What it Means to Teach — Part III
Teaching and the Curriculum
In the realm of sports coaching, a mentor coach observed their mentee leading a practice session, sparking a dialogue among parents about coaching standards and the necessity of updating methods to avoid lawsuits — a conversation echoing the importance of ethics and continuous improvement in teaching practices. There may not be the same level of concern of litigation in teaching, however, the ethical imperative does: teaching must always uphold integrity and rigour, as highlighted in Part II of this series.
Becoming a competent higher education instructor necessitates mastering the art of learning design, which involves meticulously planning what content will be presented, how it will be assessed and how it will be delivered. This journey into learning design naturally leads to the exploration of curriculum — a term often viewed through different lenses. While traditional definitions focus on content and sequence, expanding this view reveals a multifaceted framework crucial for effective education.
I believe the long-standing and most popular definition of curriculum is seen as the content to be taught and the sequence in which it will be taught. Here are two examples:
A curriculum comprises the subjects studied in a school, college, etc. and what each subject includes — Cambridge Dictionary
A curriculum is an inventory of activities related to the design, organisation and planning of an education or training action, including definition of learning objectives, content, methods (including assessment) and material, as well as arrangements for training teachers and trainers. (CEDEFOP, 2014)
Now, consider three other interpretations that expand that traditional view of curriculum (and curriculum development).
Curriculum — Can be interpreted in one of four ways: 1) as the syllabus; 2) as behavioural measurements of learning targets; 3) as a negotiated artefact; or 4) as a constant evaluation and adaptation of what is valuable. (Annala et al., 2015)
Within this explanation’s framework, the measure of learning, guided by the chosen level from a cognitive taxonomy, and ownership, influenced by student agency, offer a spectrum of possibilities. The first and second options reflect a conventional understanding of curriculum, characterised by teacher-led instruction. Conversely, the third and fourth options encourage collaborative engagement between students and teachers, fostering opportunities for mutual creation and adjustment of curriculum content and sequence.
Curriculum Development — Involves many activities, namely the creation of planned curriculum, pedagogy, instructional material, delivery methods and evaluation for making the student learning process effective. The curriculum development process systematically organizes what will be taught, who will be taught, and how it will be taught. Each component affects and interacts with other components. (Adagale, 2015)
This version emphasises the systematic organisation of what, who, and how to teach, recognising the interplay between these components. While traditionally focusing on the ‘what’ and ‘how’, this definition crucially includes the ‘who’, highlighting the significance of understanding the backgrounds and experiences of learners in shaping curriculum design and implementation.
Curriculum — Aims to ensure that learners are equipped with skills and knowledge aligned with the needs of the twenty-first century. It facilitates the process of discovery through experimentation and exploration and is not a one size fits all approach. Learners have an opportunity to customize learning pathways depending on pace, style, and learning orientation. Consequently, learners combine a liberal mindset covering a wide range of knowledge across disciplines with in-depth skills in a specialized area (Law, 2022).
This final account promotes learning that is both broad and deep, accommodating diverse learner preferences, while emphasising inquiry-based learning and adaptable, not static, outcomes. Here, flexibility and customisation are key to the ever-evolving conditions of the environment.
Educational psychologist Paul Dressel acknowledges the position of a curriculum within a complex world when he states, “It is not enough that the curriculum come into existence — the fundamental ideas underlying it must be such that it can be developed and related to changing conditions.”
What intrigues me about Dressel’s assertion is its timeless relevance — it dates back to 1965. This underscores an enduring notion that curriculum extends beyond mere courses and content. If curriculum surpasses the confines of mere courses and content, then educators face the task of embracing a non-linear curriculum approach that mirrors the dynamic nature of our modern world.
The original question asked in Part I of this series was what does it mean to teach. What I have suggested thus far is that teaching is learning design. Learning design is planning. And planning, in this very complex world, is curriculum and curriculum development. Teaching must be all these things, otherwise, it is none of them.
Works Cited
Adagale, A. S. (2015). Curriculum development in higher education. International Journal of Applied Research, 1(11), 602–605. https://tinyurl.com/2svap9y4
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
Cambridge University Press and Assessment. (n.d.). Curriculum. In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved February 27, 2024. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/teach
Cedefop, (2014). Curriculum. In Terminology of European education and training policy — A selection of 130 key terms, Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2801/15877
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
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
