• 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 inthe school for the purpose of discipliningchildren and youth in group ways ofthinking and acting.This set of experiences is referred to as thecurriculum."(Smith, et al., 1957) …Discipline
"The planned and guided learningexperiences and intended outcomes, formulatedthrough the systematic reconstruction of knowledgeand experience, under the auspices of the school,for the learners continuous and wilful growth inperson-social competence."(Tanner & Tanner, 1975) …Planned and controlled
"The formal and informal content andprocess by which learners gain knowledgeand understanding, develop skills, and alterattitudes, appreciations andvalues under the auspices of the school”(Doll, 1996) …Under direction
General capabilities in theAustralian CurriculumA curriculum for the 21st century willreflect an understanding andacknowledgment of the changingnature of young people aslearners and the challenges anddemands that will continue toshape their learning in thefuture.(ACARA, 2009) …Challenges and change
Needs of the learner“Permanent” subjects Program of studies Planned learning Set of materials Content Curriculum Mapping Subjects useful for Guidance of the schoolActivities living Responsibility of the schoolPerformance objectives …Different things to different people
• 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).• One theme is consistent, there is no straightforward definition.
Lunenburg (2011) grouped these definitions into five categories: Content or subject matter Formal course of study Totality of Behavioural experience objectives How subject matter is Expected learning learned or the process outcomes of instruction Plan for instruction Nontechnical System for developing, Philosophical, social, implementing and and personal approach evaluation …The first four are all focused on planning and control
A number of trends are pressing educationalboundaries even further and will impact extensively onthe curriculum development principles of the present and of the future.
5 trends are currently challenging curriculumdevelopment in the present
The challenge to current mindsets:• 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. How do we achieve personalisation within a set national curriculum?
The challenge to current mindsets:• 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. How do we cater to the need for mobility when devices change at such a fast pace.
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). Is free learning for all financially sustainable for learning institutions?
The challenge to current mindsets:• 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). How do we measure, assess and accredit informal learning? When does formal education end and informal begin?
The challenge to current mindsets:• 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. How do we ensure all students have access to education in a digital world when not all students have access to the internet?
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.
References:• 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.