Curriculum: PAst, PrEsent, FuTure

Angela Murphy

Australian Digital Futures Institute

Education institutions, particularly higher education, are currently

undergoing significant changes…

Learning Independently

From:

Lectures and notes

From:

From:

Memorising facts

• Understanding about the nature and expectations of learning are

changing, driven by trends such as educational technologies, shifts from

teacher to learner centred approaches and government pressure.

• In the backdrop of these challenges, new digital technologies are enabling

new methods of teaching and learning.

• The challenge for educators is to develop curriculums that do not simply

replicate formats from the past but are able to be sustainable and meet

the challenges of the future (Torrisi, 2002).

Curriculum of the past…..

It became a scientific truism to claim that the field of curriculum studies is in a state of crisis

‐ an identity crisis.

(Paraskeva & Steinberg, 2012)

"A sequence of potential experiences is set up in

the school for the purpose of disciplining

children and youth in group ways of

thinking and acting.

This set of experiences is referred to as the

curriculum."

(Smith, et al., 1957)

…Discipline

"The planned and guided learning

experiences and intended outcomes, formulated

through the systematic reconstruction of knowledge

and experience, under the auspices of the school,

for the learner's continuous and wilful growth in

person-social competence."

(Tanner & Tanner, 1975)

…Planned and controlled

"The formal and informal content and

process by which learners gain knowledge

and understanding, develop skills, and alter

attitudes, appreciations and

values under the auspices of the school”

(Doll, 1996)

…Under direction

General capabilities in the

Australian Curriculum

A curriculum for the 21st century will

reflect an understanding and

acknowledgment of the changing

nature of young people as

learners and the challenges and

demands that will continue to

shape their learning in the

future.

(ACARA, 2009)

…Challenges and change

“Permanent” subjects

Plann

ed learning

Subjects useful for living

Guidance of the school

Responsibility of the school

Curriculum Mapping

Needs of the learner

…Different things to different people

Content

Program of studies

Performance objectives

Set of materials

Activities

• One theme is consistent, there is no straightforward definition.

• Defining curriculum is problematic as definitions are not

philosophically or politically neutral and as educators

represent a diversity of values and experience it is

difficult to obtain consensus (Yeung, 2012).

Content or subject matter

Totality of experience

Formal course of study

How subject matter is

learned or the process

of instruction

Behavioural objectives

Expected learning

outcomes

Plan for instruction

System for developing,

implementing and

evaluation

Nontechnical Philosophical, social,

and personal approach

Lunenburg (2011) grouped these definitions into five categories:

…The first four are all focused on planning and control

A number of trends are pressing educational

boundaries even further and will impact extensively on

the curriculum development principles of the present and

of the future.

5 trends are currently challenging curriculum

development in the present

The challenge to current mindsets:

How do we achieve personalisation within a set national curriculum?

• Personalised learning tailors learning to an individuals learning

objectives and personal needs, skills and preferences (Crick,

2009).

• Learning is self-directed, occurs within a social setting and is

extended over the life path.

• The move towards offering personalised learning experiences will

require breaking of existing mould and challenging standardisation

of learning experiences (Keamy et al., 2007).

• The challenge is how to balance personal needs with

accountability, assessment and formal accreditation.

The challenge to current mindsets:

How do we cater to the need for mobility when devices change at such a fast pace.

• Mobile technologies allow a user to learn anywhere, anytime and

therefore bridge life-wide and lifelong learning (Beddall-Hill &

Raper, 2010).

• Opens new avenues of communication, disrupts traditional

classroom boundaries and creates and sustains communities of

learners (Garrison, 2011, p.1).

• Education institutions are cautious about investing extensively in

mobile technologies because of the rate of emergence of new

models and the speed with which devices become obsolete.

Is free learning for all financially sustainable for learning institutions?

The challenge to current mindsets:

• Open education practices encourage open collaboration and

sharing of resources thereby acting as a catalyst for innovation and

change (Geser, 2007).

• There are number of initiatives underway to create formal

credentialing of studies undertaken using OERs which will result in

recognised qualifications (Taylor, 2011).

• Open practices promote innovative pedagogical models, and

respect and empower learners as co-producers on their lifelong

learning path

• Potential to make education opportunities freely available to all

students, particularly those previously excluded from formal

learning (Mackintosh, 2012).

The challenge to current mindsets:

How do we measure, assess and accredit informal learning?

When does formal education end and informal begin?

• Informal learning occurs through everyday experiences.

