03. Curriculum Innovation
Paper
The “Pico” site of Curriculum Making: building student agency in Initial Teacher Education
Audrey Doyle, Marie Conroy Johnson, Sarah O'Grady
Dublin City University Ireland
Presenting Author: Doyle, Audrey;
Conroy Johnson, Marie
Curriculum making is defined as a multi-layered social practice that incorporates the professional selection of knowledge, key skills, values and understanding. It includes pedagogical approaches to learning, teaching and assessment, the production of resources and activities for an inclusive and transformative education that serves the diverse needs of all students in their specific context (Priestley, Alvungar, Philippou & Soini, 2021). Curriculum making takes place across multiple sites of practice (Priestley et al., 2021). At the Supra level, the EU, OECD, World Bank and UNESCO all endeavour to propose a range of curriculum policies, which are often enacted at the macro level by different national agencies who wish to secure curricula promoting the richness of education but also its competitive component (Sahlberg, 2012). Curriculum agencies and schools (Meso and Micro levels) are then tasked with translating these policies into a particular context. Finally, the teacher must employ their judgement and agency to this curriculum by responding to the needs of a diversity of students in their classroom (Nano Level). This research recognises the dynamic interrelationship of all these levels. In curriculum literature, there is a paucity in the role that Initial Teacher Education (ITE) plays in preparing the pre-service teacher for the role of curriculum maker. This research proposes a new level in the strata proposed by Van den Akker & Thijs (2009). The “Pico” level, which on the measurement scale is smaller than Nano, focuses on the pre-service teacher in their preparation of becoming a curriculum maker. This research asks, “How does ITE prepare pre-service teachers in their theoretical, pedagogical and technical knowledge and agency to become a curriculum maker?”
Theoretical Framework
The choice of a theoretical framework takes advice from Deng (2018) who argues that “curriculum theorizing requires the use of theories in an eclectic, critical and creative manner” (p. 705). This eclectic mix of educational theories assist in shedding light on the complex process that builds the pre-service teacher’s identity as a curriculum maker. Our framework uses a Venn diagram, which offers three important pedagogical overlapping and interrelated concepts: Learning, Assessment and Teaching. The theory of learning works from Enactivism (Begg, 1999), which draws from a number of discourses, among them phenomenology, constructivism, ecology, and systems and complexity theories. Enactivism views learning and knowing, as complex, emergent processes by which dynamic agents maintain fitness with one another and within dynamic contexts. (Davis, 1996).
Xu and Brown’s (2016) conceptual framework of teacher assessment literacy in practice, frame the theory of assessment. This six-component framework recognizes that the agency of the teacher to make assessment decisions in practice moves beyond the knowledge base of assessment to “consideration of a situated, dynamic, and evolving system in which teachers constantly make compromises among competing tensions” (p.27). The theory of teaching draws on Biesta and Osberg’s (2010) “logic of emergence” which sees the encounter between student and teacher as the opening up of existential possibilities in education. Biesta (2015) suggests it is less about seeing the subject as that which grasps and comprehends the world, and is more about offering the time and space to situate the subject differently in relation to the world (Biesta, 2013).
At the centre of this Venn diagram is the concept of curriculum making which is a highly dynamic process of interpretation, mediation, negotiation and translation” (Priestley et al., 2021). This research explores and unpacks this complex process and considers how ITE can prepare pre-service teachers, not only for their future identity as curriculum makers, but to become creative innovators as they respond to the multitudinous diversity of the school and classroom culture and context.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn September 2022, two ITE programmes in Dublin City University, designed and introduced a new approach to assist pre-service students (PSTs) in developing their craft and identity as curriculum makers. In preparation for Professional Placement, the PST engaged in designing Units of Learning (UoL) rather than the more traditional Schemes of Work (Tyler, 1949). The UoL is the dynamic structure through which the PST creates a series of learning encounters for a specific class with a particular time-frame and sequence. Curriculum making includes making professional decisions about Learning Outcomes, content, knowledge, Key skills/competences, values, pedagogy, resources and technology that responds to the diversity of student needs. This endorsed a more reconceptualist approach to curriculum making (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery & Taubmann, 2008).
The methodology chosen is design-based research (DBR) (Brown, 1992). DBR is about being situated in a real educational context whereby through the collaboration of researchers and stakeholders, there is a process to appraise, design and reflect on an intervention. According to Jan, Chee & Tan (2010) there are four design components that must align for an effective intervention to be successful. They include “frameworks for learning, the affordances of the chosen instructional tools, domain knowledge presentation and contextual limitations” (p. 471).
