in that order. Such a presentation may predispose teachers to adopt this format as a model for curriculum development, and thereby use an objectives model in the development stage. There would certainly be few, if any, curriculum documents where the objectives are presented at the end, even though this sequence might be a reflection of how the curriculum was developed. So the obvious logic in presentation need not parallel the method of development.”

(Brady, 1995, p 85)

This week, I’ve been reviewing models of curriculum design, partly because I’m giving a paper at the ASCILITE conference in Sydney in a couple of weeks about the Bones Modelwhich underpins my own practice, and partly because of the whole learning outcomes = standards thing that seems to underpin some of the paperwork doing the rounds (seeTEQSA and the ALTC standards project).

Accepted models of curriculum design emerging from studies of school-based education last century, are classified as “product” (aka rational – Print, 1993 or objectives – Tyler, 1949), “interactive” (Taba, 1962), “cyclical” (Print, 1993), or “process” (Wheeler, 1967; Stenhouse, 1975, and Hawes, 1979). Biggs’ model of constructive alignment, written for the higher education sector, owes much to the work of these early school-based models.

The best known of these is probably the linear product model. The assumption underpinning this model is that there is an agreed body of knowledge that students need to learn. It starts with a statement of objectives, follows with descriptions of content and method (selection and organization of teaching and learning activities), and finishes with evaluation, which generally encompasses both assessment strategies and evaluation of the curriculum. In these models, objectives serve as the basis for devising subsequent elements, with evaluation (assessment) indicating the degree of achievement of those objectives. The focus is on teaching.

Tyler’s 1949 model, one of the earliest linear examples, is based on the four questions he poses:

1. What educational purposes should the institution seek to attain [objectives]?

2. What educational experiences are likely to attain these objectives [instructional strategies and content]?

3. How can these educational experiences be organized effectively [organization of learning experiences?

4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained [assessment and evaluation]?His highly influential model was modified by Taba, who proposed a variation that recognized that while documenting the curriculum can be linear and logical, the process of design is a lot messier. Her interactive model adds the idea of a needs analysis, and reflects more accurately actual iterative design practice. 

Figure 1: Taba’s Interaction Model (Brady, 1995, p 81)

The cyclical models from the next stage in the evolution of curriculum design are similar in many ways to the linear and interactive models that preceded them. They incorporate the same or similar elements – initial situation analysis, identification of aims and objectives, selection and organization of content, selection and organization of learning activities, followed by an assessment / evaluation process (Wheeler, 1967; Nicholls & Nicholls, 1978). All of these product models – linear, interactive, and cyclical – are efficient, logical and clear. They probably don’t reflect actual curriculum design practice for most teachers, but they serve as useful checklists and tools for documenting curriculum.

The process models that followed them (Print calls them “dynamic” models) are more interesting. In the student-centred process models, the teacher’s role is that of facilitator rather than content authority. These models assume curriculum design to be an ongoing process, dependent on emerging information and practice, shaped by the beliefs, experiences, theories and philosophies held by those planning the learning environment. These models go well beyond the core elements of objectives, content, method, and assessment / evaluation, although these are recognized as part of the process. Hawes, for instance, shows that designers draw on theories from psychology, teaching and learning, and epistemology in making decisions about content and process selection. There can be problems with classrooms designed along these lines. For example, it may be difficult to ensure consistency of content coverage from cohort to cohort, and the quality of learning is very dependent on the quality of teaching. Attempts to compensate for these aspects have contributed to the discovery learning and problem-solving movements.

Figure 2: Hawes’ Process Model (Brady, 1995, p 84)

Walker is even more general, listing beliefs, theories, conceptions, points of view and aims / objectives.

Figure 3: Walker’s Model (Print, 1993, p 75)

So how are the product / interaction / cyclical models different from the process / dynamic models? The product models are prescriptive, the process models descriptive. The role of assessment is different. The former have clear objectives and aligned assessment strategies (generally prepared before the start of classes) designed to test how well students have achieved the learning outcomes; the latter may have assessment strategies designed to find out what students have learnt, and a highly diluted focus on learning outcomes.

It’s pretty clear that Biggs’ notion of constructive alignment owes more to the former (objectives) model of design than the latter, as do the many models of Instructional (Systems) Design aligned with the ADDIE approach familiar to instructional designers and those who have worked in distance education (see Dick & Carey’s Systems Approach, Esseff & Esseff’s Instructional Development Learning System (IDLS), and Romiszowki’s Instructional Systems Design (ISD), among others).

More recently, there have been some efforts to develop new models for higher education. Bell & Lefoe, writing in the late 90s, identified a lack in the traditional instructional design models which had not previously provided for decisions about media and the provision of flexible access. They proposed an early flexible learning curriculum design model that addressed decisions about media use. This aspect of designing curriculum for flexible and online delivery has become increasingly important as tertiary institutions across the world have rolled out Learning Management Systems and started to use social networking tools. Irlbeck, Kays, Jones & Sims describe their Three-Phase Design (3PD) Model as emerging from the blurring of the distinction between online and distance education (Irlbeck, Kays, Jones & Sims, 2006). The 3PD model provides for a team-based approach to the design, development, and delivery of online courses and deals not only with the initial development of learning materials and online environments (Phase 1: Preparing functional requirements), but also ongoing review and revision phases (Phase 2: Evaluate, elaborate and enhance, and Phase 3: Maintain).

In spite of this work, and the long history of curriculum design theory, models of curriculum design are not widely known amongst Australian academics.

And yet, and yet … academics in Australian universities do design curriculum, and they seem to be having some reasonable success in teaching their disciplines with little or no knowledge about these theories of curriculum design.

How can this be?

Well, I’ll be pondering this at length and posting more on the topic soon.

References

Bell, M., & Lefoe, G. (1998). Curriculum design for flexible delivery – massaging the model. In ASCILITE '98 : flexibility the next wave? : proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, December 14th to December 16th, 1998.

Biggs, J. & Tang C. (2008). Teaching for quality learning at university. Sydney, McGraw-Hill.

Brady, L. (1995). Curriculum development, 5th edn. Sydney, Prentice-Hall.

Hawes, j. (1979). Models and muddles in school-based curriculum development. The Leader, 1.

Irlbeck, S., Kays, E., Jones, D. & Sims, R. (2006). The Phoenix Rising: emergent modes of instructional design. Distance Education, 27(2), August 2006, 171-185.

Nicholls, A & Nicholls, S. (1972). Developing a curriculum: a practical guide. London, Allen & Unwin.

Print, M. (1993). Curriculum development and design, 2nd edn. Sydney, Allen & Unwin.

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London, Heineman.

Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: theory and practice. New York, Harcourt, Brace, and World.

Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

Walker, D. (1971). A naturalistic model for curriculum development, School Review, 80(1), 51-65.

Wheeler, D.K. (1967). Curriculum process. London, University of London Press.

Course Syllabus

Introduction

Curriculum design. The term might connote a variety of meanings. To some 132.756 is simply a course which must be taken as a requirement. Therefore, the content is essentially irrelevant. To others, the image of a technical how-to-do-it course comes to mind. This might imply a dull, step by step, over-obvious approach to doing what has to be done, but without any sense of eagerness. Who really wants to write dozens of objectives in an Audience/Behavior/Conditions/Degree mode? Who cares what the difference is between instructional goals, instructional objectives, curriculum goals and curriculum objectives? Still another reader of this text is looking for a quick fix, and hopes that this course will be a "just-in-time" approach to "all you need to know in a course" about curriculum design. Sorry! This course may disappoint! I believe that curriculum design is one of the exciting intellectual challenges that the field of education can offer. Curriculum design is about what we teach, why we teach it, and how we teach it. It is an ever changing kaleidoscope of changing, shifting positions. It is not an easy field to step into or through, but as teachers, trainers, academics, and scholars, it is important that you do.

The basic four step model comes from Ralph Tyler, in 1950, with his famous four questions ("What educational purposes should the school seek to attain? What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes? How can these educational experiences be effectively organized? How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?") easily turned into four steps: purposes, experiences, organization and evaluation.Or, for those who want an alternative model, the Heinich, Molenda, Russell and Smaldino acronym ASSURE offers a six step procedural model (Analyze learners, State objectives, Select methods, media and materials, Utilize, Require learner participation, Evaluate).

Of course, curriculum design ultimately depends on the purpose of the institution which provides the curricula. The following quotations suggest the divergence of opinion on such purposes. . Each of the writers below is attempting to ask the question: "What's a university for?"

"The true university these days is a collection of books" (Thomas Carlyle, 1840)

"My definition of a university is Mark Hopkins at one end of a log and a student at the other" (James Garfield, 1871)

"A university is a community of scholars. It is not a kindergarten; it is not a club; it is not a reform school; it is not a political party; it is not an agency of propaganda." (Robert Hutchins, 1961)

"A place to learn how to learn." (Henry Writson, New York Times, June 11, 1975)

Finally it is easy to modify the above to ask "What's a college for?" "What's a school for?" or What 's a training program for?" Curriculum design begins at this level.

Foundations of curriculum theory and design

Curriculum theory and design to some must sound like a dull but required course activity. I hope that this is not the case. Curriculum theory at its best is a challenging and exciting intellectual puzzle. It is a vibrant field full of contradictions, challenges, uncertainties and directions. Yet it is a critical field, the outcome of which does matter. When we teach, whether from preschool to high school; from children to adult, whether educating or training, what we do must make a difference. We cannot waste our audiences time with training that doesn't help, with educating that doesn't educate, or teaching that which may be irrelevant or even wrong. If a surgeon makes a mistake, his patient dies. If teachers, educators, professors, trainers make a mistake, we do not readily see the consequences, and indeed may never see the consequences. Ask yourself: Have you hurt anyone lately by giving misinformation? Did you really make a difference in your teaching, say yesterday? How do you know? Does the curriculum that you help design and deliver really do the job it is supposed to?

This course deals with the theory and practice of curriculum design. Participants will want to ask "How do I do curriculum design?" "What are the theoretic underpinnings which inform the practical problems of making curriculum?" The first question tends to be a practical one and is, at least initially, managed effectively and efficiently through a variety of systematic design models, which have their origin in the work of Ralph Tyler in the middle of the 20th century. This course will begin with the Tyler rationale and then explore contemporary design models as expressed in the literature.

For this course, however, the underlying theoretic foundations which inform how and what one does will bias our discussions into particular directions.

The foundations that I shall somewhat arbitrarily select are critical theory, identity politics and a systematic model of curriculum design.

The first underlying foundation is that of critical theory and postmodernism. This is a term which I deliberately use, and then immediately reject. The problem is that Critical Theory (capitalized) is a specific (and useful) approach to contemporary intellectual thinking. But it is not an all encompassing theory and deliberately excludes a huge variety of critical methodologies. There seems to be no one term that captures them all. Narrative approaches, post-structural, feminist, post colonial, post-modern, hermeneutic, and semiotic are some of the terms often used to identity particular intellectual traditions. My particular bias, is to use the term postmodern, and I use a broad definition which is not a mainstream one. Postmodern to me simply means a focus on the conflict which occurs when multiple and alternative discourses confront each other in a struggle for identity and hegemonic power. It is critical to identify these alternative discourses, whichever they are.

The second underlying foundation is that of identity politics. In our context, this means that we need to focus what it means to be Canadian and to ask whether there is a unique Canadian curriculum. Philosophers have asked "Is there a Canadian philosophy?" Others have tried to explicate the nature of Canadian identity, especially today as we lie within the pull of globalization, and North American free trade. It may well be that national politics is disappearing, but this is not a foregone conclusion. Identity politics today has a dark side, characterized by extreme fundamentalism, and "ethnic cleansing." In light of terrorist activity of September 11, 2001, it is necessary to re-think the implications of a still popular Molson's beer commercial which extols the theme "I am a Canadian." There is nothing dark or frightening to claim ones own heritage. As long as we have competitive sports, we will always have a division along alternative lines of commitment and identity. So this second foundation explores what it means to produce a Canadian curriculum, and what will be unique to that curriculum as compared to similar curricula of other countries.

A third foundation revolves around the technical and systematic models of progress. There are clear and specific ways to design, develop and evaluate a curriculum, and these form the very practical base by which we move from vagueness into specificity. Or is it from specificity into vagueness?

Are their other foundations? Of course there are. At the moment these will remain unstated. It will be part of the goal of this course to identify hidden assumptions, hidden curricula, and other significant themes which inform how contemporary curricula are and should be constructed.

Time Commitment

Textbooks on the university experience for undergraduates generally argue for a 2-1 or 3-1 rule. That is, at the undergraduate level, you should expect to spend two hours for every hour in class. The rule of thumb for graduate students is 3-1.

Two points immediately are relevant to this. First, the 3-1 rule is only a rule of thumb. Sometimes those out of the university "loop" do not realize how long students spend in studying. To give just two examples, students of medicine typically "hit the books" well past midnight. Students in computer science work well into the early hours of the morning trying to make code work properly. Other subjects, too, require not just work but a severe time commitment. It is not too much to expect, therefore, that students in Education should work equally.

Yet, the above statement contains a near impossibility for part time students. Assume, for the moment that you work a normal day. You come to this class for 3 hours on Monday nights. That means you should block off three additional hours on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights. (And this is only a rule of thumb!). Where do you put in family responsibilities? Other activities? A second course? Obviously, if you overbook, something has to give. You need to decide whether that something is your academic work...

A Comment on Method

I teach through critical examination and deconstruction of cultural texts. I define "text" broadly and semiotically. Semiotics, "the science of signs and sign systems" defines text as anything which can be read or interpreted. Of course this means printed text, but it also means visual text, television text, audio text, and even the text of clothing/dress, and the text of artifacts such as automobiles, computers, and the food we eat. In short, text is anything which we can "read", analyze, and interpret.

This course will use more than readings, although they provide a fulcrum. We shall watch film and video, listen to songs and music, and use whatever is relevant. You should treat these texts seriously, and where possible record titles, sources, dates, and whatever bibliographic information you record for traditional texts.

Actually, I am on very solid theoretic ground in my model. In particular, structuralist philosopher Roland Barthes in his book Mythologies (1957) examines common cultural

phenomena for the role of myth. Marshal McLuhan's famous Understanding Media (1964) is described as "an inventory of effects." Each short chapter examines one phenomenon of the electric age. And Umberto Eco, in his philosophic musings, focuses on the artifacts of popular culture as the basics of his own project.

Cultural texts may not seem to be directly "curriculum texts". A narrow interpretation of a curriculum text is, I suppose, any book or reading about curriculum theory. But I believe that curriculum theory is everywhere. While the "curriculum guide" may provide the explicit curriculum (what is supposed to be taught), there is also a taught curriculum (what is actually taught), the hidden curriculum (what is subtly taught), and the null curriculum (what is not taught). With this in mind, what constitutes "curriculum text" is very broad indeed.

Curriculum as Technology

The term "technology" is a rich one, full of ambiguity and multiple meanings. Unfortunately, the common usage of the term equates technology with things. Technology, by this definition means computers, television sets, and refrigerators, microwave ovens and at another level, simple tools such as hammers, saws and screw drivers.

But that is not what technology means to me. As you will see, (or perhaps have already seen) technology is one model of curriculum development... a systematic process model. Alternatively, technology is the application of science. But most scholars immediately reject that idea, and argue that technology precedes science as often as it follows science. It is because of certain technological abilities that we can make new scientific discoveries.

So, if you think of technology as artifacts, you will quickly come to the false conclusion that this discussion is irrelevant to this course. On the other hand, if you think about technology in its larger senses, then technology is totally relevant and central to our project.

Of course, information technology, yet another sub-category, is having a major effect on curriculum theory and practice. The major misunderstandings by the school system of technology as computers and computers as tools is a significant concern to contemporary critical theorists. But that is another issue.

Procedural/technical Issues

This course follows all university rules and regulations as stated in the ROASS document, and follows the approved Faculty of Education grading scheme. All rules and regulations relevant to the first half of this course extend to the second half.

Tentative Course Outline (2006)

TBA

 

 

Tentative Course Outline (2006)

Session 1 (Jan 9) Introductions

Session 2 (Jan 16) What is curriculum? Ben-Peretz (JSTOR)Kliebard

Session 3 (Jan 23) GoodsonApplebeeAoki

Session 4 (Jan 30) Special Event?

Session 5 (Feb 6) Marsh MacNeilToepfer

(Feb 13) Mid Term Break

Session 6(Feb 20) WilesEllsworth Ornstein

Session 7 (Feb 27) BeauchampsVallance

Session 8 (Mar 6) HlynkaHlynka / Yeaman Slattery

Session 9 (Mar 13) Baudrillard

Session 10 (Mar 20) Kliebard-2 Chambers

Session 11 (Mar 27) TBA

Session 12 (Apr 3) Papers/projects due

This page last modified: 09/24/2007 17:45:36.

 Tyler's Objective Model Edit  0 0  2 …

Tyler's Objective Model for Curriculum Evaluation

OverviewTyler came up with a book in 1949, Basic Theory of Basic principle of Curriculum & InstructionThis model takes curriculum as a means of aiming toward an educational objective. Therefore, this model is also called means–objective model.Underlining questions that he asks:

1. What is the object of education?2. What teaching experience that we have to provide in order to achieve educational object?3. How to effectively organize the educational experience?4. How can we know whether these objects have achieved? (How to evaluate? )

Which curriculum does the model evaluate: Planned, Enacted, and / or Experienced?Planned

How is data collected? What data is collected? Is there an organizer?Educational experience is organized

Where does student assessment fit in?Basic overview: Objective-Choice-Organization-EvaluationThis model aimed student's developing behavior as their target of teaching. The evaluation does not give much feedback on how to execute a better way of teaching.

What are the Pros and Cons to the Evaluation model?

Cons

The objective under Tyler’s straight line model has a behavioral orientation. Behavioral objectives have many advantages if applied to curriculum design, but they have some limitations on execution. For example, they do not apply to all subjects or the design of a subject’s content.

Unacceptable verbs are as follow: to know, to understand, to really understand, to appreciate, to fully appreciate, to grasp the significance of, to enjoy, to believe and to have faith in.

Building behavioral objectives takes a very long time and a very tedious process. Besides, this model narrows the span of knowledge and skills which the students must actually be familiar with.

Pros

Notable for being the 1st model of objectives for teaching. Examples of the acceptable verbs are: (Students will be able) to write, to recite, to identify, to differentiate, to solve, to construct, to list, to

compare and to contrast.

Tyler Curriculum Rationale And The Reconceptualists - Interview With Ralph W. Tyler — Document Transcript

1. Please cite the source as: Cordero, G. & García Garduño, J. M. (2004). The

Tylerian curriculum model and the reconceptualists. Interview with Ralph W.

Tyler (1902-1994). Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 6 (2).

Retrieved month day, year from: http://redie.uabc.mx/vol6no2/contenido-

cordero.html Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa Vol. 6, No. 2,

2004 El modelo curricular tyleriano y los reconceptualistas. Entrevista con

Ralph W. Tyler (1902-1994) Tyler’s Curriculum Rationale and the

Reconceptualists. Interview with Ralph W. Tyler (1902-1994) Graciela

Cordero Arroyo (*) gcordero@uabc.mx José María García Garduño (*)

josemariagarduno@yahoo.com.mx * Instituto de Investigación y Desarrollo

Educativo Universidad Autónoma de Baja California A.P. 453 C.P. 22830

Ensenada, Baja California, México Resumen Este trabajo presenta una

entrevista que la primera autora realizó en 1990 a Ralph W. Tyler, uno de los

educadores más importantes del siglo XX en Estados Unidos. Posteriormente

se analiza la obra y el pensamiento de Tyler con la intención de clarificar

algunos conceptos mal entendidos en su trabajo desde finales de los años

setenta. Esta entrevista quizá sea la primera y única que este gran educador

dio a un académico

2. Cordero & García Garduño: The tylerian curriculum model…

iberoamericano y una de las pocas en las que externó su perspectiva sobre el

movimiento curricular de los reconceptualistas, quienes fueron los más

fuertes críticos del modelo tyleriano. Palabras clave: Historia del currículum,

teoría curricular, objetivos conductuales, evaluación. Abstract Ralph W. Tyler

was considered one of the most influential of US educators during the last

century. The purpose of this paper is to present an interview granted by Tyler

to the first author of this paper in 1990. Tyler’s interview is preceded by a

brief analysis of his work, in the hope of shedding light on some

misconceptions that Tyler’s work has suffered since early 70s. The present

interview may have been the only one given to an Ibero-American

academician, and one of the very few in which Tyler was spoke openly about

what he thought of the fierce criticism launched by reconceptualists against

his curriculum rationale. Key words: History of curriculum, curriculum theory,

behavioral objectives, evaluation. So as long as there is education, there has

got to be a curriculum. Ralph W. Tyler (1990) Ralph Winfred Tyler was born in

Chicago on April 22, 1902. In 1921 he obtained his A.B. in science and

mathematics from Doane College, and in 1922 he became a high school

teacher in the city of Pierre, South Dakota. In 1923 he received his A.M. from

the University of Nebraska, where he began to specialize in the use of

statistics in achievement tests. In 1927 he got his Ph.D. in Educational

Psychology at the University of Chicago. At the invitation of Werret Chartes,

his teacher during Tyler’s doctoral studies, Tyler moved to the Office of

Educational Research of Ohio State University to direct the Department of

Educational Evaluation. His presence and his work became well-known in the

area of education, beginning with the Eight-Year Study, the greatest

curriculum research project ever undertaken. Tyler founded several research

centers. As a consultant to several Presidents of the United States, he worked

on various national committees and councils. From 1939 to 1946 he was a

member of the National Committee on Teacher Education, and belonged to

the National Science Board from 1962 to 1968. For nearly 72 years he was

constantly active as a teacher, researcher, consultant and official. Tyler’s

most important contributions were in the fields of curriculum and evaluation.

