CUS 3701 Textbook PDF

Preface Teachers are challenged with preparing learners for a globally interdependent, complex and interactive world by offering a specific curriculum in a specific context. The educational challenge they face in particular is to foster the development of critical, creative and conceptually receptive minds in learners, while still teaching the required content. It is not only legislation, prescribed policies and the teacher’s knowledge and integration of these that influence curriculum interpretation and implementation. The teacher also needs to understand the influence of different approaches on curriculum development, and be able to analyse existing learning programmes and resource material in order to prepare instructional designs with effective teaching, learning and assessment in mind. In this book, the views of Tyler, Stenhouse and Freire serve as a theoretical backdrop to a deeper understanding of the teacher’s role as interpreter of the curriculum, who ensures an enhanced teaching, learning and assessment practice. The following aspects of curriculum studies are covered, with the focus on the teacher’s role as curriculum innovator: The theoretical framing of curriculum design Understanding the curriculum in context Considering policy documents during curriculum interpretation and implementation Practical guidance for putting curriculum plans into practice: from the intended to the enacted and the assessed This book offers sound, detailed and practical direction, with a holistic and “hands-on” approach, to both new and experienced teachers in the General Education and Training (GET) and Further Education and Training (FET) sectors. 1. A theoretical framing of curriculum development 1.1 INTRODUCTION To optimise the quality of teaching and learning in the classroom, the teacher needs to understand the influence of different approaches on curriculum development, be able to interpret curricula, choose appropriate teaching strategies, and consider policies prescribed by the Department of Basic Education (see Chapter 3). Only then will the teacher be able to interpret the curriculum effectively, and be able to mediate learning optimally. The views of Tyler, Stenhouse, and Freire are used to encourage a deeper understanding of the teacher’s role as interpreter and implementer of the curriculum, and how this role can be influenced by theories about curriculum design. 1.2 THE CONCEPT OF “CURRICULUM”: DESIGN, INTERPRETATION, PLAN, AND PRACTICE Grundy (1987), Goodson (1984; 1988) and other educationists view an awareness of the different interpretations of a curriculum as important for developing an understanding of what a curriculum is. Goodman (1998), in particular, says that the struggle over the definition of “curriculum” is a matter of social and political priorities, as well as intellectual discourse; otherwise, the study of schooling will leave unquestioned and unanalysed assumptions that should be at the heart of the intellectual understanding and practical operation of schooling. It is therefore important to distinguish between a curriculum and a syllabus, and to look at the different dimensions of a curriculum. 1.2.1 What is the difference between a “curriculum” and a “syllabus”? The concept of “curriculum” has its origins in the Latin currere, “to run”, with further reference to the running/chariot tracks used for races. According to Thijs and Van den Akker (2009: 1), a curriculum can briefly be defined as a “plan for learning”, as used by the American Hilda Taba in 1962 (Taba & Spalding, 1962). There are related terms in many languages, including the classical Dutch term leerplan, the German lehrplan and the Swedish laroplan. This term should not be confused with a subject “syllabus”, because the definition of a “lehrplan” does not necessarily narrow the perspective: it permits all sorts of elaboration for specific curricular levels, contexts, and representations. In broader terms, the concept of “curriculum” refers to all the learning that is planned and guided; a body of knowledge necessary to achieve certain ends (outcomes) in a teaching-learning process, as realised in praxis. The curriculum document should include the rationale, aim, and purpose of the particular course; and refer to related subject methodology, teaching methods, and guidance regarding assessment practices, which are all based on a particular approach. The word “syllabus” in Greek means a concise statement or table of the topics of a discourse, or the list of content within a subject. Such a document has a series of headings, with some additional notes, which set out the areas to be examined. A syllabus will not generally indicate the relative importance of its topics or the order in which they are to be studied. Those who compile a syllabus tend to follow the traditional textbook approach of giving an order of content, or a pattern prescribed by a logically sequenced approach to the subject. 