DBR often selects mixed methods in order to understand the complexity of the intervention. This paper is interested in Cycle 1 and 2 of the DBR. In Cycle 1, desk-top research was carried out on the designed Units of Learning from 20 students in a sample of schools (n=40) during placement from December 2022 to February 2023. This will assist the researchers to view the decisions made by the PST in curriculum making. Cycle Two comprises two elements: An on-line survey of a volunteer sample of approximately 500 PSTs inclusive of both programmes. The questions will explore the choices made by the PST in choosing Learning Outcomes, content knowledge, skills and values, methodology and learning experiences, assessment, differentiation and reflections on their identity as curriculum makers.
Following the analysis of this questionnaire, semi-structured focus group interviews will be conducted with a purposive sample of PSTs from each year of both programmes. The interviews will provide further reflective space for PSTs to articulate a more in-depth understanding of the complexity of the process of designing and creating a UoL and how it has impacted on their understanding of their role as curriculum makers.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsFrom the study, we argue that the Pico level of curriculum making has huge implications for the functioning of all other levels or strata. The introduction of the UoL and the complex process of constructing it, offers the PST the space to grapple with the DNA of curriculum. This study highlights that each of the following questions, why, what, who, how, where and when, generates a complex ecological web in which the PST must learn to navigate. The UoL contains the epistemological, ontological and pedagogical instructions that afford the PST the opportunity to confront the big questions about curriculum, knowledge and assessment. Each component opens up a myriad of possibilities that a PST must consider and make professional judgements and decisions about in planning their UoL.
Initially, the process of making decisions seems segmented and lots of scaffolding of learning is required for the PST. However, through engagement over the years of the programmes, they learn that each segment of the UoL is interconnected so that curriculum making becomes a dynamic and creative process contributing to new, as-yet-unimaginable collective possibilities (Davis & Sumara, 2007). Arendt (1958) tells us that teacher education is the process in which “beginners” are also “beginnings” and with each unique origination of action brings something new into the world. Such creativity takes risks and chances and moves the PST into what Deleuze and Guattari (2003) call “smooth space”. Smooth space is the space of the incalculable, of possibility, where the PST takes flight as curriculum maker. The progressive agency that is learnt at the Pico level will move upwards through the strata and offer a synthesis of theory and practice that is essential for future curriculum design, development making and enactment at national and international levels.
ReferencesArendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press.
Begg, A. (1999). Enactivism and Mathematics Education. Mathematics Education Research Group Australian, 22.
Biesta, G. (2013). The Beautiful Risk of Education, USA, Paradigm Publishers.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
Davis, B. (1996). Teaching Mathematics: Towards a Sound Alternative, New York, Garland Publishing.
Davis, B. & Sumara, D. (2008). Complexity and Education: Inquiries into Learning, Teaching and Research, New York, Routledge.
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (2003). A Thousand Plateaus, Minneapolis, University of Minneapolis Press.
Deng, Z. (2018). Contemporary Curriculum Theorizing: crisis and resolution. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(6), 691-710. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1537376
Jan, M., Chee, Y. S., & Tan, E. M. (2010, June). Unpacking the design process in design-based research. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2010, Chicago, IL, USA.
Osberg, D. & Biesta, G. (2010). Complexity Theory and the Politics of Education, Rotherdam, Sense Publishers.
Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P. & Taubmann, P. M. (2008). Understanding Curriculum: An Introduction to the Study of Historical and Contemporary Curriculum Discourses, United States, Peter Lang.
Priestley, M., Alvunger, D., Philippou, S. & Soini, T. (2021). Curriculum Making in Europe: Policy and Practice Within and Across Diverse Contexts. Emerald Press
Sahlberg, P. (2012). The Fourth Way of Finland. Journal of Educational Change, 12, 173-185.
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Chicago Press.
Van Den Akker, J. & Thijs, A. (2009). Curriculum in Development. Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development (SLO).
Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). Teacher Assessment Literacy in Practice: A Reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149-162. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010
03. Curriculum Innovation
Paper
Processes of Interdisciplinarity: the Place of Substantive Teacher-teacher Dialogue in Curriculum Development
Mary Woolley
Canterbury Christ Church University, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Woolley, Mary
This paper explores the place and nature of substantive teacher-teacher, cross-disciplinary dialogue in a time of intensive curriculum development in Wales. It focuses in particular on teacher dialogue across traditional subject boundaries in a curriculum where disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity are encouraged. Teachers in different subject disciplines can have diverse views about the nature of knowledge, how knowledge is constructed and how pupils best make progress within that disciplinary tradition. If a curriculum is to be interdisciplinary, teachers from diverse disciplines need to come together and discuss their different approaches to knowledge in order for pupils to have a coherent curriculum experience. Within current debates on the place of knowledge in the curriculum in England and beyond (Muller & Young, 2019; Niemela, 2020), less is known about how knowledge works across disciplinary boundaries. Rigorous interdisciplinary education is of increasing interest in educational contexts beyond England. The OECD Education and Skills 2030 project (OECD, 2019) recognises disciplinary, interdisciplinary, epistemic and procedural as four different types of knowledge. Priestly and Biesta (2013) have pointed to the emergence of a “new curriculum” across Europe and beyond which has emphasised the autonomy of schools and teachers in making the curriculum. Almeida, Sousa and Figueirdo (2022), in their study of European curriculum autonomy, have pointed to growing evidence of the importance of the empowerment of teachers in the curriculum design process.
This paper builds on research from a large-scale project funded by Templeton World Charity Foundation exploring beginning teachers confidence and competence in experiences of science/religion encounters in the classroom. This project revealed some of the processes necessary to effect meaningful encounters between two contrasting curriculum subjects, for example an understanding of the purpose of the other subject. In focus groups and an online survey, teachers of science and religious education revealed some misunderstandings about the nature and purpose of the other curriculum subject (Woolley et al., 2022). This raised questions about whether and how secondary school teachers can gain an up-to-date understanding of other subjects on the curriculum in order to provide a coherent educational experience for pupils. Teachers were also asked to describe the relationship between departments of science and religious education, using an adapted version of Barbour’s (1990) typology and the words conflict, independence, dialogue, collaboration and integration (Woolley et al., 2023). Findings showed that departments were overwhelmingly independent, with little dialogue or collaboration taking place.
This finding is not surprising in English schools, where disciplinary knowledge and discrete subjects are valued by government policy and the inspectorate. However, in Wales, Scotland and other countries across Europe, interdisciplinary learning is more valued. It is our contention that disciplinary study should provide the structure for the curriculum, but that interdisciplinary understanding is also necessary, whether through critical overarching topics such as climate change or points where curriculum subjects intersect, such as origins of the universe or gender identity. Pupils need to have a coherent experience of the curriculum, and that involves teachers being aware of how their subjects intersect and interrelate with other subjects on the full curriculum.
Two research questions guide this paper. The first, what research exists on teacher-teacher dialogue across disciplinary boundaries and how is ‘deeper’ dialogue encouraged? The second, what place is there for teacher-teacher dialogue across curriculum boundaries in the Curriculum for Wales and how might this be best supported? Questions of teacher autonomy underpin curriculum development and enactment, but curriculum innovation is also a critical site for teacher professional learning. As Curriculum for Wales is embedded, it becomes a vital site to explore the intersection between teacher dialogue and interdisciplinary curriculum innovation.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis paper will be based on a literature review of two sets of documents. The first will be a systematic literature review of published, peer-reviewed papers on teacher-teacher dialogue, seeking out examples of research into teacher-teacher conversation, in particular teacher-teacher dialogue (distinct from conversation in using Bakhtin’s definition ‘conversation and inquiry’ (e.g. Alexander, 2000, p.520). We seek to prioritise examples of dialogue related specifically to substantive curriculum matters, the subject content that students will learn. We are looking particularly at examples of teacher-teacher curriculum dialogue that fall across traditional subject boundaries, how or whether teachers are supported to develop these conversations and go beyond shallow conversations to ‘deeper end’ dialogue on more contentious aspects of the curriculum (Spencer and Waite, 2022) such as epistemology or ethics.
The Curriculum for Wales was launched for first teaching in September 2022. Teacher professional learning was at the heart of the curriculum development process and teachers, particularly those in ‘Pioneer Schools’ were given substantial agency over the development of curriculum, progression and assessment decisions. Subjects were placed into Areas of Learning Experience (AoLE), but interdisciplinary learning was still encouraged between different AoLEs. Hayward et al. (2022), evaluating the initial stages of curriculum enactment, report some tensions between curriculum planning groups, consisting of teachers, and invited experts. Tensions were also described between definitions of progression in disciplinary and interdisciplinary terms. The second part of this paper offers a documentary analysis of the documents existing so far on Curriculum for Wales, with a particular focus on the role of the teacher and interdisciplinary learning.