He died of cancer in February of 1994. Revista Electrónica de Investigación

Educativa Vol. 6, No. 2, 2004 2

3. Cordero & García Garduño: The tylerian curriculum model… I. The work of

Ralph W. Tyler Ralph W. Tyler is considered one of the greatest educators

produced by the United States in the twentieth century. In the Ibero-

American world, he is principally known for his Basic principles of curriculum

(1949/1986),1 a work which may have had more influence on world-wide

curriculum design and practice than any other. However, his line of thought

has often been distorted, and his contributions have sometimes gone

unrecognized. For example, there are those who consider Tyler to be a

behaviorist because of his emphasis on the use of behavioral objectives in

curriculum construction and evaluation, in spite of the fact that Tyler never

clung to behaviorism in his curriculum design. In that field, his thought was

more closely linked with that of Dewey, although he was also influenced by

his teacher Charles Judd, from whom he learned the importance of

generalization in curriculum as well as the objectives. One of Tyler’s

teachers, a woman who taught at the University of Nebraska, was a disciple

of Thorndike. It was through her that Tyler came into contact with

Thorndike’s The psychology of arithmetic, which contained 3,000 objectives—

with the result that Tyler thereafter considered the behavioral objectives to

be too specific (Schubert & Lopez Schubert, 1986). During the 30s, Tyler

spoke of transcurriculum objectives, which he conceived of as very broad

objectives which should accompany the united effort of the school or the

community (Cronbach, 1986). One example of these objectives was that of

developing a philosophy of life in the students. This same idea was expressed

by Tyler 40 years later at the full apogee of the use of behavioral objectives.

Tyler himself described the limitations of these objectives and stated that:

“surely you can't use just the objectives as the basis for comprehensive

evaluation” (Ridings, 1981, p. 12). In the interview reported in this work Tyler

emphasized the limitations of educational taxonomies: “A taxonomy is what

someone else states as the meaning of educational objectives (but) you are

the teacher working with students” (Ridings, 1981, p. 13), and insisted that it

is the teacher who should decide what is important to learn in a particular

situation. Nevertheless, it is impossible to ignore the fact that Tyler was

influenced by his day’s adherents to curricular behaviorism: Franklin Bobbit

and Werret W. Charters, both of whom were Tyler’s teachers at the University

of Chicago (García Garduño, 1995). The Tylerian curriculum model had a

clear influence on the thought of Charters, who was the creator of the job

analysis method. The basic steps of the method Charters (1923/1971)

proposed for curriculum design are: 1) Determine the most important

objectives of education. 2) Analyze the objectives and to continue examining

them up to the level of work units. 3) Hierachize the activities according to

their importance. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa Vol. 6, No. 2,

2004 3

4. Cordero & García Garduño: The tylerian curriculum model… 4) Select the

objectives and activities which can re reached and carried out during the

school year. 5) Gather the best experiences derived from the selected

activities. 6) Order the instructional material according to the psychological

nature of the student. Moreover, in the Ibero-American setting it is not well

known that Tyler’s masterpiece, Basic principles of curriculum (1949/1986),

was not originally envisioned as a book. The text consisted of Tyler’s notes

for the courses Education 305 y 360,2 which he taught at the University of

Chicago. Because of this, the work has no references. The bibliography for

the Spanish edition was added by the translator (Díaz Barriga, 1991). Tyler’s

meager 100 pages of notes were the touchstone for the development of the

discipline and practice of curriculum as we know them today. Basic principles

of curriculum (1949/1986) was a product of the Eight-Year Study (1933-

1941), a long-term research carried out during Great Depression. The

purpose of the study was to evaluate the effects of Dewey’s progressive

education on university students by means of a comparison with traditional

education. The Association for Progressive Education had charge of the

study, which included 30 high schools and 300 colleges and universities.

Tyler was hired to evaluate the study. Among those connected with the study

was the commissions on evaluation and curriculum. Some researchers who

participated on these commissions informed Tyler that the Study had a

model for evaluation, but none for curriculum. Tyler, who was dining with

Hilda Taba, took a napkin and on it sketched what would become known as

the Tylerian Model of Curriculum (Ridings, 1981). Another little-known aspect

in our area is that the work of Tyler was not limited to curriculum. Equally

outstanding, or perhaps more, so than his work on curriculum is his work in

the field of evaluation. Tyler was the creator of the term evaluation, and later

introduced the concept of assessment to give greater precision to evaluative

practice. To him we owe the creation of the discipline of evaluation, and of

the test for measuring achievement, based on what we now know. On a level

with The basic principles of curriculum (1949/1986), the other masterpiece of

this notable educator is Constructing achievement tests, published in 1934.

Tyler stated that what he was trying to do in constructing tests based on the

objectives of the course rather than on its contents, was to combat the

memorization that prevailed in examinations. In that era, students were

basically examined regarding their memorization capacity, and not for the

goals which the course pursued (Ridings, 1981). Although by 1932 Tyler had

already developed the greater part of the thought that characterized his work

(Cronbach, 1986), this did not remain static; rather, it evolved during his long

and productive career. He remained energetically active to the end of his life.

This extraordinary man, who started out as a behaviorist and a Deweyist,

ended up embracing a measure of constructivist thought, as may be Revista

Electrónica de Investigación Educativa Vol. 6, No. 2, 2004 4

5. Cordero & García Garduño: The tylerian curriculum model… seen in the

present interview and in others. At the age of ninety, Tyler once said: “I

never met a child who couldn't learn” (“Ralph Tyler, one of century’s…”,

2004). Explaining his conception about learning, in this interview he

expressed ideas such as the following: The children keep learning as they go

along and build on it. You can’t suddenly introduce something, and expect

them to be adults if they have to have the previous preparation. So

objectives ought to be large enough to understand. The ability of the human

being is to generalize, so that when you have some specific thing, it does

help you to generalize the principle behind it as something new. Otherwise it

becomes like training a person to do a job, little things that they don’t

commonly understand. So don’t get behavioral objectives that are so tiny

that there is no generalization. That’s not human. Human beings generalize

from their experience. II. Tyler as a person Tyler was a tireless man. From

1921, when he was graduated as a teacher, until a few months before his

death in 1994—a period of more than 70 years—he was constantly active.

During his working life, more than twice the length of that of most people, he

published more than 700 articles and 16 books. He was a consultant to six of

the Presidents of his country, and presided over many committees related

with education. In the seventies he founded and directed the National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), an office dedicated to the

evaluation of education in the United States. In the same decade he was a

force behind the formation of regional laboratories dedicated to research and

the evaluation of learning. His advanced age never made him lose his

optimism, his excellent memory, or his articulateness. He was a man who, as

one of his children stated in 1988, “refuses to idealize the past and denigrate

the present, a temptation to which many of his peers succumb” (“Ralph

Tyler, one of century’s”, 2004). Tyler was a humanist in every sense of the

word. My view is that a good life for a human being is one in which he is

continually seeking to be more fully human; which means, to be more able to

learn; to be more helpful to others; to contribute; to try to produce a society

in which others have a deep respect for the potential of every human being,

and an unwillingness to simply be saved by other people; and to be greatly

motivated to seek to be part of that society that would make it better for

each successive generation (Tyler, Schubert & Lopez Schubert, 1986, p. 100)

Probably Tyler’s unassuming nature was an inheritance from his family. He

told his biographers (Meek, 1993) that his father, a doctor, was able to earn

enough money by the end of the nineteenth century ($5,000 dollars a year, a

very Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa Vol. 6, No. 2, 2004 5

6. Cordero & García Garduño: The tylerian curriculum model… respectable

amount at that time) to enable him to abandon his medical profession and

become a minister of the gospel. Tyler had a quality seldom seen in the world

of education: he was both an educator and a great researcher. Although he

earned his bachelor’s degree in science and mathematics, he intended to

become a doctor like his father (Schubert & Lopez Schubert, 1986). He got

into teaching by accident. Because of the scarcity of teachers in South

Dakota, and at the suggestion of a friend of his father’s, Tyler became a high

school teacher in that state. Perhaps the true duality of his character

(teacher and researcher) together with the manner in which he was brought

up by his family made him a modest, simple man. His interviewers wanted to

call him a guru and a sage, but Tyler always rejected those words. In

demonstration of his humble spirit, we reproduce here an excerpt from a

dialog between Ridings and Tyler. Ridings: During the photo session, we were

talking about statesmen. I made the statement that you were, if not the

premiere educational states man, one of our most important educational

statesmen. Tyler: Well flattery doesn't get you everywhere. Let's go on with

the questions. (Ridings, 1981, p. 35.) Among the most outstanding of his

students are Benjamin Bloom, and Lee J. Cronbach (1916-2001) whom Tyler

called his “right arm”. Bloom (1986), for example, says that he himself came

from a working-class family, and that it was Tyler who believed in him and

got him started on his career. Bloom (1986) saw Tyler as a guru. He declared

that “when you listened to what he [Tyler] said, even when you didn’t

understand him, the problem was to find the deeper meaning" (p. 36). It is

thus understandable why Bloom’s book, The taxonomy of the educational

objectives (1956/1971), was dedicated to his former teacher. The virtues of

this great man are all but unknown outside his own country, except among a

few foreigners who knew him personally. John Goodlad (as cited in Schubert

& Lopez Schubert, 1986, pp. 10-11) says: Perhaps (his) greatest contribution

has been the counsel he has given to thousands on an individual, person-to-

person basis. It is… that combination of traits that makes a half hour with him

so rewarding: the ability to concentrate exclusively on the problem before

him and the ability to raise precisely the right questions regarding it…

Teacher, scholar, administrator, creator of institutions, policy maker, speaker,

traveler, advisor to presidents, counselor, friend –Ralph Tyler is and has been

all of these and, in all of these roles, always a student. III. Interview with Tyler

Starting in the seventies there were published several interviews regarding

Tyler’s life and work. The magazine Phi Delta Kappan may have published the

first Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa Vol. 6, No. 2, 2004 6

7. Cordero & García Garduño: The tylerian curriculum model… (Fishbien,

1973), the second (Ryan, Johnston, Johnston & Newman, 1977) and the last

interview, six months before his decease (Hiatt, 1994). The most

comprehensive interviews were those of Chall (1987),3 in 1985, 1986 and

1987, published in a 450-page book, the product of 15 taped cassettes; that

of William Schubert and Ann Lynn Schubert (1986), which appeared in a

special number of the Journal of Thought dedicated completely to Tyler; and

that of Ridings (1981) published online and included in the work of Madaus y

Stufflebeam (1989). One of the last interviews Tyler granted was published in

Educational Leadership a year before his death (Meek, 1993). His last

interview was given to Hiatt six months before Tyler’s death (1994). These

are the most important interviews of Tyler of which we have knowledge.

Interestingly, the majority of those who interviewed him were women. IV. The

context and value of the present interview This interview was carried out by

Graciela Cordero Arroyo on March 23, 1990, in Ralph Tyler’s office located in

the School of Education of Stanford University. Tyler, then 87-years-old, was

director emeritus of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral

Sciences and Visiting Scholar of Stanford’s School of Education. He was also a

teacher of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where he gave classes

four days a month, and in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he

worked during the summer. The interview was requested by means of a letter

to Tyler, with the intention of becoming acquainted with his perspective on

curriculum and learning, 40 years after the publication of the best-known

book in the world of Mexican education. In addition, the interviewer wished to

get Tyler’s response to the 70s’ reconceptualist movements in curriculum

studies, since there seemed to be no text in which Tyler had given a clear

statement of his position. Tyler’s answer to the request was quick and

courteous. He agreed to meet with the interviewer at Stanford University,

and set no time limit on the interview. This lasted approximately two hours,

and Tyler allowed it to be recorded on audiocassette. His memory and

articulateness were amazing, although he was having problems with his

hearing. Tyler used public transportation to get to Stanford, since his driver’s

license had been canceled. The value of this interview has three principal

aspects. The first is that it was, insofar as we know, the first ever granted to

an Ibero-American academician. The second is that in it, Tyler expresses

frank criticisms of the centralized and socialistic systems which he visited

during his life. The third aspect is the statement of his perspective regarding

the reconceptualists or reconstructivists, as he called them, a curriculum

movement dating from the beginning of the 70s, and headed by Michael

Apple, William Pinar and Henry Giroux. This movement severely criticized the

work of Tyler. It appears that in previous interviews Tyler Revista Electrónica

de Investigación Educativa Vol. 6, No. 2, 2004 7

8. Cordero & García Garduño: The tylerian curriculum model… never

responded publicly to these criticisms, nor to others which labeled his work

as behaviorist. In the present interview, Tyler is more open in expressing an

opinion about this movement. On the other hand, this interview proved that

the acclamations of his humbleness and unassuming nature heard from

former students, colleagues, and others who knew him, were true. The first

author, who interviewed Tyler, represented no magazine, nor any of the

nationally or internationally-known media. She was simply an admirer of his

work—a person who wanted to meet him and learn more about him. The

generosity and respect with which Tyler treated this interviewer was

noteworthy from the first moment in which the interview was accepted. In

addition, the interview is further proof of the great articulacy and memory of

a man nearly 88-years-old at the time. Graciela Cordero (GC): What is your

concept of education? Ralph Tyler (RT): Education ought to help young

people develop the values that keep the society together. But people have to

understand, at least in a democratic society, that as conditions change they

have to reexamine which values are still important. Values like honesty and

integrity and respect for other people, and so on, continue. But some values

may not be as necessary or important in the new kinds of society. It has to be

studied!it’s not easily answered. Part of the role of education is to help young

people to appreciate the values of the society that holds them together!also

to appreciate the direction in which their particular society has been moving.

I think our society in the United States has been moving bit by bit to being

more and more democratic. We try to reach now every child. There used to

be a time when you would say, “Well, most of these children are

uneducable”, so they didn’t pay much attention. When I was in elementary

school, in the United States the average child dropped out of school by the

end of the fifth or sixth grade!when he was about eleven or twelve. Now, we

have about 80% who finish high school. There has been a great expansion of

the system trying to help every child go as far as possible. There was a time

when black people in this country were not respected, and they had little

education. It was due to the Civil Rights movement that crossed this country,

that was some years ago, as you may remember. There is an effort now to

reach everybody, blacks and whites and every other immigrant group in the

ranks, so that education is viewed as something that everybody should have.

And there was a time when they thought that elementary education was all

that was needed. Increasingly, there is a concern for developing lifelong

education. Keep learning!you may not learn it in school, but if you stop

learning when you’re 25, you’re ill-prepared for the kind of society you’ll

reach when you’re 40. You’ve Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa

Vol. 6, No. 2, 2004 8

9. Cordero & García Garduño: The tylerian curriculum model… got to keep

learning something every year. Not necessarily in school, but someplace

where you do your learning. So all these are illustrations of trying to see what

is desirable educationally. It changes as we get new insights. It will not be the

same in 1990 as it was in 1920. GC: How is the educational system organized

in the United States? RT: Fortunately the United States Constitution starts out

by saying that we the people establish the thing. What is not authorized for

the Federal Government moves back to the state. Education is not

mentioned, so it is not the responsibility in the United States, for the Federal

Government to control education. It goes back to the states. And most states,

fortunately, have delegated that back to the local towns!the school boards in

those towns. There is a great opportunity for any school that wants to build a

better curriculum, is free to do so. It’s not controlled by the state or the

nation in that regard. In some countries that is not true. GC: What happens in

other countries? RT: I’ve visited the totalitarian counties. I visited Germany,

in 1935, when Hitler was there. Their curriculum was a brutal one. It advised

people to destroy the Jews, and so on. Then in 1961, I spent some time at the

Curriculum Center in Moscow, in Russia. And in 1977, I was in Peking, in

China. The way they do it, for example, in China, you go into a school–a

typical class is about 60 students in China, they have so few teachers–, you

go into a class and the teacher will raise a question, and then call upon a

person she knows will give the right answer. Then she’ll say to all the other

children “Now”, and they all chorus it. They just keep memorizing what

they’re supposed to know. It produces indoctrination, because you never ask

a question where they have to think. I’ve been in the French Center for

Curriculum, which is centralized, and doesn’t work very well. They tell the

story about the Ministry of Education that said what every French school is

teaching: this at this time. They weren’t, but they reported that they were. So

the myth of centralization… Legally, France is a centralized educational

system. Actually, people do what they want to do. But that’s generally true.

You can’t improve education from the top down. You’ve got to help the

people who do it, understand and try to do the best job they can. GC: It is

possible to say that you represent the history of curriculum development.

How long have you been working in this field? RT: I’ve been at it a long time,

you know. I started in 1927, and this is now ’90…that would be 63 years. And

I’ve been teaching since 1921—that’s 69 years. You get a lot of experience in

that time! Just remember what H. G. Wells said about it: “People that don’t

know their history repeat the same errors as their forbears". Revista

Electrónica de Investigación Educativa Vol. 6, No. 2, 2004 9

10. Cordero & García Garduño: The tylerian curriculum model… GC: It is

common to talk about “Tyler’s rationale”. How can you define this rationale?