1.2.2 Defining a curriculum The debate around the interpretation of “curriculum” is long-standing. As far back as 1975, Stenhouse observed that the educationist “is confronted by two different views of the curriculum. On the one hand the curriculum is seen as an intention, plan or prescription, an idea of what one would like to happen in schools. On the other hand it is seen as the existing state of affairs in schools, what does in fact happen” (Stenhouse, 1975: 94). When we ask what “curriculum” means, we receive different answers according to the views, background, and experience of the respondent. At a general level, an explanation can be understood in relation to what is included and/or excluded in the description. For example, Eisner (1985) defines a curriculum as a series of planned events that are intended to have educational consequences for one or more learners, whereas Fraser (1993) has a much wider interpretation of curriculum as the inter-related totality of aims, learning content, evaluation procedures and teaching-learning activities, opportunities and experiences that guide and implement didactic activities in a planned and justified manner. The older, narrower definition says that when studying a curriculum, we must look at the curriculum plan, i.e. the document that sets out the intention of what, how and why something should be taught. In this definition, a curriculum is a “course of study” or “study programme”, whereas the broader definition is a more inclusive concept that comprises all the opportunities for learning and is viewed in historical perspective in its socio-political context. Narrow definitions are likely to foster a conception of curriculum change as a limited and largely technical exercise. An example of a broad definition is that of the National Education Policy Initiative (RSA, 1993): “Curriculum refers to the teaching and learning activities and experiences which are provided by schools.” The definition includes  the aims and objectives of the education system and the specific goals of the school  the selection of content to be taught, how it is arranged into subjects and what skills and processes are included  ways of teaching and learning, and relationships between teachers and learners  forms of assessment and evaluation used. This definition covers more than the stated aims and subject-specific documentation, which can be referred to as the intended curriculum. The curriculum also involves the consideration of actual classroom practices and experiences – the enacted curriculum, which results from the interpretation and implementation of the curriculum. Having the same curriculum on paper does not mean that all schools/learning institutions experience the same curriculum-in-use or enacted curriculum. This is profoundly affected by resources (e.g. laboratories and libraries) and materials that support the learning process (e.g. textbooks). It is also affected by experiences of disruption or continuity, and by the quality and morale of teachers. This means that improving teachers’ knowledge and skills may have an effect on the way they will interpret and implement the intended curriculum. If the definition of “curriculum” includes activities, opportunities and experiences, we can ask whether the following are part of a curriculum:  The preference for a subject because of a teacher’s knowledge of the field and choices of teaching strategies  The principal locking the gates at 08:00 because she wants to force the children to be punctual  The fact that Mathematics lessons are never scheduled for the last period on a Friday, but Life Orientation lessons often are  The impact of teachers teaching subjects that they never studied themselves  Classes that consist mainly of weak learners and repeaters The above are all examples of the enacted, experienced or lived curriculum, which can explain why the same prescribed curriculum can generate very different results in different schools. In other words, the enacted curriculum is the actual process of teaching and learning, the operational aspect of implementing the curriculum, which is based on how the teachers perceive and interpret the curriculum. This enacted, lived curriculum, or curriculum in action, illustrates the importance of both teacher and context and can be intentional or unintentional, or even hidden. In short, the curriculum can be defined as an organised framework that delineates the content that learners are to learn, the processes through which learners achieve the identified curricular goals, what teachers do to help learners achieve the objectives/goals, and the context in which teaching and learning occur. The following aspects of the curriculum must therefore be considered: 1. Official, explicit, intended curriculum. This is the prescribed curriculum, also described as the blueprint for teaching. It is the plan or intentions of, for instance, the Department of Basic Education. A single plan can be used for different learners, although its contexts can differ greatly. 2. Enacted curriculum as practice. This is the curriculum as it is experienced. It is also referred to as the non-official, implicit curriculum as implemented by a teacher, and is what is actually taught and learnt. Misunderstandings, resource constraints, and so on can interfere with the teacher’s ability to implement a curriculum plan exactly as intended. 3. Covert curriculum. This is teaching that is implicit (not spelt out), but nonetheless deliberate on the part of the teacher or school. It is especially important in early schooling, when consideration for others, order and obedience, teamwork and cooperation are focal points. “Play” in early schooling is a deliberate curriculum strategy to develop important attitudes and skills, such as fine motor skills, spatial differentiation, and various pre-numeracy skills. 