Curriculum workshop on line version 2011


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 22/02/11 cmarcangelo Welcome and introductions This session will look particularly at developing curricula – programmes, courses, modules, linked sessions that have some coherence together.
  • 22/02/11 cmarcangelo Intended learning links to all module ILO's, but maybe has particular resonance with: 2. Use an evidence-based approach to the design, implementation and evaluation of teaching, learning and assessment informed by knowledge of their work context and subject material. 3. Create climates for effective learning and show awareness of the issues and skills involved in providing individual guidance and support systems for diverse learners. Whilst participating in this workshop, it will be useful for you to bear in mind current teaching you are involved with, and how that fits into the course as a whole, and also what questions you are starting to ask in relation to assignment 3.
  • 22/02/11 cmarcangelo This is an opening ‘warm-up’ exercise to start you thinking about issues involved in curriculum design YOU ONLY HAVE 10 MINUTES! If you are unsure of what a whole programme looks like, go to the programme specification, either of a programme you are involved in teaching/supporting or use the one in the back of the MA Academic Practice programme handbook on the Blackboard site.
  • 22/02/11 cmarcangelo Ideological influences and approaches will include work you have read so far on learning theories such as constructivism (eg Vygotsky, Brown & Campione), constructive alignment (eg Biggs) teacher and student conceptions of learning (eg Kember, Saljo) learning communities and environments (eg Eraut) and co-constructing knowledge (Carnell) Higher education: changing concepts from elitist to massification and widening participation; what is specific to HE – ie. Levels of thinking, analysis, research and developing new knowledge (Barnett & Coate 2005, Pithers & Soden, 2000) Shaped by the values and practices of the different knowledge fields Changing focus to a more practical outcomes-based and employment-driven focus to programmes; graduates in employment expected to bring a problem-solving approach and a range of skills Barnett and Coate (2005) argue that academic freedom is becoming curtailed, and HE is no longer the ‘search for truth’; Performativity implies doing rather than knowing and performance rather than understanding– is this true of our own programmes? And is it what we want?
  • 22/02/11 cmarcangelo 5 MINUTES for this Collect general feedback and put keywords onto white board How does this link to current arguments of elitism v massification, and to UoC strategy of widening particpation, progression and LLL, FDL?
  • 22/02/11 cmarcangelo How does this fit into your definition? A & B conceptualise the curriculum as a definable product that can be taught; C is both structure and process, and D views it as a dynamic, emergent and collaborative process of learning for both student and teacher
  • 22/02/11 cmarcangelo Based on the premis that CURRICULUM IS A SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONSTRUCTION, THE FORM AND PURPOSE OF WHICH ARE DETERMINED BY HABERMAS’S THREE FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN INTERESTS: Technical interest – is product-orientated, value neutral in that it is separate from the sociocultural contexts, and power is held by the teacher who constructs the learning outcomes. Knowledge is regarded as a commodity, discipline based, bounded and ‘out there’, discipline based and measurable, designed in advance. Relates to A & B – teacher implements the curriculum, students’ learning is controlled Practical interest – aims at reaching an understanding that enables appropriate action to be taken. Aims to uncover bias and presuppositions, to interact with the subject matter, and to clarify meanings. Relates to C Emancipatory interest – aims for empowerment, rational autonomy and freedom ‘ emancipating others from false ideas, distorted forms of communication and coercive forms of social relationships that constrain human action’ Kemmis & Fitzclarence (1986) Teaching and learning is a shared effort and consists of a dialogical relationship between teacher and student The curriculum develops through a dynamic relationship between action and reflection, and the crtiique of all knowledge is inherent in the curriculum This latter model has resonance with Carnell’s conception of a ‘co-constuctivist approach to learning and teaching with the emphasis on collaboration in co-constructing knowledge DOES THIS SOUND LIKE THE PGC? THIS COULD ALSO BE SEEN IN PBL/EBL METHODS – IF NOT TOO RIGIDLY CONSTRUCTED, WHICH SOME ARE
  • 22/02/11 cmarcangelo Relates back to 1 st activity, relating theoretical model
  • 22/02/11 cmarcangelo A different curriculum model ...
