Redesigning the present curriculum to meet future demands

Author: Iloka Benneth Chiemelie
Published: 6th April 2017

Introduction

In designing the modern day curriculum, there is a need to demonstrate and acknowledge the need for transformation in the next generation as there is a high demand for reshaping what students learn and how they learn. The rapid change in the world does require young people to be able to quickly adapt to their new environment. Thus, it is important that curriculum developers address the new trends and accept such as a “sustainable factor” for the “aging society” by redesigning the present curriculum to meet future demands. In the first section of this essay, how curriculum is designed and developed is explained with the aid of Peter and Mike’s diagram on “Shaping of the Language Curriculum” and Print’s (1993) curriculum model. The second part of the essay is an exploration of how new knowledge and trends influence and are applied in the existing curriculum to better design new ones.

Part a: curriculum development process

In this section, the role played by curriculum development authorities (for instance , Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA)) will be considered in term of how they shape the Australian Curriculum based on Mike and Peter’s diagram as illustrate din the figure 1 below. This will be followed by an examination of the roles of teachers as curriculum workers with reference to Print (1993)’s curriculum model, as it is important to consider the roles of teacher in relation to the critical influence they exercise on development of curriculum.

Curriculum development process on the national level

In line with the ‘Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australian’ of 2008, the Australian education body has begun shaping its national curriculum to meet the need for change. The most recent version (4.0) of ‘The Shape of the Australian Curriculum’ was approved by the ACARA board in 2009 in view of the above understanding. The process of developing the national curriculum is detailed in two documents: ‘The Curriculum Development Process (Version 6)’ and ‘The Curriculum Design Paper (Version 3.1)’.

As illustrated in the figure 1 below, two discourse related to the development of curriculum prevail as: ‘Discourse of Policy’ – related to the state and national level, and ‘Discourse of Practice – mostly related to the school level.

Figure 1: Curriculum and discourse (Peter) as reviewed and evaluated (Mike)

On a similar note, ACARA (2012d, p.11; 2012a, p.6) did indicate that the process of developing Australian curriculum based on four interdependent phase: curriculum shaping (this is the ‘Shape’ stage in the above figure 1), curriculum writing (The writing), preparing for implementation and monitoring of the curriculum (the last two parts in the above figure 1), finally evaluation and review.

In the figure 2, an illustration of the fundamental ideas when it comes to shaping the national curriculum with reference language is presented. The curriculum developers engage in different consultations to review both domestic and international resources. Such consultation involve different advisory groups (such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander expert group) in the course of considering certain contents. The basic purpose is to ensure that important cultural heritages are preserved. 

Figure 2: Shaping of the languages curriculum

Lower level curriculum development process for schools

In line with the established ideas from the national level curriculum development process as examined with the Print’s (1993) model, the illustrated figure 3 offers necessary understanding of the ways for developing curriculum from the school point of view. The procedures identified in the figure 2 does offer the concurrent nature of change in relation to curriculum development. Supports were also made by Oliva (2009) that change can both coexist and overlap on the long-run. In the same, curriculum development does not begin and finish instantly. Different views exist between the people and state involved in curriculum development when it comes to how curriculum is viewed across Australia (Print, 1993). On that note, it has been argued by numerous researchers that there is no common definition of curriculum adopted by majority of teachers in Australian schools. In any case, the model of Print (1993) does deem to be good enough for understanding the needs of curriculum developers based on the notion that the approach adopts a clear, logical, and sequential algorithm.

Figure 3: Model of curriculum development

Source as adapted from: Print, M. (1993). Curriculum Development and Design. NSW: Allen & Urwin.

In accordance with Print (1993), the structure of this model can be employed in situations such as system curricula, school curricula, subject curricula, sub-school curricula and project curricula. As illustrated in the above figure 3, the main structure is formed by three stages as: organization, development, and application.

Stage 1. Organization

Considerations need to be made in the presage stage about the nature of curriculum participants as the development of curriculum does depend on those are accorded such responsibility. They include stakeholders such as school staffs, and subject departments or people that have been assigned to such roles. The curriculum workers can be teachers in a given subject. In any case, there is an intensive tension between these stakeholders due to high differences on their features. For instance, the curriculum developed by individual teachers can be different from that those developed by the government school teachers, those developed by the tertiary academic and those developed by the state etc. In any case, a number of reviews have level criticism as to school personnel being denied their right to be involved in the change process for national curriculum. On the same note, their contribution for change has gone widely unnoticed (Oliva, 2009).