4. Hidden curriculum. This is learning that is hidden from the teachers as well as from the learners. It is another form of implicit learning, which the teachers did not intend and are probably not even aware of. We consciously learn many things about the world, or learn to see the world in particular ways, simply by spending a lot of time in the sort of environment that schools and classrooms present to us. 5. Assessed curriculum. This is the knowledge and the skills that are measured to determine learner achievement or what objectives or learning outcomes have been attained. Assessment is an important element of a curriculum because it establishes how learners will be measured in terms of their performance. 1.2.3 What is meant by “curriculum development”? Curriculum development focuses on improvement and innovation in education. During this process, which may take many years – especially where generic curriculum development is concerned – and which extends beyond a specific local context, desires and ideals are incorporated in a cyclical process of design, implementation, and evaluation, so as to achieve concrete results in practice. Relevant literature contains a variety of models for curriculum development, in which the five core activities shown in Figure 1.1 are especially distinguished. Figure 1.1 Core activities in curriculum development Source: Adapted from Thijs & Van den Akker (2009: 15); see also Van den Akker & Kuiper (2007: 739– 748) See page 3 of 2nd edition In a cyclical process, analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation take place interactively. Curriculum development often starts with analysing the existing setting and formulating intentions for the proposed change or innovation. Important activities in this phase include problem analysis, context analysis, needs analysis, and analysis of the knowledge base. Based on these activities, first design guidelines are drawn up. The design requirements are carefully developed, tested, and refined into a relevant and usable product. Evaluation plays an important role in this process, as can be seen from its central position in the model. Evaluation activities cast light on the users’ wishes and the possibilities that exist in their practical context, and reveal the best way to attune the product to the practical setting. When the product has sufficient relevance, consistency, and practical usability, its impact can be investigated. Whereas the primary emphasis is on generating suggestions for product improvement (formative evaluation), during later phases this emphasis shifts towards evaluating effectiveness (summative evaluation). 1.2.4 The nature and extent of curriculum design Subject experts and curriculum designers should work collaboratively to ensure that a curriculum serves national goals, qualification aims and developmental outcomes. The aims, outcomes, culture, context and purpose of the curriculum influence the structure of the curriculum as a whole. The purpose(s) of a curriculum should be considered, which could for instance include preparation for further or higher learning and/or preparation for participation in civil society and/or for employability. Clear, specific and well-defined aims should be aligned with the purpose and the subject methodology, which in turn should be suited to the interest and capacities of learners at a particular level. It is important for curriculum developers or policy makers also to think about how to organise the knowledge in the curriculum. The organising principle relates to the theory of knowledge but also includes reference to a specific subject methodology, both of which need to be congruent with the selection of content and the cognitive demands required at the particular level. The developers have to decide what learners have to learn (content and skills), in what particular order they have to learn (sequence) and in what space and time. The decision needs to be made that the content and concepts included in the curriculum should be fair and equitable for all the learners from the different socioeconomic groups in the country. The selection of key content and concepts for the subject should be guided by the discipline or knowledge area, but should also take into consideration the purpose of the curriculum. The content required and the skills expressed in the curriculum determine the teaching strategies and methodologies to be followed. Particular examples and activities linked to the specified content and skills will guide the teacher/ educator/ facilitator to ensure the appropriate sequencing of content in the particular subject, because some content needs to be dealt with before other content is tackled. This sequencing in turn ensures increasing complexity levels and differentiation in cognitive demand. Suggestions about how much time could reasonably be allocated to the various parts of the curriculum help teachers to identify the relative weighting (and importance) given to the various parts of the curriculum. The extent of curriculum design and the impact of a particular approach on the design is dealt with in more detail in section 1.3 of this chapter. 