Has it something to do with rationality? RT: If you mean by rationality that it’s

rational, that’s a good idea. I think some people think that it (rationality)

excludes getting new ideas and creativity from time to time. But my own

experience has been that if I find something in advance, then I am better

prepared to see opportunities for modifying it as we move along, because I

know what I’m looking for. I know that I have been criticized by people who

say that it’s too cut and dried, or something like that, too formal. But I don’t

mean it to be formal; I mean it to be a guide to your own thinking, not to

make your thinking formal. Depends on how you interpret it. The test of any

proposal of this sort is to try it out and see how it works for you. My students

working my outline, found it helpful. If they don’t find it helpful, why it

probably isn’t so? But to sit back and criticize without suggesting a

substitute… Children are being taught and adults are being taught, so the

question is “What kind of guide do they find helpful?” This guide that I’ve

developed, you might find it helpful. The end is the good education of the

children and youth that are being educated. So the question is not “Does it

look rational?” but, “How does it help you?” GC: Would you define your work

as pragmatic? RT: America is noted for being what’s called pragmatic!not

getting involved in ideologies!spinning out things up there, but thrusting out

and seeing what helps, because usually an ideology has not been carefully

tested out. You saw what happened to Communism. The ideology of

Communism, or parts of it, sound very promising. But the notion that

everybody should receive the same reward, regardless of what he puts into it

turns out not to work very well, because a lot of people get tired of working,

and then seeing other people getting the same rewards when they’re not

doing anything. Pretty soon you have to go back to something that works a

little better. That is what is called pragmatism. GC: What are the main

questions to rise in any curriculum project? RT: The same questions always

arise in a curriculum, namely, what is it they’re trying to teach young people!

and what should they learn, and that involves, as you recall, considering

what their society needs if they’re going to be a good citizen. The first

purpose of education in any society is to develop responsible citizenship, and

so that requires you to understand what are the characteristics of a

responsible citizen. The citizens in a democratic country are not only the

subjects, they are the rulers. They are responsible for electing the officials,

and so on. They have to have understanding, and make decisions. When I

worked in Russia, the citizens there are supposed to go along. They are not

supposed to think. They are supposed to do what the Central Committee and

Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa Vol. 6, No. 2, 2004 10

11. Cordero & García Garduño: The tylerian curriculum model… the

government party asks of them. I found the same thing in China. So good

citizenship is quite different. Developing a curriculum for citizens in Russia is

different from developing a curriculum for citizens in Mexico or the United

States. So you have to consider what the demands of the society are. You’ve

got to consider the questions of the age of the child growing up to become a

responsible person. You’ve got to consider the availability of content that can

help them. It would be nice to have content that doesn’t exist!when it doesn’t

exist, you’ve got to understand what’s available in science and all the other

fields in order to help young people learn. Then you’ve got the question of

what we know about the psychology of learning, which is, you’ve got to build

step by step. So the object then is to figure out what comes first, what will

young children learn? And a little beyond that, they keep learning as they go

along and build on it. You can’t suddenly introduce something, and expect

them to be adults if they have to have the previous preparation. So all these

questions: the organization of the curriculum with the learning experiences!

how can they learn these things?!are all questions of the curriculum. Those

remain the same. But I don’t know of any other place that mentions that as

much as my little book Basic principles of curriculum (1949/1986). It was

developed not as a book, it was developed as a guide for a class that I taught

at the University of Chicago. And I discovered that the University of Chicago

Press had picked it up as a book when I didn’t even know it was made into a

book. I started it out as a mimeograph and it became published. It’s now

published, I think, in eight or nine languages. The last one to come in, that I

saw, was in Arabic, which was for students in Egypt. I ran into a professor

from Iraq who said that he had been using the book in Arabic. And since

there is no treaty with Egypt as to copyright, they could do almost anything

without informing anybody else about it. So I only discovered it because he

was using the book in Arabic. And I just had a letter two weeks ago from the

University of Shanghai, in China. They want to translate it into Chinese. GC:

What do you think about defining behavioral objectives in curriculum? RT:

Objectives ought to be large enough to understand. The ability of the human

being is to generalize, so that when you have some specific thing, it does

help you to generalize the principle behind it as something new. Otherwise it

becomes like training a person to do a job, little things that they don’t

commonly understand. So don’t get behavioral objectives that are so tiny

that there is no generalization. That’s not human. Human beings generalize

from their experience. For example, in teaching reading, one of the

objectives is to comprehend. Another objective may be to develop interest in

reading material. That’s a general objective; you can see a number of

possibilities. But don’t get it down to the point Revista Electrónica de

Investigación Educativa Vol. 6, No. 2, 2004 11

12. Cordero & García Garduño: The tylerian curriculum model… of saying

“I’m trying get interest in this little thing, or this little thing”, because the

important thing is for the child to discover in reading that you find interesting

things, and it becomes meaningful in its own way. GC: Joseph Schwab said

that the curriculum field was dead. Also did Philip Jackson. What do you think

about this opinion? RT: It depends on who defines death. Again, the

pragmatic question is: What do you want to prove by showing whether a

thing is dead or not? Are you proposing that we are now going to wake it up,

or something?” People can talk about students!that they are no longer alive

because they are not protesting a lot. Well, if protesting did them any good...

maybe they’re interested in something better. So I don’t worry about what

they want to call it. The issue is not whether it’s dead or not. The question is:

What can we do now to make the curriculum better? What Joe Schwab did so

admirably (he was one of my students, he died two years ago) was to get the

group of teachers and curricular people together at a school and discuss.

They worked out by conference and discussion a great deal, rather than just

setting up an outline of what to do. He worked at showing them how to do it.

He felt he contributed, and I think he did, the idea that a curriculum develops

from group discussion, and not from some individual’s laying down the

curriculum. Joe Schwab introduced this notion from his own experience. He

was responsible for the development of a science program. At that time the

United States got all upset when the Russians put somebody on the moon,

and thought their science teaching wasn’t good enough. He developed this

program for that, which involved science and other teachers sitting down

together to talk about what they could do and how they could do it, rather

than to just prepare it for somebody else to follow a written syllabus. GC: I

have read also about an American movement in curriculum that is called

reconceptualization. What do they want to reconceptualize? What are the

differences between the traditional curriculum movement and

reconceptualization? RT: What do they think the difference is? I’m not myself

a person who tries to classify things, because it tends to label them, and you

don’t understand the particulars!because whoever sets the label decides

those are certain criteria. So they look for that, and they label everything in

those trends. I’d rather have a more complete description. What is good

about this curriculum?, and what is having difficulty with it? So rather than

trying to classify it according to labels I work that way. But the

reconstructionists4 like to label the curriculum the way they want it. That is,

they start out from their conception of what the good society is, and then

they reconstruct history to fit their way of viewing it. That’s why it is called

reconstructionist. But I myself have not any concern to classify or label. When

you label something it no longer fits. If you label a boy, you really disable

him. It doesn’t help him at all. One way that he’s disabled is through

language and all this effort to label puts people in categories and forgets

about trying to understand Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa

Vol. 6, No. 2, 2004 12

13. Cordero & García Garduño: The tylerian curriculum model… them more

fully. If you read some of their works, you’ll find that they’re always labeling

people and their ideas in terms of their categories. GC: For example, what to

do you thing about Michael Apple's work? RT: He’s a new reconstructionist.

He’s at the University of Wisconsin. He’s a bright person, but he’s completely

devoted to the Reconstructionist view. He knows how society should have

progressed, and he views everything in terms of that, things that should have

happened, and criticizes society that way. Well, you can do it if you want to,

but I’m interested in history describing what is happening rather than what

should happen. They criticize curriculum because it doesn’t fit their pattern.

Neither Michael Apple nor any of the other members of that group work that I

know of ever worked with the schools trying to produce literature or

something. It’s easier to criticize by a category you can set up. On the other

hand, if you’re going to work with a school, what would you do? If you face

your job as helping schools build better curriculums, then I don’t find Michael

Apple’s writing very helpful. If you conceive of your job as looking at various

ways that a curriculum might be built, then it might be useful. GC: How do

you see the separation between thinkers and doers in the curriculum field?

RT: Doers should be guided by thought, and the thinkers should be tested by

doing. Michael Apple is one of the so-called thinkers, and I am one of the so-

called doers. But the object is to help teachers think too. You won’t find it

very helpful just to tell them what to do—you help them think through the

problem. They think they can tell teachers what to do, but a good teacher will

not teach what he or she doesn’t believe in, doesn’t understand, doesn’t

think the children can learn, so in the end, the teacher decides what’s to be

taught. So the final curriculum executer as well as planner, is the teacher.

GC: In my experience in teacher training programs, teachers demand some

recipes that make work easier for them. RT: Teachers have to understand

that good teaching is not following recipes, but understanding children and

helping them to learn. They can get recipes, but that doesn’t help kids to

learn. It’s easier to teach a person who cares about children how to teach,

than it is to teach somebody who doesn’t care about children, and thinks that

all they need to do is learn some methods of teaching. The important thing is

that the child feels you care about him, and he cares about you—he wants to

please you because you care about him. That interrelationship is more

important than all the knowledge you have about teaching, that you respond

to children effectively. Don’t you think so? Revista Electrónica de

Investigación Educativa Vol. 6, No. 2, 2004 13

14. Cordero & García Garduño: The tylerian curriculum model… GC: Yes, it’s

very clear. I think that’s important at any educational level. RT: And all those

things, teachers have to learn. Many of them are surprised. Many of them

think all they will do is go in and tell the children how to behave, and they’ll

behave. The last thing they do is to do what you tell them to do if they don’t

want to do it themselves. GC: What is the role of a teacher? RT: You can’t

force a child or anyone else to learn. They have to experience!carry it out

themselves. The role of the teacher is to stimulate the child to respond! to

guide and to reward response, so that they are continually moving in the

right direction. But you can’t force a child. So, if you’re going to teach, for

example, a child to be a responsible citizen, one needs to begin with the

school itself as a responsible, where he’s responsible in that little society

there for doing things there, and seeing that the society is honest, and so on.

In fact, we have an experiment going on at the high school level under the

leadership of Edward Fenton, in Carnegie Mellon University, in Pittsburgh, in

which five high schools are operating as participatory democracies. The

students and the teachers together decide on the rules of living and the

development of the responsibilities connected with them. It certainly seems

to be working. I visited one of those high schools in a suburb of Boston. They

have taken responsibility and are really living up to the effort to try to make

that school one where people act unselfishly and work together for the

common good. GC: What was the impact of the Eight-Year Study in the life of

schools? RT: The significance of the Eight-Year Study was that it was not

guided by a minister of education, or even by a state. It developed within the

schools themselves. The significance of the Eight-Year Study was that each

one of these 30 schools were given permission to develop their own program

with the guidance of our staff, so that they developed things they

understood. They spent summers and workshops trying to develop more

materials and other things. It was from the bottom up rather than from the

top down. GC: When you worked in the teachers’ workshop in the Eight-Year

Study, how did you conceive this work? How did you guide this work? How

did you organize the workshop? RT: It came from their problems. Well, for

example, they would say, “We don’t have materials for this…We think that

we can make a better history course, because the children would be

interested in the history of their own people coming from different

backgrounds and so on, but we don’t have materials. So, let’s make them”.

So in the Summer we had these six-week workshops where teachers could

come in with problems to work on. It was not indoctrination. We were not

telling them what to do, but helping them with the problems they were

recognizing as they Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa Vol. 6, No.

2, 2004 14

15. Cordero & García Garduño: The tylerian curriculum model… tried to make

a better curriculum. In some cases they had the question of how to make

mathematics more meaningful, and so a group of mathematics teachers from

different schools would come together in the workshop and try out and…We

usually had a group of children. There were high school students there so

they tried out the demonstrations on them. They were having to spend their

summers in the workshop, so they could be tried out on these young people.

GC: What happened to these teachers? RT: Well, most of them, of course,

stayed on as teachers. They had their families there, and they felt they were

better—and I think they were better teachers. They enjoyed doing a better

job. The rewards of teaching are not primarily money. You can’t pay very

much when you’ve got so many teachers. There are more teachers in the

United States than any other profession. But you can get the rewards of

seeing kids learn, and that’s very satisfying. When I was teaching in Pierre,

South Dakota, in high school, a third of my children were from the Indian

reservation nearby. To see those kids understand science, begin to come into

the laboratory and want to work on it, see how happy they were about it,

pleased me a great deal more than any amount of money. GC: What are your

recent projects? RT: I am now working with a coalition for school

improvement in Massachusetts, which has 39 school districts and about a

hundred schools in that area. What I think I have learned, is that the real

improvement in the curriculum comes at the level of the school, where the

teachers are, the children are, and the parents are. They try to understand

what it is they’re helping their children learn. Because the different

contributions of the people that are helping define the curriculum can see

more clearly what they can do, and understand it. In my present work with

this coalition for school improvement, we have curriculum committees that

sit together and discuss what problems they’ve encountered, and what they

think might succeed, and then try them out and modify them in the light of

that. So my work since I have retired has been working at the school level

with teachers and parents rather than to work in Washington, or to work in

some state capital, because what really goes on in schools depends on the

understanding that teachers have, and the understanding of parents, and the

reports of that kind of education. You will find that some of my more recent

writing tends to say that the effort to reform from the top down, that is from

the national level and the state level, doesn’t work. Teachers don’t do the

things they don’t understand. You’ve got to start with teachers and with

parents understanding what it is they need to do, and developing the

understanding and the skills to carry it out. So my message is: open at what

we call the bottom up to get at the lowest level of the individual school

building. That’s where you get improvement, not starting at the top down,

where the schools will “say” they’re doing it!but they don’t understand it, so

Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa Vol. 6, No. 2, 2004 15

16. Cordero & García Garduño: The tylerian curriculum model… they’re not

really carrying it out. Reform that isn’t understood isn’t helpful. We ought to

begin with the teachers and parents who want their children to get a better

education, and help them see what is possible. GC: What do you think about

the future in curriculum development? RT: Education is more important every

generation, as society gets more complex. The child born into today couldn’t

possibly live very long without an education. They have to learn many things.

So as long as there is education, there has got to be a curriculum. You have

to teach them something. The future of the curriculum is –if we’re going to

have a curriculum, people ought to study it and learn about it. I think the

answer is how to accomplish it. Curriculums make a difference. You see,

before that, it was thought that people learned whatever the subjects were,

and that was all there was to curriculum. But as society became more

complex, they had first the question of new subjects. It took arguments of

many years, until finally in 1892 they agreed to admit science, for example,

to the curriculum of the American schools. And as other things have changed

over time, you can expect all these arguments about what’s to be taught.

There’s so much that could be learned. That will be with us even more as

time goes on. I think the answer is that problems of the curriculum are going

to be with us for the rest of the foreseeable future. That’s the first study,

because it’s one of the most important questions. What kids are learning is

the important question about what the schools are doing. Totalitarian leaders

try to make them centers of indoctrination. The first thing that Hitler did

when I was there in 1935 was to take over the schools and try to indoctrinate

the children. The effort to control the curriculum and teach what you want to

teach is an effort of every strong leader, whether he is a communist or a

fascist. Strong leaders like to make the curriculum one of indoctrination

rather than one of understanding. Strong leader quite often do not like to

have children learn to be independent thinkers. The problem of a democracy

is to get wise leadership and thoughtful consideration of the curriculum,

rather than simply taking whatever is there and not thinking about it. I can’t

think of a more important field in education other than the field also of

learning. Curriculum and learning are the two most important aspects of

education. Although the administrators think that it is especially important to

administer a school, but a school isn’t worth having if it isn’t teaching the

right things, if the children aren’t learning. The role of the school is to help

children learn what is important for them to learn, so that the two things

important for them are the curriculum, and how they learn and can be helped

to learn. The theory of learning ability is one of the most important things for

education. As John Dewey said, “you don’t learn much from experience; you

learn by reflecting upon your experience”. What does it mean? Revista

Electrónica de Investigación Educativa Vol. 6, No. 2, 2004 16

17. Cordero & García Garduño: The tylerian curriculum model… Why did it

happen? What could we have done about it? It’s that reflection that helps to

learn, and not just having the experience. References Bloom, B. (1971).

Taxonomía de los objetivos de la educación: la clasificación de las metas

educacionales. Buenos Aires: El Ateneo. (Original work published in 1956).

Bloom, B. (1986). Ralph Tyler’s impact on evaluation theory and practice.

Journal of Thought, 21, 36-46. Chall, M. (1987). Education: curriculum,

planning, and evaluation. Berkeley, CA: the Regional Oral History Office of

the University of California at Berkeley. Charters, W. W. (1971). Curriculum

construction. New York: Arno Press. (Original work published in 1923).

Cronbach, L. (1986). Tyler’s contributions of the Eight Year Study. Journal of

Thought, 21, 47-52. Díaz Barriga. A. (1991). La lectura de Tyler: un síntoma

de nuestra ignorancia sobre la historia y los procesos educativos. Paper

presented at II Simposium sobre Investigación Curricular, Tlalnepantla,

Estado de México. García Garduño, J. M. (1995). La consolidación de la teoría

curricular en los Estados Unidos (1912-1949). Revista Latinoamericana de

Estudios Educativos, 25 (2) 57-81. Fishbien, J. M. (1973, September). The

father of behavioral objectives criticizes them: An interview with Ralph Tyler.

Phi Delta Kappan, 55, 55-57. Hiatt, D. B. (1994, June). An interview with Ralph

Tyler: No limit to the possibilities. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 786-789. Madaus, G.

F. & Stufflebeam, D. (1989). Educational evaluation: Classic works of Ralph

Tyler. Boston: Kuwer Academics Publishers. Meek, A. (1993). On setting the

highest standard: A conversation with Ralph Tyler. Educational Leadership,

50 (6), 1-8. Ralph Tyler, one of century’s foremost educators dies at 91

(1994, February 28). Stanford University News Service. Retrieved June 5,

2004 from: www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/94/940228Arc4425.html Revista

Electrónica de Investigación Educativa Vol. 6, No. 2, 2004 17

18. Cordero & García Garduño: The tylerian curriculum model… Ridings, J.

(1981, November). An interview with Ralph Tyler [Occasional papers, No. 13].

Retrieved May 15, 2004 from the web site of Western Michigan University,

Evaluation Center: http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/pubs/ops/ Ryan, K.,

Johnston, J., Johnston, J. & Newman, K. (1977, March). An interview with Ralph

Tyler. Phi Delta Kappan, 58, 544-547. Schubert, W. & A. L. Lopez Schubert

(1986). Ralph W. Tyler. An interview and antecedent reflections. Journal of

Thought, 21 (1), 7-15. Tyler, R. W. (1986). Principios básicos del currículo

(5th. ed., E. Molina de Vedia, Trans.). Buenos Aires: Troquel. (Original work

published in 1949). Tyler, R. W. (1934). Constructing achievement tests.

Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. Tyler, R. W., Schubert W. & Lopez

Schubert A. L. (1986). A dialogue with Ralph Tyler. Journal of Thought, 21 (1),

91-118. Translator: Lessie Evona York Weatherman School of Languages

Autonomous University of Baja California at Mexicali 1 This work was

published in Spanish in 1973, under the title Principios básicos del currículo.

2 Judging from the course number, it was probably given to college

sophomores or juniors majoring in education. 3 The authors did not have

access to the complete publication, only to a summary. 4 Tyler used the term

reconstruccionist as synonym of reconceptualist. Revista Electrónica de

Investigación Educativa Vol. 6, No. 2, 2004 18

curriculum theory and practiceThe organization of schooling and further education has long been associated with the idea of a curriculum.  But what actually is curriculum, and how might it be conceptualized? We explore curriculum theory and practice and its relation to informal education.

contents: introduction · curriculum as transmission · curriculum as product   · curriculum as process· curriculum as praxis   · curriculum and context · curriculum and informal education   · further reading   ·links · how to cite this article

The idea of curriculum is hardly new - but the way we understand and theorize it has altered over the years - and there remains considerable dispute as to meaning. It has its origins in the running/chariot tracks of Greece. It was, literally, a course. In Latin curriculum was a racing chariot; currere was to run. A useful starting point for us here might be the definition offered by John Kerr and taken up by Vic Kelly in his standard work on the subject. Kerr defines curriculum as, 'All the learning which is planned and guided by the school, whether it is carried on in groups or individually, inside or outside the school. (quoted in Kelly 1983: 10; see also, Kelly 1999). This gives us some basis to move on - and for the moment all we need to do is highlight two of the key features:

Learning is planned and guided. We have to specify in advance what we are seeking to achieve and how we are to go about it.

The definition refers to schooling. We should recognize that our current appreciation of curriculum theory and practice emerged in the school and in relation to other schooling ideas such as subject and lesson.

In what follows we are going to look at four ways of approaching curriculum theory and practice:

1. Curriculum as a body of knowledge to be transmitted.

2. Curriculum as an attempt to achieve certain ends in students - product.

3. Curriculum as process.

4. Curriculum as praxis.

It is helpful to consider these ways of approaching curriculum theory and practice in the light of Aristotle's influential categorization of knowledge   into three disciplines: the theoretical, the productive   and the practical.

Here we can see some clear links - the body of knowledge to be transmitted in the first is that classically valued as 'the canon'; the process and praxis models come close to practical deliberation; and the technical concerns of the outcome or product model mirror elements of Aristotle's characterization of the productive. More this will be revealed as we examine the theory underpinning individual models.

Curriculum as a syllabus to be transmitted

Many people still equate a curriculum with a syllabus. Syllabus, naturally, originates from the Greek (although there was some confusion in its usage due to early misprints). Basically it means a concise statement or table of the heads of a discourse, the contents of a treatise, the subjects of a series of lectures. In the form that many of us will have been familiar with it is connected with courses leading to examinations - teachers talk of the syllabus associated with, say, the Cambridge Board  French GSCE exam. What we can see in such documents is a series of headings with some additional notes which set out the areas that may be examined. 

A syllabus will not generally indicate the relative importance of its topics or the order in which they are to be studied. In some cases as Curzon (1985) points out, those who compile a syllabus tend to follow the traditional textbook approach of an 'order of contents', or a pattern prescribed by a 'logical' approach to the subject, or  - consciously or unconsciously - a the shape of a university course in which they may have participated. Thus, an approach to curriculum theory and practice which focuses on syllabus is only really

concerned with content. Curriculum is a body of knowledge-content and/or subjects. Education in this sense, is the process by which these are transmitted or 'delivered' to students by the most effective methods that can be devised (Blenkin et al 1992: 23).

Where people still equate curriculum with a syllabus they are likely to limit their planning to a consideration of the content or the body of knowledge that they wish to transmit. 'It is also because this view of curriculum has been adopted that many teachers in primary schools', Kelly (1985: 7) claims, 'have regarded issues of curriculum as of no concern to them, since they have not regarded their task as being to transmit bodies of knowledge in this manner'.

