WordPress.com



Designing and Developing the CurriculumPart 1: Describe, apply and evaluate curriculum ideologies and models. Education itself is a difficult concept to define, for the simple reason that education holds different meanings for different people. This is further reflected within the differing educational ideologies that people adhere to. Principles and beliefs about education define an individual’s attitude and opinion of what education is. Therefore having a universal definition or interpretation of education may not serve any purpose, or have any validity for all individuals at all times.However being able to interpret and understand the true meaning that education holds to a teaching practitioner is most important. From the meaning they hold, teachers can reflect, analyse and truly consider what they are trying to achieve in their aims, when portraying and delivering this realm of knowledge to their learners. How they deliver this subject knowledge is depicted and constrained by the design and development of the curriculum they teach within. Similarly like educational ideologies there are many interpretations of what curriculum is. Jenkins and Shipman (1976a) argued that “…a curriculum is the formulation and implementation of an educational proposal, to be taught and learned within a school or other institution and for which that institution accepts responsibility at three levels; its rationale, its actual implementation and its effects” (Jenkins and Shipman, 1976).The above indicates that the ‘institution’ as a whole is accountable for the curriculum. Whereas others focused it solely upon the creation of the teaching practitioner, for instance it is “all the opportunities planned by teachers for pupils” (Nicholls and Nicholls, 1978). Taylor gives a practical explanation explaining that the “…curriculum consists of content, teaching methods and purpose may be in its rough and ready way be sufficient definition with which to start. These dimensions interacting are the operational curriculum” (Taylor, 1968). The use of ‘interacting’ suggests, for the curriculum to be established the described elements need to amalgamate. Curriculum is an evolving entity that develops in reaction to different influences. It is not only the teachers who dictate what is delivered in the curriculum. There are many facets that play a huge part in its influence. On the basis one could suggest it is the teachers, that teach, design lesson plans, create activities, organise what and how these sessions will be delivered. However there are many influences that take place before the lesson is delivered. Some of these include, managerial, teaching setting influences, course awarding body and on a higher level, political and economic influence. The setting I teach in is highly influenced by an instrumentalist ideology of education. This is reflected within their mission statement “to work together to create a better future for all through education, enterprise and employment” and further is one of their main goals for their 2015-2020 strategy to “support employability, enterprise and innovation” (Bradford College, 2015). This mirrors the instrumentalist ideology that evokes that education should be a delivery of a specific product like the development of a skilled workforce. The instrumentalist ideology views education in factual terms in which learners are preparing themselves for their roles in the workplace and in society as a whole (Armitage et al, 1999). The college ideology reflects the previous labour government whom sought a highly educated workforce as a means in meeting the growing international competition (Armitage et al, 1999). The college therefore proposes to work alongside their partners overseas to give students education, opportunity and positive outcomes so they are equipped for the global employment market (Bradford College, 2015). The ever changing economy market means that people need to be highly skilled to maintain their position within employment, is one of the ideas of instrumentalism (DfEE, 1998). As a consequence of this change, it is perceived as essential that education gives students the skills needed to gain employment. This type of education legitimises ‘ranking’ individuals, in effect when more people achieve higher level qualifications employers raise the entry threshold (Wolf, 2002). As a result people achieving lower levels in education struggle to find employment. Inevitably colleges, as the one I teach in are concerned with “meeting the demands of the economy” (DfES, 2006). This means that colleges are liaising with employers to make sure “the supply of skills in the labour market matches the skills that are in demand from employers” (DfES, 2003). Therefore it implies that education should meet the needs of employers, reinforcing the idea that there is a direct link between education and economic growth. Callaghan (1976), in his speech argued that education meets the needs of the economy. Shilling argued that there was a move from education to work goals to increase young people’s potential for work in a capitalist society, this is