1.2.5 Considerations in curricular design for a diverse context – a situational analysis In curriculum design, the diversity in values, traditions, cultures, political regimes and educational structures are aspects to be considered. This means that a situational or context analysis of the environment should be done to determine enabling and limiting factors that might influence the implementation of a curriculum. The expectations of the 21st century and conceptual age, kinds of thinking and the way learners need to engage with and apply concepts also need to be considered in curriculum design. What is expected from a future workforce, research (Worldbank, 2012, 2014) and benchmarked examples of good practice are all part of a situational analysis. Skills to consider that would prepare learners more holistically and might assist teachers in the implementation of the curriculum include the following: 1. Sense-making: determine deeper meaning 2. Social intelligence: ability to connect to others in a deep and direct way, to sense and stimulate reactions and desired interactions 3. Novel and adaptive thinking: proficiency at thinking and coming up with solutions and responses beyond that which is rote or rule-based 4. Cross-cultural competency 5. Computational thinking: ability to translate vast amounts of data into abstract concepts and to understand data-based reasoning 6. New media literacy: ability to critically assess and develop content that uses new media forms, and to leverage these media for persuasive communication 7. Transdisciplinarity: literacy in and ability to understand concepts across multiple disciplines 8. Design mindset: ability to represent and develop tasks and work processes for desired outcomes 9. Cognitive load management: ability to discriminate and filter information for importance, and to understand how to maximise cognitive functioning using a variety of tools and techniques 10. Virtual collaboration: ability to work productively, drive engagement, and demonstrate presence as a member of a virtual team (Davies, Fidler & Corbis, 2011) While it is important to consider the context in curriculum design, it is also of crucial importance to see the context within a broader developmental framework. 1.3 APPROACHES TO CURRICULUM STUDIES 1.3.1 Curriculum dimensions – the questions about rationale, purpose, content, and skills inclusion in a curriculum Whether we are talking about a narrow or broad definition of curriculum, different curricula are based on a particular understanding of why a curriculum should be developed, what knowledge and applied knowledge (skills) to include in the curriculum, and how teaching should take place, i.e. what should be in a curriculum and how it should be implemented. The approach to the curriculum and its theoretical framing will differ according to the rationale (core intention) of the curriculum. Whatever the approach of curriculum developers, the purpose, goals and intended results must be clarified by asking the following questions: 1. Why this curriculum?  Rationale and clear purpose 2. What will be included in the curriculum?  Knowledge and skills 3. How will the knowledge and skills be organised?  Logical sequence  Progression of content and conceptual development  Teaching/learning methods 4. How will success be measured?  Assessment and its effects  Reality of practice The more complex society becomes, the greater the pressure on the education sector to do justice to a variety of social interests. Therefore, in order to avoid overloading a curriculum, it is important to prioritise and to make bold choices based on clear arguments. In the literature on curriculum development, three main sources for selecting and prioritising aims and content are mentioned:  Knowledge: academic and cultural heritage for learning and future development  Social preparation: issues relevant for inclusion from the perspective of societal trends and needs  Personal development: elements of importance for learning and development with regard to the personal and educational needs and interests of the learners themselves The questions asked when developing a curriculum require a closer look. 1. Why this curriculum?  Rationale and clear purpose The rationale of a curriculum presents the socio-political view of the learning to be undertaken: it explains the necessity for the learning proposed. The rationale also explains the view that is to be taken of the teaching-learning process and hence of the learner; for example, is the learner an active co- creator and participant in the classroom and beyond, or is he or she trained to be biddable, respectful, and unquestioning? The purpose provides an explanation in general terms of what the curriculum intends to help the learner to achieve. The purpose statement places the focus more on the discipline and its requirements. 2.What will be included in the curriculum?  