• Social learning is conceptualised as a process of social change in

which people learn from each other (Reed at al., 2012).

• Learning is both an individual and a social process, which relates

to both understanding and behaviour.

• Adoption of a ‘community of learning’ approach and cultivation

strong relationships between adults and students (Keamy et al.,

2007).

Inclusion and Diversity

The challenge to current mindsets:

How do we ensure all students have access to education in a digital world when not all students have access to the internet?

• Increased movement of higher education institutions towards

online course provision.

• Large number of institutions are withdrawing support for

incarcerated students and eliminating exceptions handling

processes.

• Access to the internet in prison is prohibited.

• Results in further exclusion of the already socially excluded.

• Choice of courses increasingly influenced by extent to which

course requires internet access.

So what are we hoping for in a curriculum of the

future?

• Customised and collaborative:

Embraces personal values and motivations, self-evaluated and socially

constructed.

• Emphasis of skills over facts:

Development of 21st century skills including entrepreneurship, critical

thinking, innovation and creativity, self-direction and information literacy.

• Anywhere, anytime:

Learning is lifelong, available at any time and a part of everyday life.

• Democratic and open:

Learning is available to all regardless of location, the children of the poorest

people are able to get access to the same quality education as the

wealthiest.

• Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, ACARA. (2009). General capabilities in the Australian Curriculum.

Retrieved from: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/GeneralCapabilities/Overview/General-capabilities-in-the-Australian-

Curriculum.

• Beddall-Hill, N., & Raper, J. (2010). Mobile devices as ‘boundary objects’ on field trips. Journal of the Research Center for

Educational Technology, 6(1), 28-46.

• Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education the long tail and learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 63–32.

• Crick, R. D. (2009). Pedagogical challenges for personalisation: integrating the personal with the public through context-driven

enquiry. The Curriculum Journal, 20(3), 185-189.

• Doll, R. C. (1996). Curriculum Improvement: Decision making and process. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

• Garrison, D.R. (2011). Elearning in the 21st century (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.

• Geser, G. (2007). Open Educational Practices and Resources – OLCOS Roadmap 2012. Salzburg, retrieved from

http://edumedia.salzburgresearch.at/images/stories/EduMedia/Inhalte/Publications/olcos_roadmap.pdf

• Keamy, K.R., Nicholas, H., Mahar, S. & Herrick, C. (2007). Personalising Education: from research to policy and practice, paper

no. 11. State Government Victoria: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.

• Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem based and inquiry learning: A

response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.

• Lunenburg, F. C. (2011) Theorizing about Curriculum: Conceptions and Definitions. International journal of scholarly academic

intellectual diversity, 13(1), 1-5. Smith, B.O., Stanley, W.O., & Shores, J.H. (1957). Fundamentals of curriculum development. New

York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

• Mackintosh, W. (2012). Opening Education in New Zealand: A Snapshot of a Rapidly Evolving OER Ecosystem. In J. Glennie, K.

Harley, N. Butcher, T. van Wyk (Eds.), Open Educational Resources and Change in Higher Education: Reflections from Practice,

263-279.

• Reed, M. S., A. C. Evely, G. Cundill, I. Fazey, J. Glass, A. Laing, J. Newig, B. Parrish, C. Prell, C. Raymond, and L. C. Stringer.

2010. What is social learning? Ecology and Society 15(4). Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/resp1/

• Paraskeva, J.M. & Steinberg, S. (2012). The Curriculum. Decanonizing the Field. Retrieved from:

http://www.umassd.edu/seppce/centers/cfpa/divisionofsocialpolicyeducationcurriculum/publications/

• Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (1975). Curriculum development: Theory into practice. New York: Macmillan.

• Taylor, J.C. (2011). The OER university: From logic model to action plan. Keynote Address. Open Planning meeting for the OER

assessment and credit for students project, Otago Polytechnic, 23 February 2011, Dunedin, New Zealand. Retrieved from

http://wikieducator.org/OERU_meeting_summary

• Torrisi, G. (2002). "Technology for the Sake of Learning"- A planning approach for integrating new technologies in tertiary learning

environments. Paper presented at AusWeb 02: the eighth Australian World Wide Conference. Retrieved from

http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw02/papers/refereed/torrisi/paper.html

• Yeung, S.S.Y. (2012). Theoretical Foundation of Curriculum. In S.S.Y. Yeung, J.T.S. Lam, A.W.L. Leung & Y.C. Lo Editor (Eds.),

Curriculum Change and Innovation (27-58). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

References: