an approach to critiquing curriculum documentation

Critiquing curriculum documentation:

My approach

My experience of curriculum before the PG Dip HE

My experience of curriculum after the PG Dip HE

Defining curriculum development

O’Neill (2009), Barnett (2009) and Luckett (2010)

A personal definition or lens

O’Neill maintains that curriculum means different things to various role players, these include, the structure and content of a module, the structure and content of a programme, the students’ experience of learning and a dynamic and interactive process of teaching and learning (O'Neill 2010, 62). All of them?


Barnett states that curriculum is more than content, rather it is an educational vehicle “for effecting changes in human beings through particular kinds of encounter with knowledge” (Barnett 2009, 429).


Luckett asserts, curriculum is understood as a social, epistemic and ontological practice, with knowledge being the key to curriculum theory. (Luckett 2010, 7, 8).

My approach to critiquing curriculum documentation

Explain Reflect Theoretical underpinning Critique

My approach to critiquing curriculum documentation

Curriculum development

institutional context

institutional curriculum

development practices

relationship between

knowledge and disciplinary /

field structures institutional QA principles and

processes

role as an academic

developer

Institutional context

• Luckett’s curriculum paradigms (1995)–Traditional paradigm• Curriculum as product

–Hermeneutic paradigm• Curriculum as process

–Critical paradigm • Curriculum as praxis

• Where does my institution fit and why?

Institutional practice

National policies & structuresWhite paper

1997

Merger

SAQA, NQF, HEQSF, CHE,

HEQC

Institutional structures

and processes

Comprehensive

Polices

Departments

Roles

Culture

Vision & Mission• Curriculum

Differentiation (Shey)

• Curriculum Responsiveness (Moll)

Critiquing curricula

• Is the curriculum responding to the national transformation agenda?• Relate to the institutional context– Is the curriculum responsive?–What are the dominant beliefs / views

regarding knowledge–Are these espoused beliefs / views reflected

in the curricula

Critiquing curricula

• Pick a model –Luckett’s proposal for an epistemically

diverse curriculum • Bernstein’s pedagogical device • Maton’s knowledge / knower

structures• Disciplinary / field structures

Institutional QA practices

• How is the quality of the curriculum assured? –Theoretical underpinnings vs technical • Any reason why?

–Is there sufficient capacity?–How does the process relate to the

espoused culture of the university

My role as an academic developer

• Theoretical underpinning of my approach – O’Neill (2010)– McKenna (2011)

• My role w.r.t. curriculum development • Gaps I have identified • Using my agency to strategically address these

gaps

Application to my context

Unpacking the qualification from programme level to

the individual outcomes on a specific module

Unpacking the qualification

Exit level outcomes

Module outcomes

Purpose of the module

Outcomes T&L Methods

Assessment methods & tasks

Criteria

Marking Feedback

Rationale Purpose

What support is in place to enable

student success?


Rationale of the programme

The rationale of the PGCHET stipulates that facilitating the training and development of HET practitioners respond to the need for greater international recognition and professionalism, improving the quality of teaching, learning and assessment, in order to develop knowledge in the field and to enhance accountability in the field of HET.


Focusing on a module• Bernstein’s pedagogic device– How knowledge is converted into classroom talk, curricula and

online communication (Singh 2002)– 3 fields

• The field of production• The field of recontextualisation • The field of reproduction

• Luckett’s proposal for an epistemically diverse curriculum


Why Luckett?

Luckett’s proposal for an epistemically diverse curriculum aims to be responsive to international trends and to the South African context regarding curriculum challenges and curriculum reform, which relates directly to the rationale of the PGCHET.

• Does the programme achieve its purpose?


The purpose of the Programme and Module Design in HET module is to “guide the candidates in mastering programme and module planning and design skills to enhance their students’ learning … the module will also promote a reflective teaching and learning practice” (my emphasis) (Gerber 2010, 3)

Mastery of skills = foundational competency (Q1)Reflexive practice = reflexive competency (Q4)


• In which quadrants are the outcomes positioned?• What is required of the students to meet these

outcomes? • Does the module content provide the theoretical

underpinnings to achieve the outcomes? • Does the module teaching (field of reproduction)

provide the students with the required knowledge?• How are the outcomes assessed to develop the

required knowledge?• Constructive alignment (Biggs)


Bernstein’s selection, and sequencing and pacing• Selection– What knowledge is selected (content)? – How does it related to the purposes?– How responsive is the knowledge?

• Sequencing– The “flow”, alignment, scaffolding and coherence

• Pacing – Notional hours– Contact time vs. self study


Knowledge structures and disciplines• Bernstein’s knowledge structures – Horizontal– Vertical

• Maton’s Specialisation codes of legitimation– Epistemic relations (ER) – knowledge structure – Social relations (SR) – knower structure

• Disciplinary / field structures (Biglan)– Hard and soft disciplines– Pure and applied disciplines


How do these apply to the curriculum?

E.g. Education • Soft:Applied discipline • Horizontal knowledge structure• Knower code (ER-SR+)

Does the knowledge selected in the curriculum develop the students as knowers? – If so how? – If not why not?

Curriculum development is central to the academic project

Questions?

- Barnett, Ronald. “Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum.” Studies in Higher Education Vol.34, no. No.4 (June 2009): 429-440.- Bernstein, Basil. “Vertical And Horizontal Discourse: An Essay.” In Pedagogy, Symbolic, Control and Identity, by Basil Bernstein, 155-174. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000.- Biglan, Anthony. “The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas.” Journal of Applied Psychology Vol. 57, no. No.3 (1973): 195-203.- Luckett, Kathy. “A proposal for an epistemically diverse curriculum for South African higher education in the 21st Century.” South African Journal of Higher Education Vol.15, no. No. 2 (2001): 49-61.- Luckett, Kathy. “Knowledge claims and codes of legitimation: Implications for curriculum recontextualisation in South African higher education.” (Unisa Press) Vol.40, no. No.1 (2010): 6-20.

References

- Luckett, Kathy. “Towards a Model of Curriculum Development for the University of Natal's Curriculum Reform Programme.” academic development Vol.1, no. No.2 (1995): 125-139

- Maton, K. “Knowledge and Knower Structures: What's at stake in the two cultures debate why school music is unpopular and what unites such diverse issues.” In Knowledge & Knowers: Towards a Realist Sociology of Education, by Karl Maton, 65-85. Routledge, 2013.- McKenna, Sioux. “Paradigms of curriculum design : implications for South African educators.” Journal for Language Teaching = Tydskrif vir Taalonderrig Vol. 37, no. No. 2 (2011): 215-223.- Moll, Ian. “Curriculum Responsiveness The Anatomy of a Concept.” In Curriculum Responsiveness: Case Studies in Higher Education, by Hanlie Griesel, Patrick Fish and Ian Moll, 1-19. Pretoria: SAUVC, 2004.- O'Neill, Geraldine. “Initiating curriculum revision: exploring the practices of educational developers.” International Journal for Academic Development Vol.15, no. No.1 (2010): 61-71.- Shay, Suellen. “Conceptualsing curriculum differentiation in higher education: a sociology of knowledge point of view.” British Journal of Sociology of Education, 2012: 1-20.- Singh, Parlo. “Pedagogising Knowledge: Bernstein's theory of the pedagogic device.” British Journal of Sociology of Education Vol.23, No.4 (2002).