Curriculum Development, Part I

What’s New is Old Again?

Curriculum development is an ever-evolving field, reflecting the dynamic nature of education itself. In this first of two parts on curriculum development, we delve into the seminal ideas of Paul Dressel, who in 1965 asserted that the development of new curriculum models must address the limitations of traditional educational structures. Dressel emphasized the need for a more integrated and flexible curriculum that bridges the gap between liberal and professional studies, promotes a comprehensive common experience, and ensures continuity and integration throughout a student’s academic journey.

Dressel’s vision was indeed prophetic, as the challenges he identified remain relevant today. He critiqued the rigid departmental structures of his time, advocating for an approach that organized knowledge into substantial blocks to avoid redundancy and fostered innovative learning methods to enhance student motivation and responsibility. Moreover, he called for a broader cultural perspective beyond Western traditions and improvements in both administrative and physical learning environments. These insights still resonate as we continue to grapple with rising educational costs and increasing student populations.

Despite the passage of nearly six decades, our conception of curriculum often remains constrained by traditional definitions, as outlined in my last post. Typically, curriculum is viewed as a set of learning standards, units and lessons, assignments, materials, and assessment methods (Adult and Community Learning Services, 2019). This structured approach provides guidance for instructors and a detailed sequence of lesson plans aimed at improving student learning outcomes. However, this traditional view can lead to a pseudo-understanding of what curriculum truly entails.

Expanding on this traditional concept, recent scholars like Tunnell (2022) argue that curriculum encompasses instructional methods, learning experiences, and assessments designed to meet course objectives. A well-designed curriculum map significantly enhances both student progress and teacher quality, supporting daily instruction and reducing planning time. Tunnell emphasizes that an effective curriculum should be adaptable, research-based, and collaborative, with quantifiable objectives to ensure it meets the needs of all stakeholders.

In aiming to create a curriculum that aligns with Dressel’s vision, we must integrate various perspectives and traditions, evolving our understanding of the concept. Annala et al. (2015) categorize curriculum into four main approaches: control over content, producing competences, negotiating potentials, and empowerment. These approaches highlight the diverse nature of curriculum, from traditional content delivery to dynamic, reflective practices.

Competence-based curricula focus on achieving specific learning outcomes but can marginalize students and staff by limiting their decision-making roles. In contrast, viewing curriculum as a process emphasizes cognitive and constructivist learning, fostering student potential and shared ownership. The empowerment approach views curriculum through the lenses of equality and cultural perspectives, advocating for students as co-creators of knowledge and emphasizing interdisciplinary studies.

The evolution of curriculum theory continues with contemporary ideas like Curriculum 4.0, introduced by Law (2022), which aligns learners’ skills with the demands of the twenty-first century. This concept integrates complexity theory and critical theory to emphasize the importance of aligning educational curricula with societal and industrial needs.

Furthermore, the notion of complexity in curriculum design, as discussed by scholars like Noel Gough (2011), challenges the reductionist models of education. Complexity encourages viewing education as an emergent, organic process rather than a linear one, prompting educators to embrace unpredictability and innovation. By considering curriculum as a text open to interpretation, educators can foster a more dynamic, speculative approach to learning, questioning dominant perspectives and exploring new, creative ways to engage with educational content.

In essence, Dressel’s expansive interpretation of curriculum calls for a holistic, flexible, and responsive approach to education. As we continue to explore these themes, we must strive to create curricula that not only meet the needs of today’s students but also prepare them for the complexities of the future.

Works Cited

Adagale, A. S. (2015). Curriculum development in higher education. International Journal of Applied Research, 1(11), 602–605. https://tinyurl.com/2svap9y4

Adult and Community Learning Services. (2019 September 5). Components of Curriculum. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved March 6, 2024. https://www.doe.mass.edu/acls/frameworks/components.html#:~:text=Curriculum%20refers%20to%20the%20knowledge,in%20a%20course%3B%20and%20the

Annala, J., Lindén, J., & Mäkinen, M. (2015). Curriculum in higher education research. In Researching higher education (pp. 171–189). Routledge. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290325151

Dressel, P. L. (1965). A look at new curriculum models: For undergraduate education. The Journal of Higher Education, 36(2), 89–96. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1979561

Gough, N. (2011, September). A complexivist view of higher education: Implications for curriculum design and research on teaching and learning. In Invited keynote address at the 5th annual university teaching and learning conference. Durban: University of KwaZulu-Natal (pp. 26–28). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274375252

Law, M. Y. (2022). A review of curriculum change and innovation for higher education. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 10(2), 16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357808225

Tunnell, L. (2022 May 26). What Makes an Effective Curriculum. Education Advanced. https://educationadvanced.com/resources/blog/what-makes-an-effective-curriculum/