Curriculum as product

The dominant modes of describing and managing education are today couched in the productive form.  Education is most often seen as a technical exercise.  Objectives are set, a plan drawn up, then applied, and the outcomes (products) measured.  It is a way of thinking about education that has grown in influence in the United Kingdom since the late 1970s with the rise of vocationalism and the concern with competencies.  Thus, in the late 1980s and the 1990s many of the debates about the National Curriculum for schools did not so much concern how the curriculum was thought about as to what its objectives and content might be. 

It is the work of two American writers Franklin Bobbitt (1918; 1928) and Ralph W. Tyler (1949) that dominate theory and practice within this tradition.  In The Curriculum Bobbitt writes as follows:

The central theory [of curriculum] is simple.  Human life, however varied, consists in the performance of specific activities.  Education that prepares for life is one that prepares definitely and adequately for these specific activities.  However numerous and diverse they may be for any social class they can be discovered.  This requires only that one go out into the world of affairs and discover the particulars of which their affairs consist.  These will show the abilities, attitudes, habits, appreciations and forms of knowledge that men need.  These will be the objectives of the curriculum.  They will be numerous, definite and particularized.  The curriculum will then be that series of experiences which children and youth must have by way of obtaining those objectives.  (1918: 42)

This way of thinking about curriculum theory and practice was heavily influenced by the development of management thinking and practice.  The rise of 'scientific management' is often associated with the name of its main advocate F. W. Taylor.  Basically what he proposed was greater division of labour with jobs being simplified; an extension of managerial control over all elements of the workplace; and cost accounting based on systematic time-and-motion study.  All three elements were involved in this conception of curriculum theory and practice.  For example, one of the attractions of this approach to curriculum theory was that it involved detailed attention to what

people needed to know in order to work, live their lives and so on.  A familiar, and more restricted, example of this approach can be found in many training programmes, where particular tasks or jobs have been analyzed - broken down into their component elements - and lists of competencies drawn up.  In other words, the curriculum was not to be the result of 'armchair speculation' but the product of systematic study.  Bobbitt's work and theory met with mixed responses.  One telling criticism that was made, and can continue to be made, of such approaches is that there is no social vision or programme to guide the process of curriculum construction.  As it stands it is a technical exercise.  However, it wasn't criticisms such as this which initially limited the impact of such curriculum theory in the late 1920s and 1930s.  Rather, the growing influence of 'progressive', child-centred approaches shifted the ground to more romantic notions of education.  Bobbitt's long lists of objectives and his emphasis on order and structure hardly sat comfortably with such forms.

The Progressive movement lost much of its momentum in the late 1940s in the United States and from that period the work of Ralph W. Tyler, in particular, has made a lasting impression on curriculum theory and practice.  He shared Bobbitt's emphasis on rationality and relative simplicity.  His theory was based on four fundamental questions:

1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?

2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes?

3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?

4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?  (Tyler 1949: 1)

Like Bobbitt he also placed an emphasis on the formulation of behavioural objectives. 

Since the real purpose of education is not to have the instructor perform certain activities but to bring about significant changes in the students' pattern of behaviour, it becomes important to recognize that any statements of objectives of the school should be a statement of changes to take place in the students.  (Tyler 1949: 44)

We can see how these concerns translate into a nicely-ordered procedure:  one that is very similar to the technical or productive thinking set out below.

Step 1: Diagnosis of need

Step 2: Formulation of objectives

Step 3: Selection of content

Step 4: Organization of content

Step 5: Selection of learning experiences

Step 6: Organization of learning experiences

Step 7: Determination of what to evaluate and of the ways and means of doing it. (Taba 1962)

The attraction of this way of approaching curriculum theory and practice is that it is systematic and has considerable organizing power.  Central to the approach is the formulation of behavioural objectives - providing a clear notion of outcome so that content and method may be organized and the results evaluated.

There are a number of issues with this approach to curriculum theory and practice. The first is that the plan or programme assumes great importance.  For example, we might look at a more recent definition of curriculum as: ‘A programme of activities (by teachers and pupils) designed so that pupils will attain so far as possible certain educational and other schooling ends or objectives (Grundy 1987: 11). The problem here is that such programmes inevitably exist prior to and outside the learning experiences.  This takes much away from learners.  They can end up with little or no voice.  They are told what they must learn and how they will do it.  The success or failure of both the programme and the individual learners is judged on the basis of whether pre-specified changes occur in the behaviour and person of the learner (the meeting of behavioural objectives).  If the plan is tightly adhered to, there can only be limited opportunity for educators to make use of the interactions that occur. It also can deskill educators in another way.  For example, a number of curriculum programmes, particularly in the USA, have attempted to make the student experience 'teacher proof'.  The logic of this approach is for the curriculum to be designed outside of the classroom or school, as is the case with the National Curriculum in the UK.  Educators then apply programmes and are judged by the products of their actions.  It turns educators into technicians. 

Second, there are questions around the nature of objectives.  This model is hot on measurability.  It implies that behaviour can be objectively, mechanistically measured.  There are obvious dangers here - there always has to be some uncertainty about what is being measured.  We only have to reflect on questions of success in our work.  It is often very difficult to judge what the impact of particular experiences has been.  Sometimes it is years after the event that we come to appreciate something of what has happened.  For example, most informal educators who have been around a few years will have had the experience of an ex-participant telling them in great detail about how some forgotten event (forgotten to the worker that is) brought about some fundamental change.  Yet there is something more. 

In order to measure, things have to be broken down into smaller and smaller units.  The result, as many of you will have experienced, can be long lists of often trivial skills or competencies.  This can lead to a focus in this approach to curriculum theory and practice on the parts rather than the whole; on the trivial, rather than the significant.  It can lead to an approach to education and

assessment which resembles a shopping list.  When all the items are ticked, the person has passed the course or has learnt something.  The role of overall judgment is somehow sidelined.

Third, there is a real problem when we come to examine what educators actually do in the classroom, for example.  Much of the research concerning teacher thinking and classroom interaction, and curriculum innovation has pointed to the lack of impact on actual pedagogic practice of objectives (see Stenhouse 1974; and Cornbleth 1990, for example).   One way of viewing this is that teachers simply get it wrong - they ought to work with objectives.  I think we need to take this problem very seriously and not dismiss it in this way.  The difficulties that educators experience with objectives in the classroom may point to something inherently wrong with the approach - that it is not grounded in the study of educational exchanges.  It is a model of curriculum theory and practice largely imported from technological and industrial settings. 

Fourth, there is the problem of unanticipated results.  The focus on pre-specified goals may lead both educators and learners to overlook learning that is occurring as a result of their interactions, but which is not listed as an objective. 

The apparent simplicity and rationality of this approach to curriculum theory and practice, and the way in which it mimics industrial management have been powerful factors in its success.  A further appeal has been the ability of academics to use the model to attack teachers:

I believe there is a tendency, recurrent enough to suggest that it may be endemic in the approach, for academics in education to use the objectives model as a stick with which to beat teachers.  'What are your objectives?' is more often asked in a tone of challenge than one of interested and helpful inquiry.  The demand for objectives is a demand for justification rather than a description of ends... It is not about curriculum design, but rather an expression of irritation in the problems of accountability in education.  (Stenhouse 1974: 77)

So what are the other alternatives?

Curriculum as process

We have seen that the curriculum as product model is heavily dependent on the setting of behavioural objectives.  The curriculum, essentially, is a set of documents for implementation.  Another way of looking at curriculum theory and practice is via process.  In this sense curriculum is not a physical thing, but rather the interaction of teachers, students and knowledge.  In other words, curriculum is what actually happens in the classroom and what people do to prepare and evaluate.  What we have in this model is a number of elements in constant interaction.   It is an active process and links with thepractical form of reasoning   set out by Aristotle. 

Curriculum as process

Teachers enter particular schooling and situations with

an ability to think critically, -in-action

an understanding of their role and the expectations others have of them, and

a proposal for action which sets out essential principles and features of the educational encounter.

Guided by these, they encourage

conversations between, and with, people in the situation

out of which may come

thinking and action.

They

continually evaluate the process and what they can see of outcomes.

Perhaps the two major things that set this apart from the model for informal educationare first, the context in which the process occurs ('particular schooling situations'); and second, the fact that teachers enter the classroom or any other formal educational setting with a more fully worked-through idea of what is about to happen.  Here I have described that as entering the situation with 'a proposal for action which sets out essential principles and features of the educational encounter'.  

This form of words echoes those of Lawrence Stenhouse (1975) who produced one of the best-known explorations of a process model of curriculum theory and practice. He defined curriculum tentatively: 'A curriculum is an attempt to communicate the essential principles and features of an educational proposal in such a form that it is open to critical scrutiny and capable of effective translation into practice'. He suggests that a curriculum is rather like a recipe in cookery.

It can be criticized on nutritional or gastronomic grounds - does it nourish the students and does it taste good? - and it can be criticized on the grounds of practicality - we can't get hold of six dozen larks' tongues and the grocer can't find any ground unicorn horn!  A curriculum, like the recipe for a dish, is first imagined as a possibility, then the subject of experiment.  The recipe offered publicly is in a sense a report on the experiment.  Similarly, a curriculum should be grounded in practice.  It is an attempt to describe the work observed in classrooms that it is adequately communicated to teachers and others. 

Finally, within limits, a recipe can varied according to taste.  So can a curriculum.  (Stenhouse 1975: 4-5)

Stenhouse shifted the ground a little bit here.  He was not saying that curriculum is the process, but rather the means by which the experience of attempting to put an educational proposal into practice is made available.  The reason why he did this, I suspect, is that otherwise there is a danger of widening the meaning of the term so much that it embraces almost everything and hence means very little.  For example, in a discussion of the so-called 'youth work curriculum' (Newman & Ingram 1989), the following definition was taken as a starting point: 'those processes which enhance or, if they go wrong, inhibit a person's learning'. This was then developed and a curriculum became: 'an organic process by which learning is offered, accepted and internalized' (Newman & Ingram 1989: 1). The problem with this sort of definition, as Robin Barrow (1984) points out, is that what this does is to widen the meaning of the term to such an extent that it just about becomes interchangeable with 'education' itself.  More specifically, if curriculum is process then the word curriculum is redundant because process would do very nicely!   The simple equation of curriculum with process is a very slap-happy basis on which to proceed. 

We also need to reflect on why curriculum theory and practice came into use by educators (as against policy-makers).  It was essentially as a way of helping them to think about their work before, during and after interventions; as a means of enabling educators to make judgments about the direction their work was taking.  This is what Stenhouse was picking up on.

Stenhouse on curriculum

As a minimum, a curriculum should provide a basis for planning a course, studying it empirically and considering the grounds of its justification.  It should offer:

A. In planning:

1. Principle for the selection of content - what is to be learned and taught

2. Principles for the development of a teaching strategy - how it is to be learned and taught.

3. Principles for the making of decisions about sequence.

4. Principles on which to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of individual students and differentiate the general principles 1, 2 and 3 above, to meet individual cases.

B. In empirical study:

1. Principles on which to study and evaluate the progress of students.

2. Principles on which to study and evaluate the progress of teachers.

3. Guidance as to the feasibility of implementing the curriculum in varying school contexts, pupil contexts, environments and peer-group situations.

4. Information about the variability of effects in differing contexts and on different pupils and an understanding of the causes of the variation.

C. In relation to justification:

A formulation of the intention or aim of the curriculum which is accessible to critical scrutiny.

Stenhouse 1975: 5

There are a number of contrasts in this model of curriculum theory and practice as compared with the product model.  First, where the product model appeals to the workshop for a model, this process model looks to the world of experimentation.

The idea is that of an educational science in which each classroom is a laboratory, each teacher a member of the scientific community...  The crucial point is that the proposal is not to be regarded as an unqualified recommendation but rather as a provisional specification claiming no more

than to be worth putting to the test of practice,  Such proposals claim to be intelligent rather than correct.  (Stenhouse 1975: 142)

Thus, in this sense, a curriculum is a particular form of specification about the practice of teaching.  It is not a package of materials or a syllabus of ground to be covered.  'It is a way of translating any educational idea into a hypothesis testable in practice.  It invites critical testing rather than acceptance' (Stenhouse 1975: 142). 

Second, and associated with the above, given the uniqueness of each classroom setting, it means that any proposal, even at school level, needs to be tested, and verified by each teacher in his/her classroom (ibid: 143).  It is not like a curriculum package which is designed to be delivered almost anywhere.

Third, outcomes are no longer the central and defining feature.  Rather than tightly specifying behavioural objectives and methods in advance, what happens in this model of curriculum theory and practice is that content and means develop as teachers and students work together. 

Fourth, the learners in this model are not objects to be acted upon.  They have a clear voice in the way that the sessions evolve.  The focus is on interactions.  This can mean that attention shifts from teaching to learning.  The product model, by having a pre-specified plan or programme, tends to direct attention to teaching.  For example, how can this information be got over?  A process approach to curriculum theory and practice, it is argued by writers like Grundy (1987), tends towards making the process of learning the central concern of the teacher.  This is because this way of thinking emphasizes interpretation and meaning-making.  As we have seen each classroom and each exchange is different and has to be made sense of. 

However, when we come to think about this way of approaching curriculum in practice, a number of possible problems do arise.  The first is a problem for those who want some greater degree of uniformity in what is taught.  This approach to the theory of curriculum, because it places meaning-making and thinking at its core and treats learners as subjects rather than objects, can lead to very different means being employed in classrooms and a high degree of variety in content.   As Stenhouse comments, the process model is essentially a critical model, not a marking model.

It can never be directed towards an examination as an objective without loss of quality, since the standards of the examination then override the standards immanent in the subject.  This does not mean that students taught on the process model cannot be examined, but it does mean that the examinations must be taken in their stride as they pursue other aspirations.  And if the examination is a by-product there is an implication that the quality the student shows in it must be an under-estimate of his real quality.  It is hence rather difficult to get the weak student through an examination using a process

model.  Crammers cannot use it, since it depends upon a commitment to educational aims.  (Stenhouse 1975: 95)

To some extent variation is limited by factors such as public examinations.  The exchange between students and teachers does not float free of the context in which it arises.  At the end of the day many students and their families place a high premium on exam or subject success and this inevitably enters into the classroom.  This highlights a second problem with the model we have just outlined - that it may not pay enough attention to the context in which learning takes place (more of this later).

Third, there is the 'problem' of teachers.   The major weakness and, indeed, strength of the process model is that it rests upon the quality of teachers.  If they are not up to much then there is no safety net in the form of prescribed curriculum materials.  The approach is dependent upon the cultivation of wisdom and meaning-making in the classroom.  If the teacher is not up to this, then there will be severe limitations on what can happen educationally.  There have been some attempts to overcome this problem by developing materials and curriculum packages which focus more closely on the 'process of discovery' or 'problem-solving', for example in science.  But there is a danger in this approach.  Processes become reduced to sets of skills - for example, how to light a bunsen burner.  When students are able to demonstrate certain skills, they are deemed to have completed the process.  As Grundy comments, the actions have become the ends; the processes have become the product.  Whether or not students are able to apply the skills to make sense of the world around them is somehow overlooked (Grundy 1987: 77). 

Fourth, we need to look back at our process model of curriculum theory and practice and what we have subsequently discussed, and return to Aristotle and to Freire.  The model we have looked at here does not fully reflect the process explored earlier.  In particular, it does not make explicit the commitments associated with phronesis.  And it is to that we will now turn.

Curriculum as praxis

Curriculum as praxis   is, in many respects, a development of the process model.  While the process model is driven by general principles and places an emphasis on judgment and meaning making, it does not make explicit statements about the interests it serves.   It may, for example, be used in such a way that does not make continual reference to collective human well-being and to the emancipation of the human spirit.  The praxis model of curriculum theory and practice brings these to the centre of the process and makes an explicit commitment to emancipation.   Thus action is not simply informed, it is also committed.  It is praxis.

Critical pedagogy goes beyond situating the learning experience within the experience of the learner: it is a process which takes the experiences of both the learner and the teacher and, through dialogue and negotiation, recognizes them both as problematic...  [It] allows, indeed encourages, students and

teachers together to confront the real problems of their existence and relationships... When students confront the real problems of their existence they will soon also be faced with their own oppression. (Grundy 1987: 105)

We can amend our 'curriculum as process' model to take account of these concerns.

Curriculum as praxis

Teachers enter particular schooling and situations with

a personal, but shared idea of the good and a commitment to human emancipation,

an ability to think critically, -in-action

an understanding of their role and the expectations others have of them, and

a proposal for action which sets out essential principles and features of the educational encounter.

Guided by these, they encourage

conversations between, and with, people in the situation

out of which may come

informed and committed action.

They

continually evaluate the process and what they can see of outcomes.

In this approach the curriculum itself develops through the dynamic interaction of action and reflection. 'That is, the curriculum is not simply a set of plans to be implemented, but rather is constituted through an active process in which planning, acting and evaluating are all reciprocally related and integrated into the process' (Grundy 1987: 115). At its centre is praxis: informed, committed action.

How might we recognize this? First, I think we should be looking for practice which does not focus exclusively on individuals, but pays careful attention to collective understandings and practices and to structural questions.  For example, in sessions which seek to explore the experiences of different cultural and racial groups in society, we could be looking to see whether the direction of the work took people beyond a focus on individual attitudes.  Are participants confronting the material conditions through which those attitudes are constituted, for example?

Second, we could be looking for a commitment expressed in action to the exploration of educators' values and their practice.  Are they, for example, able to say in a coherent way what they think makes for human well-being and link this with their practice?  We could also be looking for certain values - especially an emphasis on human emancipation.

Third, we could expect practitioners committed to praxis to be exploring their practice with their peers.  They would be able to say how their actions with respect to particular interventions reflected their ideas about what makes for the good, and to say what theories were involved.

Curriculum in context

To round off this discussion of curriculum we do need to pay further attention  to the social context in which it is created.  One criticism that has been made of the praxis model (especially as it is set out by Grundy) is that it does not place a strong enough emphasis upon context.  This is a criticism that can also be laid at the door of the other approaches.  In this respect the work of Catherine Cornbleth (1990) is of some use.  She sees curriculum as a particular type of process.  Curriculum for her is what actually happens in classrooms, that is, 'an ongoing social process comprised of the interactions of students, teachers, knowledge and milieu' (1990: 5).  In contrast, Stenhouse defines curriculum as the attempt to describe what happens in classrooms rather than what actually occurs.  Cornbleth further contends that curriculum as practice cannot be understood adequately or changed substantially without attention to its setting or context.  Curriculum is contextually shaped.   While I may quibble about the simple equation of curriculum with process, what Cornbleth does by focusing on the interaction is to bring out the significance of context.

First, by introducing the notion of milieu into the discussion of curriculum she again draws attention to the impact of some factors that we have already noted.  Of especial significance here are examinations and the social relationships of the school - the nature of the teacher-student relationship, the organization of classes, streaming and so on.  These elements are what are sometimes known as the hidden curriculum.  This was a term credited to Philip W. Jackson (1968) but it had been present as an acknowledged element in education for some time before.  For example, John Dewey   in Experience and Education referred to the 'collateral learning' of attitudes that occur in schools, and that may well be of more long-range importance than the explicit school curriculum (1938: 48).  A fairly standard (product) definition of the 'hidden curriculum' is given by Vic Kelly.  He argues it is those things which students learn, 'because of the way in which the work of the school is planned and organized but which are not in themselves overtly included in the planning or even in the consciousness of those responsible for the school arrangements (1988: 8). The learning associated with the 'hidden curriculum' is most often treated in a negative way.  It is learning that is smuggled in and serves the interests of the status quo.  The emphasis on regimentation, on bells and time management, and on streaming are sometimes seen as preparing young people for the world of capitalist production.  What we do need to recognize is that

such 'hidden' learning is not all negative and can be potentially liberating. 'In so far as they enable students to develop socially valued knowledge and skills... or to form their own peer groups and subcultures, they may contribute to personal and collective autonomy and to possible critique and challenge of existing norms and institutions'  (Cornbleth 1990: 50). What we also need to recognize is that by treating curriculum as a contextualized social process, the notion of hidden curriculum becomes rather redundant.  If we need to stay in touch with milieu as we build curriculum then it is not hidden but becomes a central part of our processes. 

Second, by paying attention to milieu, we can begin to get a better grasp of the impact of structural and socio-cultural process on teachers and students.  As Cornbleth argues, economic and gender relations, for example, do not simply bypass the systemic or structural context of curriculum and enter directly into classroom practice.  They are mediated by intervening layers of the education system (Cornbleth 1990: 7).  Thus, the impact of these factors may be quite different to that expected. 