Knowledge and skills The knowledge and skills to be acquired in the curriculum are chosen and included for different reasons, and will have to be aligned with the rationale and the purpose of the curriculum. For instance, knowledge can be organised into subjects; the different subjects are taught independently of one another, and only appear together when listed on the final certificate. Selection of key content and concepts for the subject should be guided by the discipline or knowledge area, but should also take into consideration the purpose of the curriculum. The content included and the skills required by the curriculum determine the teaching strategies and methodologies to be followed. Particular examples and activities linked to the specified content and skills will guide the teacher/educator/facilitator on how to deal with the particular content. The skills linked with the content should be expressed in the outcomes; that is, they cannot simply be identified by a phrase such as “case studies”. The phraseology must be something like “analyse the case study in terms of …” or “present a case study in which you indicate how …”. Content and skills specification must therefore  be clear, specific, and appropriate  acknowledge prior content that forms the stepping stones towards new content. Knowledge is taught in a logical order, in a step-by-step progression, with learners moving up the learning ladder. In this instance, the curriculum intends that learners acquire specific content and skills that are indicated as important, and aims to ensure that learners acquire this knowledge correctly. Knowledge and skills might also be chosen to enable learners to be active and creative, and to regulate their own learning. In this instance, learner competence will be important. In such a curriculum, the teacher is viewed as the one who guides learners along their individual paths towards a set of outcomes. Learners need to become competent in using knowledge for life. In this type of curriculum, the subjects have weak boundaries, meaning that knowledge is organised across subjects, by using themes or by combining different disciplines into an integrated area of knowledge (e.g. social sciences). The curriculum is made relevant to learners by incorporating aspects of everyday life with the subject knowledge. Different types of knowledge are mixed together and integrated. Knowledge is spread across subjects and is fitted into themes, so it does not follow a particular order or progression. In order to interpret and implement a curriculum with competence as a focal point, teachers need to work together and agree on the main idea that will focus the integration, and to assess whether they have a sufficiently broad range of knowledge and skills to enable them to integrate concepts across the different subjects. As this is not easy to do, it does require additional teacher education; this was a core need when working with, for instance, curricula based on Outcomes-Based Education (OBE), such as Curriculum 2005 (C2005) and the National Curriculum Statement (NCS). Two questions come to mind: what kind of knowledge can be included in a curriculum, and what role should abstract knowledge and everyday knowledge play in a curriculum? Taylor (1999) and others argue that there is a qualitative difference between thinking in terms of everyday/contextual knowledge and thinking in terms of abstract/school knowledge. Everyday contexts can be an important bridge to understanding abstract school learning, but they must be chosen with care, because much confusion can arise when everyday contexts are used to illustrate abstract knowledge. Abstract-structured knowledge, also called “school knowledge”, generalises, puts ideas together into concepts, and becomes increasingly less concrete – it makes statements that claim to be true for many different contexts. Table 1.1 summarises the differences between these two concepts. Table 1.1 Differences between school knowledge and everyday knowledge See page 10 of 2nd edition 3.How will the knowledge and skills be organised?  Logical sequence  Progression of content and conceptual development  Teaching/learning methods To “organise” is to put things together into an orderly, functional, structured whole and to arrange them in a coherent form. The importance of what the learners have to learn, in what particular order, and in what space and time, must be established. How knowledge is organised, and in what sequence, is central to framing learning. For example, knowledge should be relevant to the labour market, applicable in civil society, and mindful of learners’ and teachers’ cultural backgrounds. In curricular terms, the way in which the knowledge (content) is organised is called an “organising principle”. An organising principle is the basic method of arranging content so that key ideas can be located. Organising the knowledge (content) to be included in the curriculum according to an organising principle helps to simplify a particularly complicated domain and make it easier for the users to grasp. The overarching approach in a curriculum provides an indication of – and the motivation for – the particular principle or set of principles according to which the curriculum is organised; for example, whether it is organised around outcomes, objectives, unit standards, etc. This organising principle shapes the emphasis in the curriculum: all elements of the curriculum draw their classification and value from the way the curriculum is organised. It is important to notice that two organising principles relate to curriculum development in general. The first is related to the theory of knowledge espoused in the curriculum as seen in the outcomes, assessment standards, subject and/or teaching methodology, etc. For example, it may presuppose an approach in which the participatory learner is seen as central to the learning process, or one where the learner is simply regarded as the recipient of the required information. The second organising principle is associated with the discipline or subject itself. It refers to the idea(s) forming the basis of the selection, sequencing, pacing, level and assessment of knowledge in a curriculum. The organising principle of the subject should allow for appropriate sequencing of different skills and content areas – over the course of the year and across grades/years of study. The internal principles of the subject’s discipline(s) and theoretical framework(s) direct the logical progression of content and skill development. To ensure coherence in the curriculum, sensitivity to the choice of topics/content/elements and their ordered connectedness to the organising principle should be practised. Coherence within the curriculum must mirror the coherence of the discipline. In addition to choosing the most relevant knowledge (content) and skills to be included in the curriculum the sequencing of content also needs to be designed in a manner that allows for a consistent and coherent curriculum. Suggestions about how much time could reasonably be allocated to the various parts of the curriculum, help teachers/examiners to pace the teaching. The relative importance allocated to the content will also impact on pacing. It is furthermore important to know that the organising principle relates to the theory of knowledge, but also includes reference to a specific subject methodology, both of which must be congruent with the selection of content and the cognitive demands required at the particular level. 4.How will success be measured?  Assessment and its effects  Reality of practice Although the most common assessment purposes are to grade and sort, to promote, select, or merely evaluate, assessment should rather be shaped as a process and opportunity for both teacher and learner. The learner should be challenged to demonstrate what he/she has learnt, preferably in a way that indicates his/her capacity to use that knowledge in a related, but novel context. Assessment should also provide for the systematic collection of information about what the learner has learnt (and has not yet learnt). How to use the information for improving learners’ learning should be central to the curriculum. Assessment guidance in the curriculum should have certain characteristics. It should  be clear, explicit and comprehensive, especially with respect to the kinds of tasks and the evaluation criteria to be used for internal assessment  identify the number – and nature – of tasks specified for internal assessment  clearly specify the kinds of tasks and the evaluation criteria to be used for external assessment  identify the number – and nature – of tasks specified for external assessment. A guideline document is intended to assist the teacher in preparing the learner for site-based assessment as well as the examination. It should be viewed as a resource that indicates how the content in a particular subject should be unpacked for assessment. It also indicates the content knowledge that could be assessed. For instance, a guideline document should provide clarity on how specific outcomes and /or assessment criteria are weighted. The possible teaching and learning support materials relevant to the outcome(s) being assessed should also be highlighted. The guideline document should not aim to be prescriptive, but rather to provide structured guidance for teaching and assessment. The document helps to create a uniform framework for examinations and formative (continuous/internal/site-based) assessments in order to minimise significant differences in approaches to examinations. It needs to be remembered that no assessment or examination can possibly cover all the skills and content that the learners will learn: assessment must, however, cover a representative portion of what learners will have to learn. Table 1.2 compares approaches to curriculum development and their implications. Table 1.2 Various approaches to curriculum development and implications for teachers and learners See page 12 of 2nd edition Source: Du Plessis, Conley & Du Plessis (2007: 41–42) Further discussion in this chapter focuses on three approaches to the selection of knowledge, choice of teaching methodology, attitude to learners, and strategies for assessment: an objectives (instrumental) approach (Tyler); a process approach (Stenhouse); and a pragmatic, socio-political purpose approach (Freire). 1.3.2 The objectives (instrumental) approach – Ralph Tyler (1902–1994) In Ralph Tyler’s approach, the trichotomy of knowledge, social preparation, and personal development is clearly articulated. Tyler believed that the needs of the subject discipline, the society, and the learners together should determine the educational objectives. In his view, a good curriculum strikes the right balance between these three perspectives. Tyler’s views about curriculum development are known by some as the “instrumental approach”. The instrumental approach emphasises the importance of a systematic design process. Based on thorough analysis, clear and measurable objectives for the development process are formulated. These objectives provide the reference points for the design process (planning by objectives). Tyler assumed learning to be the ultimate purpose of schooling, and therefore a curriculum should be designed in such a manner that effective learning can take place. He held the linear technical production perspective that educational decisions should be made objectively, primarily by experts with specialised knowledge. He based educational decision making on determining the ends