On the other hand, there are six essential ways of viewing the curriculum and those in involved in the development process tend to apply these conceptions as: 1) Academic disciplines conception; 2) Cognitive processes conception; 3) Humanistic conception; 4) Social re-constructionist conception; 5) Technological conception; and 6) Eclectic conception. These conceptions are indicative of how the curriculum developers conceptualize the process and act differently on the course of developing and designing curriculum (Print, 1993). Thus, the most significant part of the whole curriculum development process should be section of the right participant with the right conception.

Stage 2. Development

In the second stage, the selected group of developers are required to device the curriculum document. As noted by Print (1993), the group normally adopt the recurring procedure illustrated in the model that begins with: 1) situation analysis, 2) definition of aims, goals, and objectives, 3) development of contents, 4) learning activities and 5) evaluation of instructional materials. Through such steps, they can easily define the right aims, goals and objectives for their respective students. It is important to organize necessary contents and appropriate learning activities in such a way that it can be effectively evaluated at the concluding stage. The flexible elements of the initial circumstances and curriculum requirements normally result to the situational analysis being revised. Thus, continuous update of the existing curriculum is a critical process for the curriculum workers.

Stage 3. Application

This final stage takes critical consideration of the outcome from implementing the curriculum document in classrooms. The application stage covers implementation and modification of the curriculum, as well as monitoring the process and gathering feedback from the practice of the curriculum. Modification is not only inevitable but also necessary at the implementation stage. Oliva (2009) also provided support for the above statement by noting that it is through this stage that students’ lives are formed and human institution expands and develop. In order to ensure effectiveness in this change, it is important that the educators design necessary curriculum plan that is capable of accommodating necessary changes since it is not possible to create curriculum that can accommodate all changes. Monitoring and feedbacks are another important feature of the curriculum as it relates to how the curriculum is comprehensively evaluated in terms of how the students are able to attain the objective of such education. The last step of the model involve forwarding obtained feedback to the curriculum presage group in order ensure they remain part of the recurring steps for sustaining the quality of the curriculum.

PART 2. Catering for New Content

In accordance with (2009), there are nine continuous issues in society that must be addressed in the curriculum content as: changes in value and cultural diversity, changes in value and morality, family, advancement of microelectronics, changes in working areas, equality of rights, crime and violence, global interdependence and lack of purpose and meaning. Thus, it is normal that schools face a number of these modern issues as it is expected that schools will provide certain solution through education.

This can also be considered as a form of ‘deficit model’ and it links failure (such as lack of achievement, learning etc.) to an individual’s lack of efforts or incompetence (Wallace, 2014). Thus, while it does seem that school educators have been neglected when it comes to developing national curriculum, they are also viewed as liable for not responding as necessary to the changes in nature of value and life trends. Thus, it is important that teachers (who are the front-line curriculum) workers acquire the needed competence for handling these recurring natures changes and educational trends such as new work order, new technology and sustainability of learning outcomes.

New work order

In accordance with employers, the main issue why there is a high rate of unemployment is because there is a mismatch between skills acquired by the graduates and the ones needed in the industry. A recent report of Foundation for Young Australian (2015) noted that the main forces shaping future Australian work are automation, globalization, and collaboration. These forces require enterprise skills – which are transferable knowledge across varied occupational level and they will be more powerful predictor of future job success when compared with technical skills. Graduates that are equipped with thee skills (computer literate, adaptability, financially savvy etc.) are more likely to be job creators and not just job seekers. Thus, it is recommended that education of these skills should be initiated as early as the primary school. Although the focus of progressive response is on future and reshaping of the curriculum, traditional response does indicate that the progressive approach creates a fall in standards. Thus, it is important that educators timely translate these issues in their appropriate stages within the ‘Discourse of Policy’ in figure 1 and phase

Sustainability

National Sustainability Council (2013) noted that the trade and engineering occupations are continually experiencing difficulties with recruiting the right workforce. As noted in the previous discussions, this is due to wide gap between supply of high skilled workforce and demand in the industry. Additionally, there is little level of consistency between topics of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). Although ACARA (2012b, 2012c, 2012d) and Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (2015) continually emphasis on science, technology and mathematics, while ignoring engineering.