Third, if curriculum theory and practice is inextricably linked to milieu then it becomes clear why there have been problems about introducing it into non-schooling contexts like youth work; and it is to this area which we will now turn.

Curriculum as the boundary between formal and informal education

Jeffs and Smith (1990; 1999) have argued that the notion of curriculum provides a central dividing line between formal and informal education.  They contend that curriculumtheory and practice was formed within the schooling context and that there are major problems when it is introduced into informal forms of pedagogy.

The adoption of curriculum theory and practice by some informal educators appears to have arisen from a desire to be clear about content.  Yet there are crucial difficulties with the notion of curriculum in this context. These centre around the extent to which it is possible to have a clear idea, in advance (and even during the process), of the activities and topics that will be involved in a particular piece of work.

At any one time, outcomes may not be marked by a high degree of specificity.  In a similar way, the nature of the activities used often cannot be predicted.  It may be that we can say something about how the informal educator will work.  However, knowing in advance about broad processes and ethos isn't the same as having a knowledge of the programme.  We must, thus, conclude that approaches to the curriculum which focus on objectives and detailed programmes appear to be incompatible with informal education. (Jeffs & Smith 1990: 15)

In other words, they are arguing that a product model of curriculum is not compatible with the emphasis on process and praxis within informal education. 

However, process and praxis models of curriculum also present problems in the context of informal education.  If you look back at at our models of process and compare them with the model of informal education presented above then it is clear that we can have a similar problem with pre-specification.  One of the key feature that differentiates the two is that the curriculum model has the teacher entering the situation with a proposal for action which sets out the essential principles and features of the educational encounter. Informal educators do not have, and do not need, this element.  They do not enter with a clear proposal for action.  Rather, they have an idea of what makes for human well-being, and an appreciation of their overall role and strategy (strategy here being some idea about target group and broad method e.g. detached work).  They then develop their aims and interventions in interaction.  And what is this element we have been discussing?  It is nothing more nor less than what Stenhouse considers to be a curriculum! 

The other key difference is context.  Even if we were to go the whole hog and define curriculum as process there remain substantive problems.  As Cornbleth (1990), and Jeffs and Smith (1990, 1999) have argued, curriculum cannot be taken out of context, and the context in which it was formed was the school.  Curriculum theory and practice only makes sense when considered alongside notions like class, teacher, course, lesson and so on.  You only have to look at the language that has been used by our main proponents: Tyler, Stenhouse, Cornbleth and Grundy, to see this.  It is not a concept that stands on its own.  It developed in relation to teaching and within particular organizational relationships and expectations.  Alter the context and the nature of the process alters .  We then need different ways of describing what is going on.  Thus, it is no surprise that when curriculum theory and practice are introduced into what are essentially informal forms of working such as youth work and community work, their main impact is to formalize significant aspects of the work.   One of the main outcome of curriculum experiments within youth work has been work, for example in the field of health promotion, which involve pre-specified activities, visiting workers, regular meetings and so on.   Within the language of youth work these are most often called programmes or projects (Foreman 1990).  Within a school they would be called a course.

What is being suggested here is that when informal educators take on the language of curriculum they are crossing the boundary between their chosen specialism and the domain of formal education.  This they need to do from time to time.  There will be formal interludes in their work, appropriate times for them to mount courses and to discuss content and method in curriculum terms.  But we should not fall into the trap of thinking that to be educators we have to adopt curriculum theory and practice.  The fact that so many have been misled into believing this demonstrates just how powerful the ideas of schooling are.  Education is something more than schooling. 

Conclusion

We have explored four different approaches to curriculum theory and practice:

Curriculum as a body of knowledge to be transmitted.

Curriculum as an attempt to achieve certain ends in students - product.

Curriculum as process.

Curriculum as praxis.

In a number of respects these different bodies of curriculum theory and practice link to thefour main forces in North American curriculum-making in the twentieth century: the liberal educators; the scientific curriculum makers; the developmental/person-centred; and the social meliorists (those that sought more radical social change) (after Kliebart 1987).

the liberal educators

the scientific curriculum makers

the develop- mentalists

the social meliorists

Orientation Guardians of an ancient tradition tied to the power of reason and the finest elements of the Western cultural heritage

Human life  consists in the performance of specific activities.  Education that prepares for life is one that prepares definitely and adequately for these specific activities.

The natural order of development in the child was most significant and scientifically defensible basis for determining what should be taught

Schools as a major, perhaps the, principal force for social change and social justice

Curriculum Systematic development of reasoning power and the communication of 'the canon'.

Influenced by the rise of scientific management and notions of social efficiency. Focus on setting objectives (the statement of changes to take place in the students) and the organization of schooling to meet these.

Sought a curriculum in harmony with the child's 'real' interests, needs  and learning patterns

Corruption and vice, inequalities of race and gender, and the abuse of privilege and power should be addressed directly. with the aim of raising a new generation equipped to deal effectively with these abuses.

Key thinkers Charles W. Taylor

Franklin Bobbitt  and Ralph W. Tyler

G. Stanley Hall Lester Frank Ward

Linked to transmission product process praxis

We shouldn't push the similarities too far - but there are some interesting overlaps - and this does alert us both to the changing understanding and to shifting policy orientations over time. 

For the moment we are having to operate within a policy environment that prizes the productive and technical. Furthermore, the discourse has become so totalizing that forms of education that do not have a curricula basis are squeezed. The temptation is always there to either be colonized by curriculum theory or adopt ways of describing practice that do not make sense in terms of the processes and commitments involved. Kleibart's analysis provides us with some hope - things will change. However, there is no guarantee that they will move in a more edifying direction. 

Further reading and references

I have picked out some books that have the greatest utility for those concerned with informal education and lifelong learning.

Caffarella, R. S. (1994) Planning Programs for Adult Learners. A practical guide for educators, trainers and staff developers, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 248 pages. Just what the title says - but has the advantage of many manuals in this area in that the underlying model is dynamic and interactive and avoids some of the problems with linear planning models. Clearly written with plenty of worksheets etc.

Griffin, C. (1987) Curriculum Theory in Adult and Lifelong Education, London: Croom Helm. 218 pages. Explores the use of curriculum theory and practice in non-school settings. Particular attention is paid to Illich, Freire, Gelpi etc.

Grundy, S. (1987) Curriculum: Product or Praxis, Lewes: Falmer. 209 + ix pages. Good discussion of the nature of curriculum theory and practice from a critical perspective. Grundy starts from Habermas' theorisation of knowledge and human interest and makes use of Aristotle to develop a models of curriculum around product, process and praxis.

Houle, C. O. (1972) The Design of Education, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 323 pages. Influential statement of theory and practice with regard to a fundamental structure for program design. Identifies basic situations (eleven in all) in which programs are planned and discusses their operation.

Kliebard, H. M. (1987) The Struggle for the American Curriculum 1893 - 1958, New York: Routledge. 300 + xvii pages. A cracker of a book which charts the development of different curricula traditions and the political and social context in which they arose. He unpicks suspect notions such as 'progressive

education' and demonstrates how Dewey in particular is positioned outside the main competing traditions. The movement between mental discipline, child centredness, scientific curriculum making (Taylorism) and social meliorism provides a very helpful set of insights into the theory and process of curriculum making within adult education.

Knowles, M. S. (1980) The Modern Practice of Adult Education. From pedagogy to andragogy 2e, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Cambridge/Prentice Hall. 400 pages. Pretty much the standard US work on practical program design in the 1970s and 1980s. Based around Knowles' assumptions concerning the way adults learn with some leanings to behaviouralism. Part one explores the emerging role and technology of adult education; Part two organizing and administering comprehensive programs of adult education; and Part three reflects on helping adults learn. Extensive appendices provide various exhibits and additional models. See also Knowles (1950) Informal Adult Education. A guide for administrators, leaders and teachers, New York: Association Press (272 pages) for an early but still useful review of program design and implementation within an NGO (Chicago YMCA).

Langenbach, M. (1988) Curriculum Models in Adult Education, Malibar: Krieger. 228 pages. Argues that adult educators must have a sound understanding of program design. Reviews different models of curriculum theory and practice (largely US) and assesses some specific areas of practice such as continuing professional education and literacy education.

Ross, A. (2000) Curriculum: Construction and critique, London: Falmer Press. 187 + xiii pages. Helpful overview of the history of curriculum development in Britain

Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development, London: Heinemann. 248 + viii pages. Classic statement of a process approach to the theory and practice of curriculum making. Chapters explore the nature of the curriculum problem; the content of education; teaching; the school as an institution; behavioural objectives and curriculum development; a critique of the objectives model; the process model; evaluation; a research model of curriculum development; the teacher as researcher; and the school and innovation.

Thornton, S. J. and Flinders, D. J. (eds.) (1997) The Curriculum Studies Reader, London: Routledge. 416 pages. Excellent collection of 30 readings that provides both a sample of enduring work and more recent material around curriculum theory and practice. Includes: Bobbitt, Dewey, Counts, Kliebard, Eisner, Jackson, Schwab, Greene, Freire, McLaughlin, Ravitch, Glazer, Apple, Lieberman and more.

Tyler, R. W. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 128 pages. Important discussion of product-oriented curriculum building. The process is clear from the chapter titles: what educational purposes should the school seek to attain? How can learning experiences be selected which are likely to be useful in attaining these

objectives? How can learning experiences be organized for effective instruction? How can the effectiveness of learning experiences be evaluated? How a school or college staff may work on curriculum building.

Wragg, T. (1997) The Cubic Curriculum, London: Routledge. 120 + x pages. Put aside the naff tittle - this book provides an accessible model of cur riculum building that attempts to incorporate a 'vision of the future'; a recognition that there are escalating demands on citizens, a belief that (children's) learning must be inspired by several influences; and lastly that it is essential to see the curriculum as much more than a mere collection of subjects and syllabuses. Wragg's 'cubic curriculum' has three dimensions: subject matter; cross-curricular themes and issues that influence children's general development; and the different methods of teaching and learning that can be employed. The concern is to provide a model for practice - so the book is a bit lightweight with regard to competing conceptualizations of curriculum and alternatives to curriculum thinking.

References

Aristotle (1976) The Nicomachean Ethics ('Ethics'),  Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Barnes, J. (1976) 'Introduction' to Aristotle The Nicomachean Ethics ('Ethics'),  Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Barrow, R. (1984) Giving Teaching back to Teachers. A critical introduction to curriculum theory, Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.

Blenkin, G. M. et al (1992) Change and the Curriculu,, London: Paul Chapman.

Bobbitt, F. (1918) The Curriculum,  Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Bobbitt, F. (1928) How to Make a Curriculum, Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical. Education, knowledge and action research, Lewes: Falmer Press

Cornbleth, C. (1990) Curriculum in Context, Basingstoke: Falmer Press.

Curzon, L. B. (1985) Teaching in Further Education. An outline of principles and practice3e, London: Cassell.

Dewey, J. (1902) The Child and the Curriculum, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education, New York: Macmillan.

Eisner, E. W. (1985) The Art of Educational Evaluation, Lewes: Falmer Press.

Foreman, A. (1990) 'Personality and curriculum' in T. Jeffs. & M. Smith (eds.) (1990)Using Informal Education.  An alternative to casework, teaching and control? Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Also in the archives.

Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Grundy, S. (1987) Curriculum: product or praxis? Lewes: Falmer Press.

Jackson, P. W. (1968) Life in Classrooms, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Jeffs, T. & Smith, M. (eds.) (1990) Using Informal Education.  An alternative to casework, teaching and control? Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Jeffs, T. J. and Smith, M. K. (1999) Informal Education. Conversation, democracy and learning, Ticknall: Education Now.

Kelly, A. V. (1983; 1999) The Curriculum. Theory and practice 4e, London: Paul Chapman.

Stenhouse, L. (1975) An introduction to Curriculum Research and Development, London: Heineman.

Newman, E. & G. Ingram (1989) The Youth Work Curriculum, London: Further Education Unit (FEU).

Taba, H. (1962) Curriculum Development: Theory and practice, New York: Harcourt Brace and World.

Tyler, R. W. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Usher, R. & I. Bryant (1989) Adult Education as Theory, Practice and Research. The captive triangle, London: Routledge.

Links

Knowledge

Acknowledgements: The alternative pedagogies word cloud is by ::: Billie / PartsnPieces ::: [http://www.flickr.com/photos/partsnpieces/2592980483/] and is reproduced under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic licence.

How to cite this article: Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000) 'Curriculum theory and practice' the encyclopaedia of informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.

© Mark K. Smith 1996, 2000

infed is a not-for-profit site [about us] [disclaimer] provided by the YMCA George Williams College. Give us feedback; write for us. Check our copyright notice when copying. Join us on Facebook and Twitter.

Hosting by Memset Dedicated Servers [CarbonNeutral®].

 

NCGIA Core Curriculum in Geographic Information Science

URL: "http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/giscc/units/u159/u159.html"

Unit 159 - Curriculum design for GISby David J. Unwin, Department of Geography Birbeck College, University of London, UK 

email: d.unwin@geog.bbk.ac.uk.

This unit was reviewed by Alan Jenkins, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.

This unit is part of the NCGIA Core Curriculum in Geographic Information Science. These materials may be used for study, research, and education, but please credit the author, David J. Unwin and the project, NCGIA Core Curriculum in GIScience.  All commercial rights reserved.  Copyright 1997 by David J.Unwin

Your comments on these materials are welcome. A link to an evaluation form is provided at the end of this document.

Advanced Organizer

Unit Topics and learning outcomes

This unit outlines:o What is meant by the term curriculum and how it differs from a syllabuso Various curriculum design methodologieso The problems that GIS can create for curriculum design.o Educational motivations for using the laboratory method in teaching GISo Problems in establishing GIS laboratories

Intended Learning Outcomes

after completing this module, students should be able to:o define a curriculum as a system of inter-related partso state why designing a curriculum solely by content is not always best

practiceo outline some formal approaches to curriculum designo list some of the problems to curriculum design posed by GISo design a GIS curriculum for you and your studentso justify the use of the laboratory class in a GIS curriculumo relate this use to the overall aims and objectives of the curriculum in

which it is embedded

o list and evaluate some of the published laboratory resources for teaching about and with GIS

o outline the problems that will emerge in setting up a GIS laboratory and the necessary resources to overcome them

Instructor's Notes

Table of Contents

Metadata and Revision History

Unit 159 - Curriculum design for GIS

1. Introduction

Defining and delivering an effective curriculum is THE most important professional responsibility for GIS instructors.

GIS instructors in higher education have shown an almost exemplary concern for teaching. Concern for education in GIS goes back a long way (see Goodchild, 1985; Poiker, 1985).

Concern and care for education in GIS has been a major factor in allowing the technology to diffuse so rapidly into geography and related sciences as well as into industry and commerce.

In attempting to design a curriculum, an instructor in GIS can turn to:

Several published examples of possible syllabuses (Nyerges and Chrisman, 1989; Unwin et al., 1990) The original NCGIA Core Curriculum in GIS (Kemp and Goodchild, 1992) was one of the most ambitious educational projects ever undertaken in geography in higher education. Unusually, it was subject to careful evaluation and assessment through individual case studies (Coulson and Waters, 1992) and overall user feedback (Kemp, 1992; Kemp and F.M. Goodchild, 1992). Nobody, least of all its originators, would claim it to be perfect, but it gave a 'kick start' to many educational developments. More recently, the methods used in the development of a European GIS curriculum in

GIS and the resulting curriculum content, have been described by Kemp and Frank (1996).

The Proceedings of a number of international workshops concerned with GIS education. Almost all of the major conferences include a `stream' relating to GIS education and training.

The GIS community has produced many general teaching resources. Examples include a number of, low-cost, systems that run happily on basic hardware (see Fisher, 1989), some very useful vendor training products, 'general awareness' computer-based tutorial systems, and some carefully designed packaged 'distance learning' materials making use of standard GIS (Langford, 1991). There are also a number of useful analogue videos (Hall & MacLennan, 1990).

Increasingly, these materials are being made available to anyone who has access via WWW. A good place to start a search for these materials is:

o the UK Computers in Teaching Initiative Centre for Geography, Geology and Meteorology site at http://www.geog.le.ac.uk/cti.

o the NCGIA site at http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/cctp/ncgia.html oro that at Edinburgh University in UK

at http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/gishome.html which list a very large number of GIS related sites.

However, even with the benefits of these resources

Many curriculum design issues remain unresolved.

There is no single correct answer. GIS curricula will vary, for example, by:o Level and student backgroundo Delivery mechanismo Intended outcomeso Instructor preferences

There is thus a responsibility to design the GIS curriculum correctly to suit local circumstances, resources and student needs. Sample curricula can help, but a more general approach is to develop methodologies for curriculum design. An analogy we might use is between specific computer programmes (curricula) and the more general idea of programming languages (the methods and toolkits used).

2. Curriculum as a system

There is no clear, accepted definition of the word curriculum. The dictionary definition is a course of study, but this gives little away and educational theorists invariably give a much wider definition that includes:

o Explicit statements of ideology underlying the instruction (why are you teaching it, and why is the teaching the way it is?

o General long-term aims (what are students intended to gain from following the course?

o Specific, testable, short-term objectives (what will they be able to do as a result of following the course?)

o Resources to be used (what is needed to deliver the course?)o The delivery methods to be employed (how is it to be taught?)o Timing of the units and their sequencing (when is it to be taught and in

what order?)o Assessment procedures and the balance of assessments to be made (how,

when and why will it be examined?)o A methodology for evaluating how well the course has been received

(how will the instructor acquire feedback from the students about the course?).

A curriculum is more than a course title and list of topics or even set of lecture notes. These constitute a syllabus and this is only one component of a curriculum.

A simple model of the curriculum sees it as an interacting system made up of aims and objectives, assessment and evaluation (not the same thing), teaching methods and content (Gold et al., 1990):

see figure 1.

The implications of this system view are:o Because changes in any one of these elements will force changes in all

the others, curriculum design is a complex and difficult process, similar in many ways to the development of a software system. A commercial GIS is very similar to a curriculum. Both have a high intellectual, conceptual and technical content, but note how differently they are usually produced. More often than not in higher education the curriculum is the work of a single individual or small team following no clear design methodology, often under extreme pressure of time, and with no process documentation on the way. A large team following a formal design methodology will produce a commercial GIS and documentation will form a very important part of the process.

o For completeness, all the elements defined above should be considered and present.

o In theory you could start at any point in the system and begin to design the curriculum, what matters is that all the elements and their linkages are known.

As an exercise, think through how these approaches might be used in a practical curriculum design.

3. Curriculum design methodologies

GIS curricula should be designed and there are a number of formal models of the design process (see Gold et al., 1990; Chance and Jenkins, 1997) that are surprisingly similar to those proposed in software engineering Some questions to ask are:

o Why is the course being taught?o What new knowledge, skills and attitudes do I expect my students to

develop?o If so, what experiences do I need to provide for them?o Will all students benefit from the same experiences?o What range of experiences is possible?o What resources are available? What am I comfortable with, and what

would I like to experiment with?o How will I know if the course is progressing as intended?o How will I know if it succeeds?

How can a curriculum design be guided? Gold et al. (1991, Chapter 10) recognise six possible approaches:

3.1) Design through aims and objectives or intended learning outcomes

This is the equivalent of a top down approach to software development. It starts from a clear statement of broad educational aims, refines these into a series of explicit and testable objectives, and then devises teaching strategies, content and assessment methods to meet these aims and objectives. As with software engineering, so most of the relevant educational literature tends to favour this approach.

An educational AIM is a broad statement of the overall motivations for the course such as to develop an understanding of the theory behind GIS and to develop skills in the application of GIS to problems in environmental

management. In contrast an educational objective is a precise statement written in such a way that it easily translates into something that can be assessed in some way such as to understand by a practical example the basic principles of semiautomatic digitising.

Educationalists recognise a taxonomy of educational objectives. Bloom's taxonomy (Bloom, 1956) has six major categories from knowledge, through comprehension, application, analysis and synthesis to evaluation. The ordering of these categories is intended to be broadly hierarchical, each measuring a more complex behaviour than its predecessor and also subsuming it.