A third set of data will be collected through a small survey of teachers in Wales during May 2023. The survey will focus on experiences of and opportunities for teacher-teacher dialogue across curriculum boundaries in the enactment stages of Curriculum for Wales.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis research is currently in its initial planning stages. However, it expects to report several connected findings:
First, in relation to teacher-teacher dialogue, that there is a lack of research on teacher-teacher dialogue across curriculum boundaries, especially how such dialogue can best be supported and deepened. It expects to find that where teacher-teacher dialogue is researched, it tends to be within subject communities or related to mentoring, behaviour or pedagogical innovations.
Second, initial research into Curriculum for Wales suggests that some teachers have been deeply involved in the process of curriculum development over several years. Teacher autonomy and involvement is greatly valued within the Curriculum for Wales project. However, in this second enactment stage of curriculum reform, teachers have fewer opportunities for dialogue, particularly across curriculum boundaries. This could lead to grabbing opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration that are not properly thought-through and fail to properly enrich pupils’ understanding of a coherent curriculum.
Third, that some teachers in Wales need support and guidance frameworks in developing the skills and knowledge necessary to have challenging, deep conversations about substantive and epistemological curriculum matters.
ReferencesAlexander, R. (2000) Culture and pedagogy, Oxford: Blackwell.
Almeida, S., Sousa, F. and Figueiredo, M. (2022) Curriculum autonomy policies: international trends, tensions and transformations Lisbons: CICS.NOVA
Muller, J. and Young, M. (2019) Knowledge, power and powerful knowledge re-visited, The Curriculum Journal 30(2), 196-214 doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2019.1570292
Niemelä, M. (2020) Crossing curricular boundaries for powerful knowledge, The Curriculum Journal 32(2), pp.359-375 doi.org/10.1002/curj.77
OECD (2019) Future of Education and Skills 2030: OECD Learning Compass 2030. A series of concept notes https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/contact/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf (accessed 30 January 2022)
Priestley, M., Biesta, G. and Robinson, S. (2016), Teacher Agency: An Ecological Approach, London: Bloomsbury
Spencer, N. and Waite, H. (2022) ‘Science and Religion’: Moving away from the shallow end, Theos: London.
Woolley, M., Bowie, R. A., Hulbert, S., Thomas, C., Riordan, J.-P., & Revell, L. (2022). Science and RE teachers' perspectives on the purpose of RE on the secondary school curriculum in England. The Curriculum Journal, 00, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.191
Woolley, M., Bowie, R. A., Hulbert, S., Thomas, C., Riordan, J.-P., & Revell, L. (2023 in review) Teachers’ perspectives on the relationship between secondary school science and religious education departments.
03. Curriculum Innovation
Paper
Faculty Enactment of Higher Education Curriculum and Teaching Policy in Kazakhstan: An Ethnographic Study
Saule Yeszhanova
Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan
Presenting Author: Yeszhanova, Saule
For the past three decades Kazakhstan has undergone many transformations in the higher education system (Ahn et al., 2018). In particular, Kazakhstan’s universities have witnessed significant changes in the content of curriculum (Kerimkulova & Kuzhabekova, 2017). For example, Kazakh education policymakers asked the teaching body to modernise the content of the curriculum and change the way in which faculty work by aligning it more closely with the Bologna process (Maudarbekova & Kashkinbayeva, 2014). However, no studies have been done on how faculty members enact curriculum reforms in practice in Kazakh higher education system. Therefore, the purpose of this ethnographic study is to explore how faculty members of one foreign languages department are enacting the changes in curriculum and teaching policy implemented in Kazakhstan’s public higher education system and their experiences in changing their teaching and learning practices. This research analyses the reaction and response of faculty members to the ambitious goals laid out by Kazakhstan’s policymakers, and how educators interpret and work in response to these aims.
The following research questions will be addressed:
1. What are the perspectives of faculty members in one public university in Kazakhstan on curriculum and teaching policyreform?