prominent in (Shilling, 1989)The course I teach within is a Level 2 Diploma in Personal and Vocational Development, which is awarded by Ascentis body. The fundamental principle of the course is to guide students in making an informed choice about the different career paths available to them. Success of the qualification can act as progression towards higher level study such as Apprenticeship programme or the access to HE Diploma (Ascentis). The course itself is set on an instrumentalist ideology which underpins a product design model. The product model starts by defining what the learners will end up being able to do; this model focusses on aims and objectives that need to be demonstrated by the learner, expressed as behavioural objectives (Tyler, 1949). This model is reflected in the course curriculum. As the aims of the qualification are “to encourage learners to consider the different career opportunities available to them” and “to reward the achievement of learners for the skills they have developed” (Ascentis). I teach Introduction to Sociology which is a module that is part of the above course. In analysing the true principle of Sociology, with my personal ideology of education, it is not in par with the instrumentalist product model of the course curriculum. Sociology is the study of human social relationships and organizations; it analyses and evaluates significant aspects of individual’s personal lives, communities, and the world. Thus I believe that the course curriculum should enable learners to think critically about human social life. On a social level students should be able to help others understand the way that society works and how it can be improved in their perspective. Overall the curriculum should enable learners to think, evaluate, and communicate clearly, and effectively. This aligns with Martin Luther King’s idea of the purpose of education should be, “the function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character … that is the goal of true education” (King, 1947).Hence I believe that allowing students to critically think and evaluate, enhances and opens their minds and allows them to make decisions for themselves. To use their own opinions and not to be constrained and controlled by the content of what is being delivered.My ideology definitely reflects elements of a progresivist ideology. The ideology assumes that there is a need to create democratic communities and this can be attained by encouraging the personal growth of individuals of the society (Neary, 2002). The ideology is progressive, as it takes the stance from the learner’s perspective and allows them to distinguish their own goals. Furthermore, Dewey (1916) a progesivist activist, argues that education should be an active process, and the process is as important as the outcome (Dewey, 1916). It is also suggested that the students learn from their own experience, and teachers act as facilitators to meet the needs of their students, when needed (Neary, 2002). Progressivism is underpinned by the situational model, which embeds curriculum deeply in cultural context. Learning occurs through personal experience and insight in social values. It increases acceptance of diverse values that exist in society (Skilbeck, 1984). This results in enhancing social cohesion and social inclusion. A typical example of such application within my own curriculum is in the teaching of topics such as homosexuality and transgender awareness. In which students discuss topics within the cultural framework in society, whilst applying their personal experiences. Although progressivism has had an impact upon my own ideology of education, it is argued by some as being flawed and not productive. Current politicians argue that this interpretation off education does not give any stability to the curriculum (Guardian, 2008). Michael Gove the education secretary strongly opposed the concept of a progresivist approach to education. "This misplaced ideology has let down generations of children…It is an approach to education that has been called progressive, but in fact is anything but. It privileges temporary relevance over a permanent body of knowledge which should be passed on from generation to generation ... We need to tackle this misplaced ideology wherever it occurs" (Guardian, 2008). Instead his emphasis is placed on the content, product models of teaching. One can credibly argue that how can the government or political system decide what needs to be implemented within the curriculum. Surely the best to review this would be the subject specialist or the teaching practitioner who not only is able to teach their learners, but is aware of their students’ needs and abilities. Similarly the head of national union of teachers argued that politicians assert that they know better than teachers about how students learn, and this is the cause of dethroning of teachers and not the progressivism ideology (Guardian, 2008).The ideology has been very influential in education and has encouraged confidence amongst learners. It has promoted effective works in groups; this is prevalent within peer work in my own sessions