The difficulty of specifying aims and objectives (for an extended discussion see Beard, 1970, pages 44-71) has led many educationalists to argue that it is better to specify a series of intended learning outcomes (ILO). Examples are provided at the head of this, and all the other, units in the Core Curriculum. The key is to specify something that the student should be able to do after following the course. For example, the aim we used above might translate into an ILO such as 'after completing this module, you should be able to use a semiautomatic digitiser to input and structure basic vector data in the ARC/INFO GIS system'. Notice that this is very easily converted into a task that students would have to complete in the laboratory. Without such a laboratory exercise, the same ILO might be 'after completing this module, you will be able to state how line data on a map can be captured for input into the ARC/INFO GIS using a semiautomatic digitiser'. At a higher level in the taxonomy of objectives, students might have an ILO which asks them to take an evaluative view 'after completing this module you will be able to list the advantages and disadvantages of semiautomatic digitising related to raster scanning as input for line data into the ARC/INFO GIS'.

For more information on how to write ILO, see http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/format/outcomes.html

The advantages of both aims and objectives and ILOs are that they:o Communicates teacher's intentions clearly and unequivocallyo Provide an immediate framework for course structure and contento Guide the selection of appropriate teaching and learning resourceso Help both evaluation and assessment.

The major problem with this very formal approach in which everything is written down in advance is that once started, it is hard to change tack, possibly as a response to student feedback on the course or changing circumstances.

3.2) Design by subject matter

 

An obvious way to design a curriculum is to write down a set of topics that will be taught. Many instructors (e.g. the NCGIA Core Curriculum itself) have started at syllabus and content, specifying WHAT should be taught and then gone on to consider all the other elements. This is a content driven approach to curriculum design and this approach is the one that has necessarily been taken by almost all the published examples in GIS. This is an approach that software engineers would recognise as bottom  up . There are at least six reasons why this approach should be modified:

Research evidence shows that syllabus content is not what most influences student learning. It is the precisely extra components that turn a syllabus of topics into a curriculum, such as attitudes to study, assessment tasks and so on, that most define what they ultimately remember and use in later life.

o A published syllabus may actually hide the real content. Educationalists also talk of the importance of an 'hidden' curriculum and various departmental cultures. These form a hidden agenda of implicit demands, which may run totally counter to the explicit syllabus. In practice, assessment in the form of the examination questions set often reveals this hidden curriculum, which is why the study of past examination papers is such a useful student revision method.

o Content dates rapidly. What is currently fashionable in research is often ephemera, to be replaced very rapidly by other materials. This is particularly likely to be the case in a rapidly expanding field like GIS.

o Course content always undergoes a series of pedagogic transformations on the way from teacher to taught which filter and transform it. Thus the real 'content' of a course can be defined in several ways. Is it what was originally intended should be taught, what was actually delivered, what was added to this by teacher/student interaction, what the students actually wrote down, what they remembered, or what they took from the course into the world of work?

C = what it was intended to teach. C1= what actually was taught C2= what the students actually wrote down C3= this content after modification by the students additional

work and interaction with others C4= this content as it was remembered and reproduced

o Notice: Each transformation will be noisy. The absence of any clear feedback loops.

o Designs which build up in this way can be perfectly rational (the NCGIA example!) but there is a tendency for designers to lose sight of the overall course structure when using this approach.

o These two approaches are the most common, but Gold et al (1990) recognise four other possible approaches:

3.3) Design for power

It may well be that GIS course designers are not totally free to design as they see fit. In many countries the GIS teaching might be part of some specified national, even international scheme in which others have specified many aspects of the curriculum 'in power'. An example is where the instruction is part of a professional development or continuing professional development scheme such as those operated by some of the professions.

3.4) Design building on teacher motivations

A seemingly radical approach to curriculum design that may be far more common than instructors like to recognise is a design, which simply builds on the motivations, experience and interest of those delivering the course. Purists will argue that this will give an unbalanced view of GIS, but there are several arguments in its favour. First, the instructor will be knowledgeable and enthusiastic and hence teach 'better'. Secondly, this enthusiasm may well be transmitted to students who respond by working harder and with greater commitment. The final result could well be a better experience than that of a course given by instructors less at ease with the material and less enthusiastic. This type of curriculum at BA/BS level often leads good students directly into Graduate School, but this is likely to be a some cost in general awareness of the field for those who do not.

3.5) Design for resource availability

Given that there is a large number of GIS education resources such as machine tutorials, CD-ROM, WWW sites, published pencil and paper exercises, text books and vendor instruction manuals it is possible to design a curriculum that builds on these resources. In USA, it is relatively common for introductory

classes to be based very closely around a standard, specified course text. There is a different tradition in UK, but the logic of this approach is beginning to be more widely accepted. It has the advantage of providing a clear 'map' of what is to be covered and in what sequence, allows students time to work on the materials out of class and thus reduces the number of steps in what above was called the pedagogic transformations.

3.6) Student centered design for individual needs and knowledge.

Finally, and possibly the most challenging approach of all, student-centred design that begins by an examination of individual student needs and attempts to provide course materials to meet them. The problem with this model is that only seldom do educators 'listen to the learner' and, even if they did, it is by no means clear that students would have a correct perception of the field. The student's learning environment is a complex one that includes far more than just the formal programme of instruction. It includes interaction with other students, browsing the library, talks with parents, and so on. It should be apparent that this approach must recognise that students adopt very different learning styles, so that what is good for one may be totally inappropriate for another.

o The importance of feedback and critical evaluation. These six approaches to curriculum design are theoretical models. Any one of them is unlikely to be followed in its entirety, either as a 'top down' or as a 'bottom up' system. In practice, almost everyone will chose a middle out strategy that designs by refinement of a central core of materials that most probably already exist. The important point is that there is a design and that all the elements of the curriculum system have been thought about.

4. Some dilemmas for GIS curriculum design: GIS and the curriculum

 In common with many new technologies, GIS has a number of characteristics that make formal curriculum design difficult:

Speed of development.o GIS has evolved very rapidly relative to the speed at which

developments can possibly be incorporated into curriculum structure. This has had a number of consequences. Until recently, it has meant that there has been a shortage of faculty/instructors able to teach about it. Normally, in education there is a reasonable supply of qualified educators willing to enter into it. These instructors are able to draw on

models of curriculum practice based on their own experiences or have a background in research and applications that leads to a pretty clear idea of what should make up a curriculum. None of these conditions is met in GIS education.

Education or training?o GIS is usually introduced as a technology or an industry that is

technology driven, yet it rests on top of many years of work in spatial information science (SIS). This 'education or training' debate permeates almost all the curriculum. It clearly must influence the overall aims and objectives, but it also affects the modes of delivery and the content that is offered. The dilemma is to choose between education in the concepts of SIS and training in the use of a specific system. In part this is to do with the levels of skill needed for a variety of possible future involvements with GIS, from operative to system designer (see Toppen, 1992 for a typology of GIS careers). No single curriculum could hope to meet all these requirements.

GIS or xIS?o where x can be S (spatial), L (land), M (Management) or even a

redefined G (geoscience). There are a number of different conceptions of the field of GIS, depending on the background and prejudices we bring to it. For better or worse, the use of the word 'geographic' has meant that responsibility for education in GIS has mostly rested in academic Departments of Geography. This is both a strength and a weakness. It is a strength because many of the antecedents of GIS, such as computer-cartography, remote sensing and spatial analysis, were firmly located in the same place and have remained so. It is a weakness because many of the technical underpinnings of GIS (geometry, data base management) are difficult to teach in the same context. Again, no one single approach can hope to meets all these needs. From a curriculum design point of view, it is doubtful if anyone from a purely geographical background is able adequately to balance the material that goes into the curriculum or to specify educational aims and objectives that fully address what a complete education in GIS should provide.

Breadth or depth?o For a full education in GIS, students need the breadth of vision to

understand not only the scientific and societal problems to which it might be applied, but also the complex managerial, legal and ethical questions that might arise from this use. At the same time, they must also

have the depth of understanding to be able to play what Douglas once referred to as the 'hardball' version of GIS (Douglas, 1988). In the hardball version it is necessary to know about and apply concepts from data base management, computer programming, and so on, to real world problems with the inevitably 'messy' data. In his view, teaching students about the use of GIS using a 'filled' raster system is essentially playing the 'softball' variation, 'played on a smaller field, with a larger, more easily handled ball ... designed for summer camps and picnics where everyone can take part'. There is nothing wrong with softball, provided we do not pretend that it is hardball. and this is not simply a question of curriculum content. Most of the basic concepts of GIS are capable of being dealt with either as a shallow concept or in depth. For example, raster storage, regarded by Douglas as softball, can equally be approached at a depth, which is distinctly 'hardball' (see for example, Samet 1989). Balancing breadth against depth may well be the most important curriculum design problem of all.

Hands on or hands off?o In producing a curriculum for GIS, it is almost certain that students will

need to access as powerful a system as is possible within the usual budgetary constraints. Although desirable as an end in itself, 'hands on' has some unfortunate consequences, which are discussed in the next module of this section on Teaching and learning GIS in laboratories .

Option or integrator?o A fifth dilemma concerns how we relate GIS to the rest of whatever

curriculum we happen to teach. At least two models are possible: GIS is a sub-set of some other discipline, to be taught as an

elective within the context of a course in some other 'real' discipline. The difficulties that this view is creating for academic geography can be seen in the interchange between Taylor (1990), Openshaw (1991) and Goodchild (1991). The obvious weakness of this model is that it tends to generate teaching in breadth rather than in depth and risks marginalising the entire enterprise.

GIS is a cover set integrating materials from parts of several other disciplines into one distinct science of spatial information that is worthy of study in its own right.

About GIS or with GIS?o Finally, although a lot of people are teaching and

learning about something called GIS, far fewer seem to be

teaching with it, that is, using GIS better to teach some other discipline (see Thompson, 1992).

5. Conclusion: What does a good curriculum look like?

Designing a curriculum for GIS is not a simple matter and there is no single 'best' answer either in the form of the curriculum or even the methodology adopted for its design. A final question we might ask is whether or not it is possible to determine if the result is any good. One way is by always including a careful student of the course once it has been given. Evaluation of this sort is essential and should always be treated seriously, allowing sufficient time in class for any survey questionnaire to be filled out and with the results carefully summarised. It is good practice to post a notice giving the results of the evaluation and providing an instructors commentary.

Is it possible to anticipate whether or not the curriculum meets its aims? One simple test to apply makes use of the set of guiding principles of good education proposed by the American Association of Higher Education (Chickering and Gamson, 1987). According to these a good curriculum should:

o encourage staff/student contacto encourage co-operation between studentso encourage active learningo provide prompt feedback on performance of both teacher and taughto emphasise `time on the task'o respect the diverse talents and ways of learning brought to the course by

the studentso evaluate itselfo display a clarity of aims and objectiveso make use of the educational literature.

The golden rule seems to be always to remember that WE ARE NOT JUST TEACHING GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS BUT WE ARE ALSO TEACHING STUDENTS.

Evaluation

We are very interested in your comments and suggestions for improving this material.  Please follow the link above to the evaluation form if you would like to contribute in this manner to this evolving project.

Citation

To reference this material use the appropriate variation of the following format:  

David J. Unwin, (1997) Curriculum Design for GIS, NCGIA Core Curriculum in GIScience, http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/giscc/units/u159/u159.html, posted January 08, 1998.

The correct URL for this page is:  http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/giscc/units/u159/u159_f.html . Last revised: January 08, 1998. 

Gateway to the Core Curriculum 

Reflections on Curriculum Development, Pedagogy and Assessment by a New AcademicDon J. Webber*International Review of Economics Education, volume 4, issue 1 (2005), pp. 58-73

Up: Home > Lecturer Resources > IREE > Volume 4 Issue 1

Abstract

New members of academic teaching staff will encounter any number of issues and problems in their first year and many will not know how to teach. This paper discusses the naivety of a new academic, issues encountered in the first year of a lecturing post and the efforts put into writing and compiling a new, core, final year, undergraduate module. Experiences of curriculum development, pedagogy and assessment are explored and reflections based on the knowledge accumulated from attendance on a Professional Development Programme are presented. Emphasis rests on the design and implementation of the module, with specific focus on intentions, content, assessment and delivery.

JEL Classification: A22

Introduction and Background

New members of academic teaching staff will encounter a large number of issues and problems associated with their new position and these will be linked to their new role(s), new location, the variety of student backgrounds and working with new colleagues. Many of these issues and problems can be unexpected. Examples of such issues and problems are module preparation, stimulating student interaction, unexpected variations in the abilities of students, suppositions about the way students learn, expectations of students' prior knowledge and experiences of life, and the importance of cultural differences between university levels and between students. Some of these problems might be encountered because a new academic can be naive to the pedagogy, design and assessment aspects of teaching.

Books often provide guidance on how to become an 'effective' lecturer, but reflections on experiences and methods of dealing with problems are rare, even though they could provide lessons to pass on to the next generation of academics. The purpose of this paper is to examine and explore the experience of curriculum design, pedagogy and assessment from the perspective of a new academic in the field of economics where the new academic is na�ve about good teaching practice. As a new academic, I draw on my own experience and illustrate that the level of success achieved was driven by the quantity and quality of interaction, guidance and advice given to me by existing academic teaching staff. This is a reflection of my first year as a full-time lecturer, grounded partly aroundCannon and Newble (2000) a book I was referred to after commencement of the post and after the curriculum development, pedagogy and assessment were designed.

Prior to taking up this lecturing position at a British university, I was a Research Fellow with no teaching requirements at a different British university. Three months before the start of the permanent contract, the proforma and syllabus for a final year, core undergraduate module was sent to me for perusal. This module, named International Economic Policy (IEP), was designed for students following a BA (Hons) in International Business Economics. A member of staff prior to my arrival had already written the proforma and syllabus.(note

1) Given that the module would be strongly associated with the research that I was conducting at the time, I was very pleased to be offered the chance to teach a core module that appeared to be close to my research interests, and I duly accepted the offer.

I immediately contacted academic colleagues and friends across a number of universities to collect advice and guidance.The advice from colleagues indicated that my first year would be relentless, with streams of students asking for help, requests from other members of staff, and numerous administrative requirements. They stressed that preparation was very important and that I should begin writing the module before commencement of the post. This included drawing on unused holiday at the end of the previous contract to work on the design and pedagogy of this new module. In order to get ahead, I decided to write the whole module during the summer (in my spare time, evenings, and holiday) and to submit my design to the Module Leader(note 2) in late August to obtain constructive feedback, prior to commencement of the module.(note 3) In this paper, I describe my experience of curriculum development, pedagogy and assessment for this module and present reflections on knowledge accumulated on a Professional Development Programme (PDP).(note 4)

Like many new lecturers with high expectations of students and strong intentions for professional success, I had decisions to make on the content and methods of teaching. This paper is concerned with the elements of curriculum development, pedagogy and assessment detailed by Cannon and Newble (2000, p. 71).(note 5)They suggest that, although there is no straightforward formula to guide lecturers in curriculum development,'our major concern is to ensure that each element - intentions, teaching, assessment, content - is considered and that the links between the elements are thoughtfully made'. The structure of this paper is based on these elements: first come intentions, followed by content, assessment, and then delivery. Finally, conclusions are drawn.

Intentions

Being keen and eager to be a successful lecturer generated high expectations of myself and included intentions of generating stimulating and interesting modules. With respect to this module, my intentions were to:

have a content that was relevant to contemporary world issues; encourage students to question the theoretical content and its practical relevance; stimulate students' analytical thought; engage and inspire students' minds; encourage high levels of interaction between students.

In order for the students to be inspired enough to question the content of the module, I decided that the economic content should include contemporary issues highlighted in the media. The more the topics are discussed in the media over the year of study then the greater the likelihood of students recognising the usefulness of the content of the module and to engaging in study of the subject. Tailoring content in this way would allow students with an interest in current affairs to be able to interpret the origins of international and national macroeconomic decisionmaking. It also gave me the option of analysing and discussing media coverage that appeared up to and including the day of the lectures and seminars. Moreover, if the media were to highlight activities that were of relevance to issues covered earlier in the module, students would be consulted at the beginning or end of seminars and encouraged to refer to these issues in their assessments.

Given these prior considerations, time was spent devising ways to integrate these ideas into a highly interactive and stimulating module. Other important issues were also pondered over, including whether I would be solely transmitting knowledge to the students or whether there would be recognisable interaction and exchange of knowledge, skills and attitudes between students. I believed the latter to be necessary for students to appreciate and develop their understanding of key concepts and ideas. Although one of the aims of this module was for it to be interactive and stimulating, other factors considered to be important were to encourage students to feel in control of their learning by promoting hands-onlearning, high levels of student engagement, and the development of curiosity to stimulate students to find out more.(note 6) To encourage hands-on learning, a clear and explicit structure was deemed desirable, which I believed would encourage students to engage in the subject, to question the theoretical content and to appreciate its practical relevance. I had no idea how long the writing of the module would take and it proved to be

more difficult and time-consuming than expected, due to continuous redrafting and restructuring of the entire module.

To fulfil some of these intentions, theoretical developments would build on the knowledge students obtained from their studies of a prerequisite module in International Trade and Multinational Business (ITMB). Traditional theory would be followed by some of the new theoretical developments and complemented by case study evidence.

Content

Students following the BA (Hons) International Business Economics degree are required to take a core module on ITMB in their penultimate year, which comprises a number of concepts, including the central theorem in international economics, the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem. Given the proforma and the information that the students should possess this knowledge already, it was decided that IEP would be grounded on the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem, and the purpose of the module would be to bring students' knowledge up-to-date with some of the most recent theoretical and empirical developments in the field. Particular focus would be on academic articles that had been published over the previous five years. I am using 'module content' in the broadest sense to include all aspects of knowledge, skills and attitudes relevant to the module and to the intellectual experiences of students and their teachers, but there are different types of criteria by which we should assess our curriculum. In what follows, the philosophical, psychological, practical and student criteria, as detailed in Cannon and Newble (2000), are discussed.(note 7)

Philosophical Criteria

The philosophical criteria focus on the theoretical, methodological and value positions of the curriculum. A module should be a means to enhance the intellectual development of students, and not an end in itself. In order to enhance the intellectual development of students, it was decided that the module would adopt a scaffolding approach and build on the knowledge obtained in their earlier studies of ITMB. To achieve this aim the first couple of lectures would recapitulate and reorientate students' knowledge so that they would revise the foundations of the IEP module(note 8) while the remainder of the module would be structured to enable a high level of understanding, where similar issues would be grouped together.(note 9)

Cannon and Newble (2000, p. 72) suggest that content that is solely concerned with technical matters has no place in university education. This may well differ between disciplines, but to encourage analysis, and a high level of understanding that economics is a "living, breathing science" (Ormerod, 1994), we must help students to understand certain technicalities. An example concerns the breakdown of identified relationships when those relationships are used to formulate policy. Goodhart's Law essentially states that the control of a symptom or part of a problem will not cure that problem; instead, the part that is being controlled becomes a poor indicator of the problem. Recognition and understanding of such technicalities is very important and can lead to good, rigorous, analytical thought and reflection. As a new lecturer, I did not know how to overcome the barriers to understanding particular concepts and the usual misconceptions and/or failures of comprehension prior to

teaching the module, except, of course, from my own experiences. Moreover, I did not recognise that these might be problems and so advice on overcoming barriers was not sought.

Technical matters need to be appreciated and understood in economics if analysis and evaluation are to be developed. For instance, elementary economic theory suggests that there is an inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment - commonly known as the Phillips Curve. This relationship can most easily be appreciated and understood through the use of diagrams, which can be technical. It is only when we appreciate that a relationship is complex and based on a range of assumptions (and hence does not always hold) that we can develop our understanding of that relationship. Within economics it is only through the appreciation of general and specific issues (including technicalities) that deep rather than surface understanding can be achieved.

The scaffolding approach was adopted to help develop and enhance the philosophical criteria.(note 10) The theoretical, methodological and value positions of the curriculum could then be developed and revised over the duration of the module to enhance the intellectual development of students. The knowledge accrued over the duration of the module should benefit students' understanding when international issues are discussed in the media. These include the policies and issues discussed at the World Summit for the environment in Johannesburg, which included the discussion of trade, the environment, employment and poverty.

Psychological Criteria

Content should be carefully integrated to avoid fragmentation and consequential loss of opportunities for students to develop deep approaches to learning; provide opportunities to emphasise and develop higher-level intellectual skills, such as reasoning, problem solving, critical thinking and creativity; and relate to the 'process' activities and to the development of attitude and values (Cannon and Newble, 2000, p. 72).