  • 22/02/11 cmarcangelo This model of ‘knowing, acting, being’ identifies three elements within the curriculum, and the balance of these alters depending on the ‘knowledge field’, as will be seen in the following slides. Exemplifies that the curriculum is a dynamic balance of different interests The knowledge domain – discipline specific competences that maybe equate with threshold concepts; or Biggs’ declarative knowledge Action domain – competences acquired by doing: equates with procedural knowledge Self domain – an educational identity: meta cognitive knowledge
  • 22/02/11 cmarcangelo Barnett and Coates identified that different discipline areas Next three slides exemplify generalisations across the se main ‘knowledge fields’ or discipline areas’ Look at the balance of the three domains
  • 22/02/11 cmarcangelo Looking at practical implementation of the theoretical models
  • 22/02/11 cmarcangelo This can be done in your own sections of the module, or even a single classroom session It can also be done in practice by helping students to reflect on their learning process and maintain a focus for and on their learning It should include your understanding of which dimensions of knowledge and cognitive processing you aim to develop
  • 22/02/11 cmarcangelo You may not have control of the deign process, but you will have influence – especially if you present workable alternatives/solutions When there is a surfeit of content – pick one area as an example, then get students to research other areas and teach each other Make connections – link to prior learning and experiences, signal forward to new learning Offer alternatives – in topics for assessment, in areas for discussion, in reading materials, in different theoretical perspectives Don’t set your expectations for students’ learning ability to low – they will probably just work to this Conversely, don’t have unrealistic expectations of what they can achieve as they may just give up! Stay positive – bring critical discussion in rather than cynicism Think expansively and creatively about assignments for assessment
  • 22/02/11 cmarcangelo external influences and stakeholder interests - see next slide (#21) attractiveness/marketability – is it viable? – will it attract sufficient students, what about the competitors – has your course got something different to offer? diversity, inclusivity and accessibility ; Widening participation and flexibility; employability links: can you ensure that the teaching and assessment are inclusive – are there any potential students that you would ‘exclude’ and why? With WP – does it link with prior learning opportunities (eg Fd’s, access programmes, mapping to NVQ’s) …. Can students have the opportunity for APEL? teaching-learning-assessment philosophies and values; strategies, methods: link to what you have learnt on the course so far, e.g. SOLO, constructive alignment, types of knowledge (e.g. factual, procedural, conceptual, metacognitive, Anderson & Krathwol 2003 or Biggs 2003 p42 declarative, procedural, conditional, functioning); learning outcomes (Hussey and Smith 2008) (SEE slide #17 & 18 as an example) Philosophies may be influenced by concepts of teaching and learning, Habermas’s knowledge-constitutive interests and your prior experiences (Kember’s 1997 conceptions of teaching and learning) This will also include having an overview of the course itself – where and when different concepts are learnt, practiced, criticised content – knowledge, skills, levels of learning, ways of knowing – links to Barnet’s model of knowledge - action- self; cannot be seen in isolation to values and strategies – and this also affects delivery strategies –; when and where to learn i.e. F2F, DL & e-learning: SO EVEN THOUGH COMPONENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY, THEY ARE ALL INTERLINKED AND INFLUENTIAL UPON EACH OTHER
  • 22/02/11 cmarcangelo These will control to a greater or lesser extent the content, conditions for learning teaching and assessment Each of these stakeholders will influence your programme, and meeting all their needs can sometimes require the management of significant tensions
  • 22/02/11 cmarcangelo Drawing together the themes of the patch and its relationship to the module themes and learning outcomes
  • 22/02/11 cmarcangelo
  • Curriculum workshop on line version 2011

    1. 1. Theoretical models and practical applications c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
    2. 2. <ul><li>This presentation guides you through a critical exploration of </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Principles within curriculum design </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Using curriculum frameworks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Practical issues in planning learning, teaching and assessment </li></ul></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
    3. 3. <ul><li>Think of a course or programme you are familiar with </li></ul><ul><li>Present it as a ‘mind map’ to give an overview of </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the different modules at each level (4, 5 & 6) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>links that cross the levels, for example discipline themes, topic threads, skills extension and competence-building </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>assessment methods </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Identify your overarching philosophy that underpins the design </li></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
    4. 4. <ul><li>curricula reflect ideological influences and philosophical approaches to knowledge, to teaching & learning, and to the student </li></ul><ul><li>and to what is “higher education” </li></ul><ul><li>It is argued that we are moving to ‘performativity’ in terms of curriculum focus and that academic knowledge is changing from ‘is it true’ to ‘what use is it’, and how can we measure it. Barnett & Coate (2005) </li></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