that have enabled learners to learn from one another. Learners are still able to learn the transferable skills, which are valuable in a variety of professions. Progressivism was developed from humanist ideology, from Classical humanism to liberal humanism; humanists propose that the purpose of education is to develop the individual.?Classical Humanism, the oldest, was a movement that encouraged human rationality being at the centre of the learning experience, its fundamental features however outlines that education should be knowledge- centred. It transfers knowledge from teacher to student. It asserts that students learn best by listening and reading.This ideology links to the content model. This model emphasises that learning occurs through a transmission of facts and knowledge. A typical content model curriculum is a list of subjects divided into topics. This does relatively apply to my curriculum as some content is knowledge based that needs to be delivered to the learners such as sociological theoretical perspectives such as ‘Marxism, Feminism Functionalism’. Other content that is on the syllabus that needs to be transmitted to the learners include facts and principles. The delivery model of this type of curriculum would be a linear model. As the curriculum is structured by topics, once topic is delivered, teaching is moved forward to another. Although simpler to deliver, it does not address the topics again. Liberal humanism is also based on humanistic belief but took a different approach than Classical humanism. Its ideology is similar to the progressivism that learning should be student-centred, and tries to uncover the student’s full potential. Thus it emphasises on a process model of the curriculum that focuses on individual student learning. Neary (1996a) stated that the process model paves way for both professional and personal development and promotes lifelong learning. There is also an underlying?hidden curriculum within the education system. It is not overtly apparent, and it is all the informal education that is not taught on the syllabus. The way this hidden curriculum is presented varies, and what it teaches depends on what agents are influencing the curriculum. Some of the hidden curriculum can be seen as reinforcing the capitalist system that Marxism addresses, that education produces. For instance structure of a work force is reflected within the structure and dynamics of an educational institution.It is evident that that all of the above ideologies and models have influenced and shaped education significantly. I believe that education should allow students to grow intellectually, be able to express themselves openly. However after analysing the varying ideologies, I also believe that education needs to equip students with the skills that can enable them to be employable. Therefore my stance on the purpose of education may be deemed contradictory, but I adapt both progressivism and instrumentalism ideologies of education. In the current times we live in we must adapt curriculum to the context of the work force, whilst still adhering to a progressive approach that includes teaching strategies such as active and deep centred learning. This will help students develop on both a personal and social level that will enable them to become balanced citizens of society. Students can therefore use the learnt transferable skills to create a better society.ReferencesArmitage, A., Byrant, R.,Dunhill, R. et al. (1999) Teaching and Training in Post-Compulsory Education. Milton Kaeynes, Open Univeristy Press.Ascentis Awarding Body (level%202%20personal%20and%20vocational%20development).pdfBradford College (2015) Bradford college Our Strategy 2015-2020 , J. (1976) Towards a National Debate. Oxford, UK: Ruskin College.Department of Education and Employment (DfEE). (1998) Further Education for the New Millenimum. London, DfEE.Department of Education and Skills (DfES). (2003) 21st Century Skills: Realising our Potential. London, DfESDepartment of Education and Skills (DfES). (2006) Further Education: Raising Skills, improving Life Chances. London, Routledge.Dewey, J. (1916) Democracy and Education. New York, MacmillanGuardian (2008) Jenkins, D. and Shipman, M.D (1976a) Curriculum: An Introduction. London, Open Books. Neary, M. (1996a) ‘Preparation for assessing clinical competences: Project 2000. An investigation’. PhD dissertation. School of Education, University of Wales, Cardiff.Neary, M. (2002) Curriculum Studies in Post-Compulsory and Adult Education; A Teacher’s and Student Teacher’s Study Guide. London, Nelson Thornes Ltd.Nicholls, A. and Nicholls, H. (1978) Developing a Curriculum. London, Allen and Unwin. Shilling, C. (1989) Schooling for Work in Capitalist Britain. Lewes, UK: Framer Press.Skilbeck, M. (1984) School-Based Curriculum Development. London, Harper & Row LtdTaylor, W. (1968) Towards a Policy for the Education of Teachers. Colston Papers. London, Butterworth. Tyler, R.W. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Wolf, A. (2002) Does Education Matter? London, Routledge. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download