The sustainability report also supports economic growth without degradation of the environment, while also discussing long standing issues of social divide in the Australian context. Additionally, it is necessary to note that although aging does present budgetary pressure on the government and pension systems, it is important these aging people are around to transfer necessary social values, wisdom and mentorship to the young ones (Commonwealth Scientific, and Industrial Research Organisation, 2012). Thus, sustainability represent an imperative reason why curriculum workers should be engaged in the ‘Discourse of policy’ and ‘The Shape’ process as illustrated earlier.

New technology

Inclusion of technology is another issue when it comes to curriculum development and this is mainly due to huge economic impact that technological corporations (such as Microsoft) can have on the global economy. Technology is featured as two mandatory subjects from Foundation to Year two, which are: Design and Technology, and Digital Technologies (ACARA, 2012c). In any case, this has drawn criticism that it is not important for the primary students as the focus should be on developing physical and mental health in a balanced way with numeracy and literacy (Australian Government Department of Education, 2014; Webster & Ryan, 2014). Therefore, considering beneficiaries and losers are important in this context but it is naturally significant. However, the students lose as they cannot create balance between mental and physical development, while the industry benefits (Webster & Ryan, 2014). The stage 3 in the figure 3 above should be critically considered for development of technology curriculum since curriculum workers can easily gather data from students that have experienced this subject in their primary school.

Conclusion

There is no single solution to all the educational issues since the approaches can result to either positive or negative outcome. The focus of teachers is primarily on standard test as this demanded by education authorities for easy assessment and measurement (Webster & Ryan, 2014). However, these skills are important and should be featured in the curriculum design for secondary school students.

There are also criticisms level on ACARA as it is seem more as a policy-driven body and not government by educational professionals. Even if the government is to adopt their reports for educational decision making, it is important that the process of curriculum development adopts teachers as direct curriculum workers that determine all classroom activities for the students (Webster & Ryan, 2014).

References

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2012a). Curriculum Development Process (Version 6.0). Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/default.asp?id=site_search&query=Curriculum+Development+Process+Version+6.0

ACARA. (2012b). Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Science. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/default.asp?id=site_search&query=The+Shape+of+the+Australian+Curriculum%3A+science

ACARA. (2012c). The Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Technologies. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/default.asp?id=site_search&query=The+Shape+of+the+Australian+Curriculum%3A+Technologies

ACARA. (2012d). The Shape of the Australian Curriculum (Version 4.0). Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/default.asp?id=site_search&query=the+shape+of+the+Australian+curriculum

ACARA. (2013). Curriculum Design Paper (Version 3.1). Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/default.asp?id=site_search&query=Curriculum+Design+Paper+Version+3.1

Australian Government Department of Education. (2014). Review of the Australian Curriculum: Final Report. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review_of_the_national_curriculum_final_report.pdf

Commonwealth Scientific, and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). (2012). Our future world: Global megatrends that will change the way we live. Retrieved from https://www.greencrossaustralia.org/media/9971329/ourfutureworld_csiro_2012.pdf

Foundation for Young Australian (FYA). (2015). The New Work Order: Ensuring young Australians have skills and experience for the jobs of the future, not the past. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/fya-future-of-work-reportfinal-lr.pdf

National Sustainability Council. (2013). Sustainable Australia Report 2013: Conversations with the Future – In Brief. Retrieved from http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/e55f5f00-b5ed-4a77-b977-da3764da72e3/files/sustainable-australia-report-2013-summary.pdf

Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014). Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics: Australia’s Future. Retrieved from http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wpcontent/uploads/STEM_AustraliasFuture_Sept2014_Web.pdf

Oliva, P, F. (2009). Developing the Curriculum (7thed). Boston: Pearson.

Print, M. (1993). Curriculum Development and Design. NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2015). The AusVELS Curriculum: Science (Level 8). Retrieved from http://ausvels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Science/Overview/Rationaleand-Aims

Wallace, S. (2014). A Dictionary of Education (1sted). Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199212064.001.0001/acref-9780199212064-e-250

Webster, S., & Ryan, A. (2014). Understanding curriculum: the Australian context. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press