    5. 5. <ul><li>Activity 2 </li></ul><ul><li>consider </li></ul><ul><li>how you would define the term curriculum in your own context, and write a brief definition down </li></ul><ul><li>What underpinning philosophies and values influence the courses/programmes you are currently involved in teaching </li></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
    6. 6. <ul><li>Fraser and Bosanquet (2006) found 4 distinct categories of descriptions of the curriculum: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A - the structure and content of a unit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>B – the structure and content of a programme of study </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>C – the students’ experience of learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>D – a dynamic and interactive process of teaching and learning </li></ul></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
    7. 7. <ul><li>Fraser and Bosanquet (2006) link these findings to Habermas’s 3 fundamental human interests: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical interest A&B – relates to subject knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Practical (communicative) interest C – relates to learning that results from reflection and making meaning of the subject matter to enable appropriate action </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emancipatory interest D – learners are active creators of knowledge, with content negotiated </li></ul></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
    8. 8. <ul><li>identify which of these knowledge-constitutive interests relates to the curriculum you mapped at the start of the session </li></ul><ul><li>Put notes onto your map in a different colour that indicate where the technical, practical and emancipatory interests feature, and in what proportion </li></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
    9. 9. <ul><li>Barnett & Coates (2005) in their recent research into the changing HE curricula formulate a general schema made up of 3 elements: Knowledge, Action & Self </li></ul><ul><li>They argue that the philosophical position of the different disciplines is recognisable in the dominance and interaction of these three elements. </li></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
    10. 10. c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11 all those aspects of teaching and learning required for discipline specific competency The competencies acquired through doing The development of an educational identity e.g.. reflective practitioner, critical evaluator General Curriculum Schema ACTION SELF KNOWLEDGE S
    11. 11. <ul><li>identify which of these three schematic elements relates to the curriculum you mapped at the start of the session </li></ul><ul><li>Again – Put notes onto this in a different colour/font that indicate where development of Knowledge, Skill and Self occur in the programme </li></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
    12. 12. c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11 CDLT c.marcangelo Feb09 Science and Technology Schema Knowledge Action Self
    13. 13. <ul><li>Arts and Humanities Schema </li></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11 CDLT c.marcangelo Feb09 Knowledge Action Self
    14. 14. <ul><li>Professional Subjects Schema </li></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11 CDLT c.marcangelo Feb09 Knowledge Action Self
    15. 15. <ul><li>Activity 5 </li></ul><ul><li>Spend a few minutes to summarise your thinking about </li></ul><ul><li>How these two different models align with your experiences of curricula that you are/have been involved with teaching and learning? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the connections with Anderson & Krathwohl’s (2001)taxonomy dimensions </li></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
    16. 16. <ul><li>What factors will influence/direct curriculum design and delivery? </li></ul><ul><li>How will these articulate with the theoretical models? </li></ul><ul><li>First on a micro level – your own teaching …. </li></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
    17. 17. <ul><li>Process Focus: </li></ul><ul><li>Communication Skills </li></ul><ul><li>Presenting </li></ul><ul><li>Listening </li></ul><ul><li>Responding </li></ul><ul><li>Questioning </li></ul><ul><li>Personal Development </li></ul><ul><li>Reflective Practice </li></ul><ul><li>Group working </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration & learning from others </li></ul><ul><li>(From: Exley & Dennick (2004) Small Group Teaching Routledge) </li></ul><ul><li>Content Focus: </li></ul><ul><li>Deep learning </li></ul><ul><li>Applying concepts </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluating evidence </li></ul><ul><li>Analysing/ synthesizing </li></ul><ul><li>Creating </li></ul><ul><li>Using the language of the discipline </li></ul><ul><li>Making an argument </li></ul><ul><li>Defending a viewpoint </li></ul><ul><li>Clarifying and understanding </li></ul><ul><li>Exploring the ‘rules’ of the discipline </li></ul>
    18. 18. <ul><li>Learning in the workplace or practice setting: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Draw learning out through reflection on seemingly random events </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify themes of learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relate to skills/knowledge frameworks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use formative processes and action planning </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Manage a coherent learning process even when not in control of the overall module or programme </li></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