The integration of topics into a logical structure would meet part of the psychological criteria, but this proved to be incredibly difficult. Many of the topics required others to be discussed in advance. The organisation of the module would be key to a logical progression and for the development of logical thought over the duration of the module. Modules with similar content taught at other universities were perused, while discussion with peers and frequent reflection and redrafting were undertaken to tighten the line along which the module would develop. This took a surprisingly large amount of time, for which I was not prepared.(note 11)

To encourage the development of higher-level intellectual skills, I decided that the module should require students to present recently published academic papers to the rest of the class and to participate in case-study exercises. The view was taken, again from my own experience, that the presentation of material to peers often makes the student put in more effort than usual. This is due partly to students not wishing to embarrass themselves in front of their peers and partly to them recognising that, in order to teach others, they need to understand what they are going to say. I felt that this motivation was a useful stimulus to

critical thinking and reflection.(note 12) Presentation of non-textbook content was believed to be one way of achieving this goal. This format also provided opportunities to develop higher-level intellectual skills, critical thinking and creativity.

One element of student presentation that I stressed as being important from the very start of the module was the expression of individual thoughts and values. Creative, open thinking and expression was encouraged throughout to encourage the development of evidence-based attitudes to international policy.(note 13)

Practical Criteria

It is an unfortunate and sad fact of university life that few students attend every lecture and every seminar.(note 14) The provision of reading materials is essential for students to catch up and keep up with the knowledge being disseminated in sessions from which they were absent.

One of the main problems with attempting to include some of the most up-to-date literature and ideas in a module is that textbooks cannot contain such content. This made the practical criteria of module development difficult to achieve. For this reason, various recently published high-quality, relevant, inter-related journal articles were selected as the essential materials for student reference.(note 15)The selected articles built on theoretical foundations covered in the module. The approach taken meant that there was conflict between the intention to be up-to-date and the practical criterion of textbook availability, although this may be inevitable as it takes time for the ideas held within new academic articles to be fed into new editions of textbooks. To facilitate ease of access to the required information and knowledge, two textbooks were recommended that provided core information, and the articles were collected and made available to students in a restricted short loan area(note 16) of the university library.

Student Criteria

Content may be selected to reflect the needs and interests of the group, but there is no straightforward formula to guide lecturers in ensuring that the content and student considerations are directly linked (Cannon and Newble, 2000, p. 76).

An important criterion for any final year module is that it should provide a sound foundation for advanced study, should the students wish to progress to study the topic at postgraduate level (or use the knowledge in their work or social life). This means that the content of the module should include a breadth of issues that may be required at other universities for progression to the Masters level, but also some areas involving greater analysis to ensure that the content has the required depth.

Content should be updated each year. As research is undertaken across the world, it is vitally important to update our modules to make sure they are relevant, interesting and contemporary. Perhaps the ideal time for reflection and updating is at the end of the academic year despite the fact that new publications, case studies and theoretical developments are continuously occurring. The lecturer can reflect on how an individual

session went and the level of student engagement and understanding immediately after the lecture. This knowledge and reflection will be lost the greater the period of time between the presentation and the modification of the content. So to ensure an effective and interesting module for the next academic year, it was my intention that the re-writing of lectures would be most effectively carried out on a continual basis, with literature integrated into lectures throughout the year, and the rewriting and reordering of lecture and seminar content immediately after lessons.

In reality, as colleagues and friends had warned me before the academic year began, my first year was relentless, with streams of students seeking advice, requests from other members of staff and numerous administrative requirements. Time for such module development was thus limited. Something had to give to ensure that periods for reflection were not lost, and that is where the evenings came into their own. Out goes the social life and in comes the work - perhaps an invasion of privacy, but it would get easier with experience, wouldn't it? Perhaps the pedagogy and content should have been selected to reflect both the needs and interests of the group and the limited amount of time that I had for module development.

Assessment

Assessment is an important element of curriculum design and must be related to the objectives of the module. The proforma stated that there would be two assignments and a three-hour exam; I had to adopt this format.

Although these assessment constraints were 'set-in-stone' for my first teaching year, there was still room for manoeuvre. To ensure the content was understood by all students and to avoid a large amount of marking at one point in time, the decision was taken by the Module Leader and myself to develop a rolling approach for individual essay submission for one of the assignments, where each student would write an essay on the paper that they presented and submit it one week after presentation.(note 17)

To encourage reflection and learning from their peers' presentation styles and to increase their ability to identify good and bad presentation skills, formative feedback on the presentations was provided in the following way. At the end of the presentation, members of the audience were encouraged to ask questions and a debate would ensue. The presenters were then asked to leave the room and a discussion of how the presentation could have been improved was drawn out of the remaining class members. After discussion, the presenters returned to the classroom where feedback was given and points of clarification were made to the whole group concerning the presentation and the content of the paper. This confirmation of understanding and clarification permitted students to include this knowledge in their accompanying essay.

Since designing this module, I have learnt that this type of integration of course elements is termed 'jigsawing' in the educational literature. It appears to be a useful and effective way of ensuring a high level of interaction between students and for students to take control of their own learning. Students helped each other in the process of learning, as students in the audience asked questions of the students presenting the paper (improving their

communication skills) which stimulated presenters to think critically about the content of the paper and resulted in competitive and collaborative group dynamics. Nevertheless, as a new teaching academic, I had no prior explicit knowledge of the jigsawing and scaffolding teaching techniques.

Delivery

As different students learn in different ways, the decision was taken to adopt several approaches to teaching while the module was being developed. I learnt on the PDP course that these teaching techniques fall into three distinct styles. First, I was going to adopt the 'Teaching as Telling or Transmission' approach(Ramsden, 1992, pp. 111-2) for my lectures, but also to encourage interaction by asking students questions for them to illustrate to me their understanding of the information. Seminars were to be split into two separate, closely related activities: the presentation and the discussion of a recently published media article. Second, I was intending to use the 'Teaching as Organising Student Activity' approach (Ramsden, 1992, pp. 113-4) for the student presentation part of the seminars. Third, I was intent on using the 'Teaching as Making Learning Possible' approach (Ramsden, 1992, pp. 114-6) for the case study analysis part of the seminars. The first approach would be most appropriate for 'listeners'. The second approach would be most appropriate for 'interactors' and the third approach would be most appropriate for those who need evidence ('empiricists') before they can understand theory.

Lecturing

As a student, I (nearly) always enjoyed lectures, but many of my peers fell asleep! I did not want this to happen in my sessions so intended to encourage a high level of interaction. To ensure students listened and stayed awake, questions would be asked that related to the session's content. It was hoped that if the students knew that questions would be asked, then they might stay awake for longer. 'Breaks' would be employed to allow time for reflection before further 'brainstorming moments' were employed in which students would be set a task to do in a short period of time, usually in the middle of the lecture and usually in pairs.

As Baume and Baume (1996, p. 11) point out, questions can be used for a variety of purposes. In addition to making sure that the students had learned from the content of the lecture, questions could be asked to encourage students to apply information. However, these types of questions would not always be asked to gain a response; instead they would be often answered by myself. Although not being explicitly interactive, if the students take the view that the pause is there as I'm waiting for an answer, many students would be stimulated to think about the topic faster just in case they were asked for an answer. Questions would not only engage students, they would also be used to illustrate that the theory could be applied to the real world. Such questions would take the form of 'how does this contrast with...?', 'how can you put these ideas together?' or 'can you think of an example that was recently in the media?

Seminars

I wanted my seminars to have high levels of intellectual performance and involvement by students and decided to integrate presentations to stimulate a very high level of learning-by-doing into the module. From my own experience, students learn well by practising something and I was not surprised to find this emphasised in the educational literature by Baume and Baume (1996, p. 9) during the course of the PDP.

To facilitate this learning-by-doing approach, the second assessment was an essay based on students' own presentation. It was hoped that they would find the article interesting enough to stimulate interaction. Students frequently identified that papers presented by their peers would be, in part at least, contradictory to their own. Students then discussed the content of each paper and passed the information that they had gathered on to their colleagues. This was believed to encourage active learning so that students would gain a deeper understanding of concepts.

The presentation of academic articles was deemed profitable for a number of reasons. First, it would encourage students to reflect on content: the presentation of information requires a thorough understanding of the material. Presentations would encourage an efficient use of resources and develop other key skills, such as using PowerPoint presentations, overhead projectors, handouts and resources, practice in presentations and public speaking.

Further good reasons for running group presentations are identified by Priestley and McGuire (1983). Several of their reasons are highlighted in italics. First, students are encouraged to express a point of view, to illustrate their understanding or to present evidence to support or reject theoretical propositions, thereby improving their conversational skills. This in turn would provide the students with increased self-confidence. Other obvious but very important considerations are that students would gain experience and pleasure of working with others (and they might even learn about each other) and provide each other with mutual aid and support. The question and answer period at the end of each presentation would encourage students to give and get feedback and develop their problem-solving skills.

In addition to the prior identification of appropriate journal articles, the second part of each seminar would include a case study article from either a newspaper (such as the Guardian) and/or a magazine (such as The Economist). An example would be the US decision to impose tariffs on steel imports, and the theoretical consequences of such actions on its domestic labour force. This would be accompanied by a set of questions on the article to encourage critical thinking, analysis and reflection.

One potential drawback of this approach is that there may be inequalities due to differential timing of essay submission, i.e. students submitting later in the term may have an advantage of understanding and learning presentation skills. I attempted to overcome this potential problem in two ways. First, I would present two papers at the start of the module to illustrate what would be expected; students took notes in these sessions. Second, I informed students that I would provide the first group of presenters with lots of guidance and this then attracted several individuals to the earlier papers.(note 18) I listed the papers and dates for

their presentation and students were encouraged to select papers that would be presented when there were few pieces of coursework to submit for their other modules and where the paper was linked to their own interests. These three actions were deemed appropriate in several ways. First, it allowed students to take control of their own learning by indirectly selecting the date for their presentation and essay submission and by encouraging them to decide which paper they would present. Many students consulted the papers in advance of the deadline for selection. Second, keen students decided to get their presentation out of the way at the start of the academic year, thereby installing a high initial level of presentation, with which subsequent students appeared to compete. The majority of presentations surpassed expectations and good essay marks were achieved (which were double-blind-marked).

Policy Recommendations

Within the School, students are surveyed twice a year to obtain feedback and impressions about the course and how they are coping with the content and assessments. When reflecting on the positive criticism obtained from student evaluations (such as 'well-organised', 'well-structured', etc.), it should be noted that these positive comments could be entirely attributable to the advice offered to me from colleagues and friends across different universities, which resulted in the high amount of preparation for the module before the start of term.

One conclusion that could be identified from this work is the need for guidance and help for younger members of staff who may not know the value of this advice at the time it is offered. University staff should be approachable and should actively encourage new members to interact and make them feel able to ask questions.

Given that the module is already highly interactive and has contemporary content, there is scope for research to be carried out to identify whether different methods of information dissemination and assessment generate higher quality learning. Also, given the different levels of students' ability, willingness to integrate into the group and attendance, larger/smaller group presentations would encourage less/greater reliance on student peers to help students through the module. It would be interesting to identify whether smaller group presentations would result in a lower number of free riders and a greater level of understanding by each student. Moreover, with more time for reflection, it might be worth identifying whether different methods of lecturing could also be employed. For instance, frequent formative tests and interactive PowerPoint presentations could be employed in the future to concentrate students' minds and to capture imaginations.

Conclusions

This paper has presented reflections on curriculum development, pedagogy and assessment within a core, final year, undergraduate economics module - International Economic Policy - from the perspective of a new academic. It has detailed and discussed experiences of writing and compiling the module and has presented reflections based on knowledge and readings gathered on a Professional Development Programme. Particular emphasis has been

placed on my experience of designing and implementing the module, with particular foci on intentions, content, assessment and delivery.

Several points are worth reiterating. First, a new academic might have little idea of how to teach effectively or how to overcome problems with student comprehension. Second, new academics should be encouraged to seek advice from more experienced colleagues, while established academics should be aware of the difficulties that the new academics face and offer appropriate assistance. Third, individuals forming policy to make new academics more effective teachers should recognise that they will have very little time to learn how to teach and to gather information that will increase their teaching performance, especially if their efforts are more geared towards research. Fourth, any guidance offered by established academics may not be fully understood at the time it is offered as new academics might not have the time to reflect on such advice.

References

Baume, D. and C. Baume (1996) Running Tutorials and Seminars Training Materials for Research Students, Oxford Centre for Staff Development, Oxford.

Cannon, R. and D. Newble (2000) A Handbook for Teachers in Universities and Colleges, Kogan Page, London

Ormerod, P. (1994) The Death of Economics, Faber and Faber Limited, London.

Priestley, P. and J. McGuire (1983) Learning to Help: Basic Skills Exercises, Tavistock Publications, London.

Ramsden, P. (1992) Learning to Teach in Higher Education, Routledge, London

Notes

[1] The aims, objectives, needs of the students, co- and pre-requisite assessment parameters and learning outcomes were stated and the module was deemed appropriate for the University's commitments to students and for the degree that the students were taking prior to my contribution.

[2] As this module would be a core, it was decided that a more senior member of the School should have ultimate responsibility for its quality.

[3] Although keen and eager to develop modules, I had only written conference presentations, seminars and the odd lecture, but never sequential lectures and seminars.

[4] Enrolment on the PDP is a requirement for inexperienced lecturers joining the University. Successful completion is a requirement of the University before either tenure is granted or the probationary period is officially completed. Successful completion also gives the candidate automatic ILT status and a Post-Graduate Certificate of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.

[5] This reference was bought to my attention during the first few sessions of the PDP course. However, it did not form the basis of my curriculum development, pedagogy and assessment. It is merely utilised here for structure, around which my reflections are based. As I had received very little teacher training, I knew of no literature that I could use to help me through these issues. As a new lecturer, I also had very little time to search for such literature.

[6] These factors are based on my own experiences of being a student. I aspired to become as good as the excellent lecturers who once taught me by adopting some of the characteristics of their lectures that interested my peers and I. I also aspired to be much better than those lecturers who I felt were less good by choosing not to adopt certain characteristics of their teaching techniques that I deemed to be less helpful and less inspiring for my peers and I.

[7] Cannon and Newble (2000, p. 72) also suggest that 'courses may reflect explicit legal and professional requirements'. This issue is not covered here because of the lack of professional requirements in the economics awards at the University.

[8] In practice, throughout the early lectures my focus was on whether the students' knowledge of the core concepts was clear. To identify whether this was the case, open questions were frequently asked to students in lectures and seminars.

[9] For instance, sector-biased technical change was followed by skill-biased technical change.

[10] Scaffolding and jigsawing were approaches that I decided to adopt, but at the time I had no idea that these were identified teaching techniques. As a student I found them to be methods that good lecturers adopted in their teaching style. Hence, these methods were adopted due to the observation of good lecturers as a student, rather than a genuine knowledge of methods that could be used in order to become an effective lecturer.

[11] I was left wondering whether the amount of effort it took to develop a highly contemporary, journal article-based and relatively innovative module would be worthwhile, or whether I should have used a recent textbook that provides a broad sweep of the related issues (often in a relatively dry and uninspiring way).

[12] In practice, this led to frequent, but enjoyable, conversations with students who wished to gain further clarity of understanding of the issues before they made their presentation.

[13] Frequently attitudes were expressed that were not supported by critical thought; indeed, sometimes prejudicial remarks were made. These remarks were not dismissed outright; instead the student was asked to develop his or her ideas so that the rest of the class could understand why such a view might be adopted. Sometimes views could not be constructively supported and in such cases the student was asked to think about certain issues that might lead to different conclusions.

[14] As IEP is a final year, core undergraduate module, there was the assurance that the size of the class would be between 40 and 70 students, depending on whether students following other courses would decide to chose this module and summer exam pass rates. When the module actually began in September 2001, 40 students took the module. These students were split into two seminar groups.

Two students would make each presentation and both presenters were expected to make a significant contribution. Attendance was recorded at every seminar. It was in the students' interest to attend all seminars, as there would be a question in the exam specifically on the paper that was presented. Seminar attendance was good. An average of 91.32% of students attended every presentation. The individual with the lowest attendance attended a mere 71% of the time.

[15] These were photocopied and placed in the short loan section of the University library. Short loan articles are only available for loan for a four-hour period, and are reservable. Therefore there were few concerns about accessibility to these articles and the effort by the students to access them was small. Moreover, most of the articles were also accessible through the University Web site and this type of access was demonstrated in the first seminar.

[16] Another reason why this was thought to be beneficial is that it made students search for information and thereby introduced them to research culture.

[17] The other assignment was an essay of the traditional format.

[18] In actuality, I did not give the first group of students any more help than others. All students read their papers in good time to be able to ask for clarification.

*Acknowledgements:

The author would like to thank Dave Allen for his ideas and inspiration throughout the development of this module. For guidance and advice obtained prior to the development of the curriculum, the author would like to thank Derek Braddon, Mike Campbell, William Collier, Steve Johnson, Peter Nisbet, Richard O'Doherty, Paul Seaman, Mike Shields, John Sutherland, Wayne Thomas and Roger Vickerman. For comments on earlier drafts, the author thanks Gail Horsley, Richard O'Doherty, Marelin Orr-Ewing, Jane Powell and John Sloman.

Contact Details

Don J.WebberSchool of EconomicsUniversity of the West of EnglandFrenchay CampusBristol, BS16 1QY UK

Tel:             +44 117 328 2741      Email: Don.Webber@uwe.ac.uk

Top | IREE Home | Economics Network | Share this page

 

Curriculum and Instructional DesignReflections From the Field, Kristen D.

I learned about facilitationAugust14

What did you learn? What did I NOT learn is the more important question. I learned about myself, others, and the world. I learned about my emotions, my mental capabilties and strengths and weaknesses. I learned about others and how they learn. I learned about my students and students in general. I learned about the political, cultural, social and legal environment of the US and educational practices of other countries…and…and…and…

I feel empowered – that is how I know that learning has taken place.

I learned that building a course takes lots of time – to do it right!I learned that blogging is a good reflection tool – but maybe not for me!

 I would have loved to have learned without having to balance work and personal life. However, I am grateful that I am working and was able to grab from my work experience and use it in this course.

My human-personal life got in the way of my learning online. But…my human-personable instructor helped me through! (4)

by K.D. posted under Uncategorized | tagged under blogging, building a

course,cultural, empowered, environment, grateful, instructors, learn, Myself, others,political, practices, soci

al |  No Comments »    

The Logic of a CourseJuly24

So far, the most surprising thing that I have learned is how important it is to stay consistent with the structure and the logic of course design and development.  Not only does it help me (the instructor) to analyze the content in more of a methodical manner, but it make sense for the student as well. The more logical a course is, the easier it will be for students to follow. And therefore, for the learner, the focus is on engagement with the content, and too much attention isn’t given to navigation. (3)

Find It »

 

by K.D. posted under Module Five | tagged under Logic, methodical, Structure |  No Comments »    

Take my Ego out of it!July17

When you ask who I am as an educator and as a learner, I would have to say that I am curious and inquisitive. This is a personality trait that I can trace back for over thirty years ( I am now 33). I suppose you could say that it is inherent in my personality, a part of my nature/biology. On the other hand, I have also learned to hone this skill/trait and use it in spaces and places where it is welcome. For example, my degree in anthropology or my choice to teach in the social science, or my choice to take this ETAP course, which allows me explore this part of myself further and reflect on this part of me. Getting to know and understand myslef HAS been a journey. And, I am still learning…

What I have observed about myself is that I need to knot observe myself so much (lol). Being naturally reflective has its pros and cons. It allows you to digg inside of yourself and others to explores the ins and outs of choices, decisions and strategies of behavior. However, the downfall – can, at times be painstaking. Spending many hours thinking about this or that, contemplating decisions for hours, not being able to make my own mind up. The benefit of reflection of myself, is that I have learned over and over again ow minor my EGO is in comparison to what my students/learners need. Learning to pay attention to their calling, their needs, as opposed to mine. (3)

by K.D. posted under Module Four | tagged

under contemplation, educator, Ego,Learner, Learning, nature, personality, reflection |  No Comments »    

AM I BACK TO SQUARE ONE? Looking for Purpose in the Face-to-Face ClassroomJuly10

Here are some things that I now know – that I did not know before:

Teacher Presence is not “Teaching” Presence Faculty Need Guidance, not Direction Marketing Language and Concepts is important in Instructional Design ADDIE is for business not for Learning Tasks are good, using the word “task,” not so good!

My course is a work in progress (like all courses) and I continue to change and tweak (and make better) the parts and pieces of my course that need

attention. As I learn something new, I re-evaluate my course. Figuring out who my audience (faculty) is and what they need and want is crucial to this evaluation process.

Some decisions that I have made about how to present myself include:

Making sure to be friendly and personable, while still professional Making sure to include text and multimedia tools represent who I am

as a teacher, learner and instructional designer. Often, I am perceived better through non-text venues.