2. How do faculty members enact curriculum and teaching policy in practice?
3. What are the factors that facilitate or impede the adoption of curriculum and teaching policy?
The theoretical framework of policy enactment into practice will guide this study (Ball et al., 2012). This theory will help to understand how curriculum and teaching policies work in practice. The significance of this theory in this study is that it has not previously been applied in post-Soviet higher education contexts, and so potentially will make an original contribution to knowledge by gaining insights and knowledge how faculty are enacting changes in curriculum and teaching policy. This theory will enable me to study this particular issue in all its complexity and gain some valuable insights into how policies work in practice.
The research findings of this study will contribute to existing knowledge by contributing to the limited literature on higher education curriculum and policy enactment in Kazakhstan. The findings of this study may serve as a recommendation for policy makers to facilitate the enactment of teaching policy in practice. Also, research-based evidence of the enactment of teaching policy might be useful for faculty to reflect on their own experiences and practices, by improving their program and teaching practices.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo achieve the purpose of the study, the current study will employ an ethnographic research design. The ethnographic research will be conducted in the natural setting of a university and long-term engagement in the academic department will provide a holistic analysis of participants’ understanding and experiences of the curriculum and teaching policy, how they implement a new curriculum which is manifested in their classroom teaching, during discussions with each other, informal conversations, meetings with the head of the department; produce a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon through doing observations outside and inside of the classroom, understanding how participants construct their knowledge of curriculum and teaching policy, recording what academics are saying about curriculum changes and analysing data (Geertz, 1973) to avoid superficial findings (Woods, 1994).
Further, the ethnographic approach will allow me to hear the voices of participants to provide a wide range of interpretations (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). I will explore the faculty’s daily teaching practices, activities, behaviours, their interactions, beliefs, values, and the things that impact the culture of that department. Also, in an ethnographic study, I will build rapport with my participants, choose interviewees, observe lessons and keep a diary.
As I am doing an ethnographic study, I will be using multiple sources of data collection such as participant observations inside and outside of the classroom, document analysis, semi-structured and informal interviews, and field notes. The use of a wide range of data collection methods will provide a holistic analysis of the ethnographic study.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsI am engaged in a data collection for one semester in one public university in Kazakhstan starting from February to May, 2023. I will conduct semi-structured and informal interviews, observe faculty’s classroom teaching, attend faculty formal meetings and do document analysis. I will present my preliminary findings during the international conference by answering three research questions:
1. What are the perspectives of faculty members in one public university in Kazakhstan on curriculum and teaching policy reform?
2. How do faculty members enact curriculum and teaching policy in practice?
3. What are the factors that facilitate or impede the adoption of curriculum and teaching policy?
Expected outcomes of the study will be that professors may have mixed feelings about curriculum reforms. Some of them may be positive about these reforms as they obtained their MA or PhD degrees abroad that facilitated curriculum policy enactment whereas senior faculty members may not support curriculum changes as they were trained under the Soviet education system and their teaching instructions may be based on the Soviet pedagogy that hindered curriculum policy enactment.
In addition, a close collaboration with faculty may facilitate curriculum development and improvement in instructional approaches as well as professional development and a peer networking between universities may lead to the changes in the content of curricula and teacher pedagogy. However, one of the hindrances in curriculum policy enactment by faculty might be a lack of governmental support to provide faculty members with professional development programmes as most faculty may lack of understanding on how to enact the proposed policy in practice as it lacked clear guidelines or instructions.
ReferencesAhn, E. S., Dixon, J., & Chekmareva, L. (2018). Looking at Kazakhstan’s higher education landscape: From transition to transformation between 1920 and 2015. In 25 Years of Transformations of Higher Education Systems in post-Soviet Countries (pp. 199-227). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Ball, S., Maguire, M. & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools, London: Routledge.
Hartley, M., Gopaul, B., Sagintayeva, A. & Apergenova, R. (2015). Learning autonomy: higher education reform in Kazakhstan. Higher Education, 72(3), 277-289.
Kerimkulova, S., & Kuzhabekova, A. (2017). Quality Assurance in Higher Education of Kazakhstan: A Review of the System and Issues. The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education, 87-108.
LeCompte, M., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Academic Press.
Maudarbekova, B., & Kashkinbayeva, Z. (2014). Internationalization of higher education in Kazakhstan. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4092-4097.
Silova, I. & Steiner-Khamsi G. (2008). How NGOs react: Globalization and education reform in the Caucasus, Central Asia and Mongolia. Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.
Tastanbekova, K. Rethinking the “Post-Soviet” Legacy in Education of Central Asia: focus on Kazakhstan.
|