    19. 19. <ul><li>Learning in lectures and seminars: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Present ideas in a structured manner </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Make links to prior knowledge, module learning outcomes, assessment activities and programme themes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use a range of different examples </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Include short focused activities to activate understanding, introduce higher level thinking skills and vary pace </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limit ‘input’ time to 10 minute bursts </li></ul></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
    20. 20. <ul><li>DESIGN IN </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Constructive alignment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Well structured knowledge-base </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A high degree of meaningful and coherent activity that develops critical thinking </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emphasis on depth of learning (principles) rather than breadth of coverage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interaction with others (collaboration) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Choice that facilitates pursuing personal interests and enables INCLUSIVITY </li></ul></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
    21. 21. <ul><li>DESIGN OUT surface learning conditions i.e. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High class contact using didactic approaches, excessive course materials; isolated information –giving </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Expectations of student learning potential too low or too high </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of choice in learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Negative or cynical perspectives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assessment that tests and rewards low-level outcomes </li></ul></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
    22. 22. <ul><li>attractiveness/marketability – is it viable? </li></ul><ul><li>diversity, inclusivity and accessibility; Widening participation and flexibility; employability links </li></ul><ul><li>teaching-learning-assessment philosophies and values; strategies, methods </li></ul><ul><li>content – knowledge, skills, levels of learning, and ways of knowing; threshold and troublesome knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>delivery strategies –when and where to learn i.e. F2F, specialist placement, FDL & e-learning </li></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
    23. 23. <ul><li>Quality Assurance Agency for HE (QAA) for academic standards and subject benchmarks </li></ul><ul><li>University - threshold criteria for validation </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty Portfolio </li></ul><ul><li>Professional Bodies </li></ul><ul><li>Employers </li></ul><ul><li>Potential students </li></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
    24. 24. <ul><li>Balancing a range of methods for learning, teaching and assessment across the whole course </li></ul><ul><li>Appropriate to levels of study </li></ul><ul><li>Developmental approach to knowledge, skills and understanding </li></ul><ul><li>Support for course development – course developers guide & CDEPP </li></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
    25. 25. <ul><li>Activity 6. </li></ul><ul><li>In summary, reflect on the issues in this presentation and how they relate to </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Your current practice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The practice you observe in peer reviews </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Writing for your module assignments </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What actions will you take as a result of considering these curriculum design issues? </li></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11
    26. 26. <ul><li>Barnett R., Parry G., & Coates K. (2001) Conceptualising Curriculum Change. Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 6, 4 , 435-449 </li></ul><ul><li>Barnet R & Coate K (2005) Engaging the Curriculum in Higher education . Maidenhead, Open University Press </li></ul><ul><li>Carnell E (2007) Conceptions of teaching in Higher education: extending the boundaries. Teaching in Higher Education Vol.12, 1, 25-40 </li></ul><ul><li>Donnelly R (2004) Fostering of creativity within an imaginative curriculum in higher education. The Curriculum Journal Vol. 15, 2, 155-166 </li></ul><ul><li>Fraser SP., & Bosanquet AM., (2006) The Curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t it? Studies in Higher Education Vo 31, 3, 269-284 </li></ul><ul><li>Hussey T., & Smith P. (2008) Learning Outcomes: a conceptual analysis. Teaching in Higher education Vol.13, 1, 107-115 </li></ul><ul><li>Light G. & Cox R (2001) Learning & Teaching in Higher Education – the reflective professional : London, Paul Chapman Publishing. </li></ul><ul><li>Kemmis S. & Fitzclarencwe L (1986) Curriculum Theorizing: beyond reproduction theory. Waurn Ponds, Deakin University </li></ul><ul><li>Margolis E. (ed) 2001 The Hidden Curriculum in Higher Education : London, Routledge [e-book available through UoC library </li></ul><ul><li>Pithers RT., & Soden R. (2000) Critical thinking in education: a review. Educational Research Vol. 42, 3, 237-249 </li></ul><ul><li>Pratt D., Boll S., Collins JB. (2007) Towards a plurality of perspectives for nurse educators. Nursing Philosophy vol. 8 49-59 </li></ul><ul><li>Taylor R (2005) Creating a connection: tackling student attrition through curriculum development. Journal of Further and Higher Education Vol. 29, 4, 367-374 </li></ul><ul><li>Toohey S. (1999) Designing Courses for Higher Education: Milton Keynes, SRHE & OUP </li></ul><ul><li>Univeristy of Cumbria Course Developers Guide </li></ul>c.marcangelo CDEPP CD.olv/feb11