Making sure I help faculty (my presentation of this and myself is key) Take my Ego out of it! Its not about me, its about them!

The content in my course should be accurate, relevant and reliable. For example, I have this one section in my course called “coffee and conversation,” which is meant to be a face-to-face meeting between the faculty and myself. Well Alex, in her podcast feedback made a good point, which is, that she is not clear of what the purpose is of this meeting. And, then I thought about this – and I am not sure either. Well, let me take that back. I do know what the purpose is, but trying to articulate it is harder. I want this meeting to be relaxing, and provide some one-on-one customer service (is that phrase ok?); a time to reflect on the course development process and to provide feedback. But I want it to also be a time to build a personal relationship, provide body language, make the faculty feel comfortable. The purpose: to get faculty to be responsive and talk about their great experience working with my department. The experience will be so great that they will tell everyone (in my dreams!). And, our programs will grow…

Is this purpose enough though? I wonder?

by K.D. posted under Module Four | tagged under ADDIE, coffee and conversation,course

development, customer service, Ego, Faculty, I, learner-centered, Learning,Marketing, Me, Me vs.

them, Myself, Purpose, teacher presence, Teaching Presence,Us vs. them |  No Comments »    

Becoming a Whole Person (Personally and Professionally)July3

After reflecting on my interaction in this course, I realized that I play an equal role in providing a teacher presence as well as cognitive and community presence. Although this role is always a work-in-progress, I believe that I have grown. Becoming the full and whole person I want to be in my personal and professional life is a contemplative and ever-changing process. Yes, it is all about the process!

The difficulty that I have had in the course is having the time to read and review ALL of the various (and great) resources that are out there for teachers. I am baffled by the sheer amount, but this course has disciplined me to focus on quality over quantity.

I am not feeling any type of resistance to the learning process. In fact, I am approaching learning with an open mind (and heart!).  This course allows me to learn the theoretical underpinnings of learning and teaching online, but also allows me to apply what I have learned and “make the connection” to my professional life and to the greater world! And this…is a great thing?

I am thankful for this experience! (4)

by K.D. posted under Module Three | tagged under Becoming a Full person, cognitive presence, community

presence, learning process, Making the connection, process,resources, teacher

presence, thankful, theore, Theoretical |  1 Comment »    

Informed DecisionsJune26

I have learned about the power and impact of role-modelinghumanistic teaching and learning. I am in the process of building in humanistic and learner-centered activities, structures and practices into my hybrid online course. I am also building in samples, visual feedback and descriptive feedback to the students (and faculty) that I work with and learn from.  From this point on, I have made the decision to be strategic about the design and impact of my course on my faculty’s personal and professional lives. The feedback I give them will be made by this informed decision! K.D.(2)

by K.D. posted under Module Three | tagged under Faculty, feedback, humanistic,informed

descisions, learner-centered, Learning, personal, professional lives,samples, Teaching |  No Comments »    

In the spirit of cooperation and collectivism…June21

MindfulnessIn the spirit of cooperation and collectivism, I try to create discussion posts (and responses) that intrigue and engage the other students (and teachers) in the course. I have noticed, however, that it becomes very easy to me be self-focused. But the first step is knowing! Now what – well, I would like to be more ‘mindful’ (a concept that I spoke about in a discussion forum in this course) that being aware of other classmates needs to learn needs to be at the surface, and needs to be conscious effort!

The Blackberry and Other Mobile DevicesWhat works for me is my Blackberry. Because my emails ( from SUNY)come

right to me via my blackberry, I am able to read the discussion posts and announcements while I’m on the road, at work, exercising or shopping. I am able to stay connected to the course, and this has been a great help to my learning.

It’s in the DetailsWhat I would like to improve includes being able to stay focused in the discussion forums and post quality responses that includes reading ( in detail) all of the sources that I find – and that I have our class connect too. Being a content expert in online learning is a first step to teaching how to learn online!

by K.D. posted under Module Two | tagged under Blackberry, conscious, Learning,Mindfulness, Online

learning, Quality, SUNY |  No Comments »    

Documenting What Works!June12

So many possibilities, so little time!

I have learned that there are an infinite number of ways and a tremendous amount of possibility and

opportunity to create a positive, effective and well-structured fully or blended online learning

environment. There are still so many tools and technologies to learn!

Becoming intimate with the content

I have realized that it is so important to become intimate with the content that one plans to deliver,

from the activities that surround it, to EXACTLY what one wants one students to learn from it. I will

apply this knowledge to my re-conceptualization of my course which is always a work in progress. In

order to do this, I need to go my classroom at work (i.e. my office’s conference room) and be with my

students (i.e. faculty) and takes notes while I am working with them. By being in the present moment

(and mindful), I can see what works about this face-to-face engagement and what does not work.

Trying to remember all the details from home does not always work! I cannot rely on my memory (at

least not always)! The theory and application of learning and teaching is so intertwined!

Document It!           Make it transparent!       Don’t be TOO mysterious!

I have realized that I need to provide an abundance of documents in my course in order for it to be

successful. I have also realized that the structure and delivery of my content needs to be logical and

the guesswork of learning for my students needs to disappear! The content of my course needs to be

transparent to me and my students (i.e. faculty). It is not effective to be mysterious!

A Reliance on Instinct and Experience 

I have realized that…I do not know all that there is to know about online learning and I still have so

much learning to do. What a blow to the EGO! I am definitely a visual/kinesthetic learner and teacher

and instructional designer. I often rely on these skills to get my point across to my students in the

classroom. I am faced with challenges when I have to or need to write about the content I teach, which

is profoundly interesting to me. I rely heavily on my instinct and experiences in the face-to-face

environment. I rely heavily on my presence in the classroom. I rely less on writing and documentation.

However, I need to move outside of comfort zone to make this course work! (3)

by K.D. posted under Module Two | tagged under Blended, Content, Ego,Experience, face-to-

face, Faculty, Hybrid, Instinct, Possibility, Teaching, tools and technologies, Visual learner |  1 Comment »    

“Models, like myths and metaphors, help us to make sense of our world.”June5

“Models, like myths and metaphors, help us to make sense of our world.”In became transparent in Perspectives of Instruction that regardless of barriers that the Instructional Designer deals with, it is necessary to be able to put yourself in the learner’s shoes.Over the last week, this is what I did…I PUT MYSELF IN THE LEARNER SHOES!As the University of Colorado, Denver indicates inInstructional Design Models, “Models, like myths and metaphors, help us to make sense of our world…whether derived from whim or from serious research a model offers its user a means of comprehending an otherwise incomprehensible problem. An instructional design model gives structure and meaning to an I.D. problem, enabling the would-be designer to negotiate her design task with a semblance of conscious understanding. Models help us to visualize the problem, to break it down into discrete, manageable units. The value of a specific model is determined within the context of use. Like any other instrument, a model assumes a specific intention of its user. A model should be judged by how it mediates the designer’s intention, how well it can share a work load, and how effectively it shifts focus away from itself toward the object of the design activity.”Over the last week, this is what I did…I WORKED ON CREATING A MODEL that helps make sense of the population (faculty) that I help and guide…

In the Historical Reflection on Learning Theories and Instructional Design educational psychologist and instructional designer/ technologist reveals the uniqueness of instructional design and how instructional designers come to define their own theoretical foundations when engaging in the design of effective learning environments.Over the last week, this is what I did…I DEFINED THE THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES that will help my course work…(4)

by K.D. posted under Module Two | tagged under Instructional design, Learner,Learning

theories, Metaphors, Models, Theoretical |  2 Comments »    

Getting Answers!June5

I am finally GETTING ANSWERS!!! Well, at least I am on my way…

The Course Concept

I have decided on a course concept!  As an Instructional Designer, in my current practice, I work with

part-time and full-time faculty to develop 8 week hybrid online courses. The faculty and I usually

conceptualize and build these courses in a 16 Week face-to-face environment, with minimal or no

asynchronous components (except, however, for the times when Moodle helps to manage documents).

The Epiphany

However, it has been my experience that the face-to-face process of course development would be

much more suited for an asynchronous, hybrid online environment and experience.  Thus, my course

concept is to create a “course” (if I can REALLY call it that) that focuses on the blow-by-blow and step-

by-step process of course development. It would be an inclusive, soup-to-nuts course that provides

clear and instructional documents, policies and procedures of course development, spaces for

collaboration and guidance, multimedia tools, and more! This “course” (or actually it is a “process”)

would be a place that allows for faculty and the instructional designer to have flexibility; task

accomplishment; self-assessment and peer review; performance and self-regulation; quality assurance

and collaboration (among many more things…)!

The Course Title

This NEWLY REVISED asynchronous faculty course and 20 WEEK MODEL will be entitled “Building an

Asynchronous Nursing Course.” (3)

by K.D. posted under Module One | tagged under asynchronous, Epiphany, Hybrid,Instructional

Designer, Moodle, Nursing, process |  No Comments »    

« Older Entries

Home

About

Module Five

Module Four

Module One

Module Three

Module Two

Uncategorized

Tags

async asynchronous autonomy  Blackberry Blended conscious  Content educational

paradigms educator Ego Epiphany  Experience experiential learning face-to-

face Faculty  feedback Hybrid  Instinct Instructional design Instructional

Designer Learner  learner-centered Learning  Learning

theories Metaphors Mindfulness Models  Moodle Myself Nursing  Online learning open-ended questions Possibility practice  process Quality self-directive self-regulation SUNY teacher presence Teaching  Theoretical tools and technologies  Visual learner work-flow

I learned about facilitation  

11:55 pm , August 14 , 2011

The Logic of a Course  

11:32 pm , July 24 , 2011

Take my Ego out of it!  

6:44 pm , July 17 , 2011

AM I BACK TO SQUARE ONE? Looking for Purpose in the Face-to-Face Classroom  

11:43 pm , July 10 , 2011

Becoming a Whole Person (Personally and Professionally)  

11:28 pm , July 3 , 2011

Informed Decisions  

10:58 pm , June 26 , 2011

In the spirit of cooperation and collectivism…  

2:26 pm , June 21 , 2011

Documenting What Works!  

6:11 pm , June 12 , 2011

“Models, like myths and metaphors, help us to make sense of our world.”  

8:06 pm , June 5 , 2011

Getting Answers!  

6:51 pm , June 5 , 2011

Hi! I am Kristen, a lead instructional designer in the Office of Distance Education at Mount Saint Mary College and in charge of

the development of adult hybrid online programs and courses. I have taught hybrid online courses and face-to-face courses to

over 1,500 students since 2005 at Marist College, SUNY IT, SUNY Orange, SUNY Ulster. I have led and designed over 50

courses in the areas of Medicine, Nursing, Business and Social Sciences. I have written a manual on how to develop and teach an

online course and created a customized course development process and system from the ground up. I have built or redesigned

over 100 courses in the areas of food and culture, culinary skill building and professional development at the Culinary Institute of

America and Cornell University Cooperative Extension. I am a Quality Matters Peer Reviewer and have professional certificates

in…I have extensive knowledge and experience working with Learning Management Systems (LMS) including Moodle, as well

as Blackboard and Angel.

I hold a masters degree from Columbia University and am pursing a PhD in Curriculum Development and Instruction. I am

passionately interested in adult education learning theories and practices. I have presented several presentations on…

I am very excited about the opportunity to share with you what I have learned about effective online course design in this course.

I am really looking forward getting to know you and to learn more about what you want to know about teaching and learning

online!

Alex Pickett ETAP 640

Diane Gusa

Donna Angley

Francia reed

Ian August

Jerry Wagner

Kim Barss

Mike Lucatorto

nicole arduini-van hoose

Register Log in Valid   XHTML XFN WordPress

Educational Reflectionsthe occasional thoughts of an educational designer

01 July 2010

The Bones Model: the basics of curriculum designIn the last couple of years, I've been working with university teachers, usually when they are in the process of designing or re-designing courses. By courses, I mean the bits that make up a university degree - units or subjects.

I found myself sketching the same diagram over and over again to illustrate the relationships that ought to exist between the key elements in any curriculum: course content, program aims and objectives, course learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, assessment, and graduate attributes (or, if you prefer, capabilities and qualities). 

Those of you familiar with John Biggs' work will see immediately that my sketch didn't arrive in my mind out of thin air - it draws on the diagram on page 59 of the third edition of his book. More recently, it occurred to me that I needed to include evaluation. So here's an extract from a short paper I put together recently, outlining some of the thinking behind the model ...

**********

Biggs and Tang discuss two kinds of knowledge (declarative and functioning) in detail. Declarative knowledge, they tell us, is propositional knowledge: knowing about or knowing what. "Such content knowledge accrues from research, not from personal experience. It is public knowledge ... verifiable, replicable, and logically consistent". Functioning knowledge, on the other hand, is "based on the idea of performances of various kinds, underpinned by understanding". (Biggs & Tang, 2007, p 72) These concepts were key to the development of the Bones Model, as was Biggs' notion of alignment. Biggs describes reflecting on the success of his initial experimentation with portfolio assessment, and deciding that "it was because the learning activities addressed in the intended outcomes were mirrored in both the teaching/learning activities the students undertook and in the assessment tasks" (Biggs & Tang, 2007, p 52). Many academics, schooled by their research training to focus first on declarative knowledge, put the content of a new or revised course at the heart of their approach to curriculum design. Educational designers, on the other hand, are more likely to focus on the changes engendered in students as a result of the learning experience they have undergone. That is, changes in the way students view the world, improvements to their skills and expertise, or alterations in their behaviour. Both aspects of curriculum design are important.

Figure 1: The Bones Model: the essentials of curriculum design

The strength of the Bones Model is that the educational designer starting a new project is able to open the conversation with any aspect of curriculum design. A teaching academic is able to focus first on the issue of most immediate concern and move into a discussion that cycles through the other elements of the Model. Links between the different aspects can be clearly explained, and the designer can bring to the conversation research relevant to any aspect of curriculum design, at the most appropriate moment. If, for instance, it appeared likely that the academic concerned were trying to cover too much content, the designer could introduce a discussion about threshold concepts (Meyer & Land, 2006). If the discussion focused first on educational technologies and learning activities, the designer could, for example, elicit the academic's intentions for formative assessment strategies and recommend the most appropriate technology for the planned teaching and learning activity. If the conversation were about a new course to be introduced to an existing program, the designer and the academic are able to focus on the ways in which the new course assists students to achieve program goals and objectives and contributes to the maturation of graduate capabilities. With the Bones Model providing a touchstone for the conversation, both designer and academic continually assess the course from the perspectives of integration and alignment through successive iterations of development.

Working with the Bones Model, the curriculum design team addresses a range of questions.

• Course Content: What information needs to be covered in the course? What are the sources of this information, e.g. published and grey research, review literature, websites, audio-visual material? How can the information be most authentic, e.g. case studies, current research findings from lecturer or colleagues, real-life projects?

• Program Aims, Goals, Objectives: Program learning outcomes provide the touchstone for all course learning outcomes, especially for core courses. These are the goals for the whole Program. How do Program Aims mesh with the Australian Qualifications Framework descriptors?

• Course-level Intended Learning Outcomes: "On satisfying the requirements for this course, students will be able to …" How do course-level learning outcomes link to graduate capabilities and qualities? How do Course-level Intended Learning Outcomes mesh with the locally-developed Discipline-specific Core Learning Outcomes and ALTC Threshold Learning Outcomes? 

• Teaching & Learning Activities: Where and when will students be learning? What learning activities, processes and events will be most effective and efficient in giving students the necessary learning experiences to absorb the course content, apply their newly-acquired declarative knowledge, complete

activities that demonstrate their functioning knowledge, and achieve the course outcomes? These are the learning activities that occur throughout the semester: group activities, field trips, laboratory work, online learning activities, etc.

• Assessment: What kinds of assessment will provide authentic measures of how well the student has achieved the course learning outcomes? What kinds of assessment will demonstrate that students are able to apply declarative knowledge in completing activities that test functioning knowledge? What are the relevant marking criteria and how do these reflect commonly understood standards – for program, course, discipline, profession, College or Faculty, and university?

• Graduate Attributes, Capabilities, Qualities: What will graduates be like? What will they be able to do? What skills and expertise will they be able to list on their résumé?

• Evaluation: How and when will the program / course be reviewed or evaluated? What will it be judged against? What moderation processes are in place? When is feedback sought from students? How do student comments inform the evolution of the curriculum?

Those using the Bones Model are not locked into a rigid linear process with a fixed starting point; rather, the Model facilitates an authentic iterative process while ensuring that all elements of curriculum design are addressed.

ReferencesMeyer, J. H. F., and Land, R. (2006). Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. RoutledgeFalmer: London. 

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university, 3rd edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Veness, D. (2010). 'As simple as possible': the bones of curriculum design. 2010 ASCILITE conference - curriculum, technology & and transformation for an unknown future. 5-8 December 2010, Brighton Beach, Sydney, Australia. Retrieved 17 February 2012 from http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/Ascilite%20conference%20proceedings%202010/Veness-concise.pdf.

**********

Posted by Deborah Veness at 11:35 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

1 comments:davidtjones said...

G'day Deborah,

I like the idea of having a flexible starting point and the potential for the process being iterative. I've seen some examples where the rigid linear process can be problematic with the academics.

Of course, I also think harnessing that flexibility effectively in a real situation would require skill and experience. Figuring out how to build that skill, how to provide guidance is a problem I'm struggling with.

David.

July 4, 2010 3:48 AM

Post a Comment

 

 

Building Blocks CurriculaClick here for more information about the Building Blocks curriculum,.

Blocks-Real Math PreK, includes a complete stand-alone PreK math curriculum. In addition, PreK-grade 6 Building Blocks software will be available either as supplements to existing programs or as part of the complete Real Math program.Click here for more information or go to "Curriculum" to see more contact and sales information.

You can order by calling             1-888-SRA-4543       (or            800-468-5850      ) or click here. Click on "Customer Service" for a local representative. Or read more at: SRA Online - Bulding Blocks

Click on "Contact Us" for a local representative.

Building Blocks is designed to enable all young children to build solid content knowledge and develop higher-order thinking. Based on theory and research on early childhood learning and teaching, Building Blocks’ basic approach is finding the mathematics in, and developing mathematics from, children's activity. The materials are designed to help children extend and mathematize their everyday activities, from building blocks to art to songs and stories.

What mathematics should we teach four-year-olds? Consistent with both NCTM's PSSM and an extensive review of the research, we emphasize areas: (a) geometric and spatial ideas and skills and (b) numeric and quantitative ideas and skills. Research shows that young children are endowed with intuitive and informal capabilities in both these areas. Three mathematical themes are woven through both these main areas: (a) patterns, (b) sorting and sequencing, and (c) measurement and data. These are children’s mathematical building blocks, or ways of knowing the world

mathematically. (See the downloadable articles for more information.)

See our field test results! Do children using our materials learn more than others? Yes…a lot! See the summary research report.

http://www.ibe.unesco.org/

1. The structure of a curriculum framework

2. Formulation of what students should know and be able to do

3. Approaches to curriculum integration

This module provides opportunities to explore current developments in curriculum

design and to understand the central concepts involved in:

Defining national curriculum standards.

Defining curriculum outcomes, standards, competencies, objectives,

content.

Current approaches to curriculum integration, diversification and

differentiation with particular reference to the following examples:

o Citizenship and/or values education and social transformation;

o Science and Technology Education (STE);

o School health and HIV and Aids prevention;

o Coping with emergency situations;

o Common or connected student learning outcomes.

The principle and practice of curriculum design for Education for

Sustainable Development (ESD).

The curriculum professionals are guided into an analysis of the building blocks of

curriculum at the macro level, through three activities:

1. The structure of a curriculum framework.

components of curriculum frameworks to be used as a structural analysis

tool.

2. Formulation of what students should know and be able to do.

the participant to revise and choose several alternatives to define the

expected achievements of students.

3. Approaches to curriculum integration.

curriculum integration with different focus and depth.

Following these activities is a “Resources” section which contains a list of

discussion papers and other resources referred to in the activities, as well as a list

of additional readings.

Conceptual framework 

Many education systems across the world are moving away from centralized

models of curriculum decision-making towards more democratic, decentralized

models. As a result of this trend, decision-makers are considering ways of

organizing the curriculum in ways other than the traditional subject approach in

which all students learn the same content at the same time. Increasingly curriculum

is being structured in ways which:

are appropriate to the needs and circumstances of regions and

address more effectively the needs of students.

One example is the trend towards adopting curriculum frameworks as overarching