before deciding on the means. Tyler’s curriculum involved planning, implementation and evaluation aspects (see Figure 1.2). Tyler (as cited by Posner, 1998) suggests that the following be considered in curriculum planning: Decide what educational purposes the school should seek to attain. Purposes or “objectives” should be derived from systematic studies of the learners and contemporary society, and from expert advice and analyses by subject specialists. Determine what educational experiences can be provided that are most likely to attain the indicated purposes. Experiences should be consistent with the set objectives. Educational experiences are justified by the objectives that they serve. Find ways to organise the educational experiences effectively. Experiences should build on one another and enable learners to understand the relationships that link their learning activities. To create such a cumulative effect, attention should be given to the sequence of experiences within a subject field, for instance Mathematics, and to the integration of knowledge across fields. There are certain concepts, skills, and values that are sufficiently complex to require repeated study at increasing levels of sophistication. The application of these concepts can be broad and pervasive enough to enable learners to relate one field with another. Determine whether the educational purposes are being attained. Behavioural evidence should be the criterion for assessing whether the objectives of the curriculum have been attained. Objective evaluation instruments such as tests, questionnaires and work samples can be used. Evaluation (assessment) is necessary to find out whether learning experiences actually produce the intended results (Tyler, 1982:164–174). Tyler’s view was that the teacher must specify the educational purpose by listing the behavioural objectives; select content and teaching activities that fit the objectives; let teachers implement this prescription; and end with assessing whether the learners have met the objectives. Figure 1.2 shows that this means-end reasoning process should be a logical thinking and planning process, where the evaluation serves not only as the primary justification for the objectives (means), but also as the starting point when planning. This means that there is a clearly definable cause that results in an effect. Tyler would always ask: “How can one decide on educational means by referring to the educational ends?” The strength of Tyler’s approach lies in its simplicity: the complex design process is reduced to just a handful of questions. Tyler also emphasises the importance of a rational and goal-directed approach. By systematically answering the four main questions based on factual arguments, the validity and internal consistency of a curricular product can be enhanced. However, critics also point to a few disadvantages of this objectives (instrumental) approach. The strong emphasis on the attainment of predetermined objectives leaves little flexibility to adjust to the often-changing needs of users and the growing insights of designers. Furthermore, Tyler’s approach focuses on technical, empirical data, whereas education is also concerned with personal views and opinions; in addition, socio-political aspects play a prominent role in many curricular issues. Tyler presented the concept that curriculum should be dynamic and offered the innovative idea that teachers and administrators should spend as much time evaluating their plans as they do assessing their learners. Figure 1.2 The means-end rationality in Tylerian planning See page 15 of 2nd edition According to Tyler, decisions regarding the instructional method and content should be reserved for people with technical expertise. He argued that only technical experts would not allow their own values to cloud the objectivity of their work. Even decisions about the purpose of learning should be based on specialised knowledge, developed from studies of learners and their societies regarding what they should learn, or on subject-matter expertise. Table 1.3 Summary of Tyler’s ideas See page 16 of 2nd edition 1.3.3 The process approach – Lawrence Stenhouse (1926–1982) Stenhouse was a British educational thinker who sought to promote an active role for teachers in educational research and curriculum development. He believed that curriculum development was quite a “messy process”, as teachers ought to research while they teach, evaluate as they research, and may change course in the process of teaching. Stenhouse therefore argued that curriculum proposals should be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and should be subject to ongoing change. Curriculum proposals should also be related to what happens as courses develop, and should call for adaptations in the light of what happens in practice (Stenhouse, 1975). Though Stenhouse viewed the classic objectives approach to curriculum research and planning as a useful one within limits, he expressed reservations about advocating it as a universally valid and obligatory model for curriculum designers. He cited the following limitations:  Firstly, the objectives approach has a tendency to reduce content to an instrumental role. This appears to have serious shortcomings in certain subject areas, such as the arts, and it fails to take advantage of the support offered by structured content – the disciplines.  Secondly, Stenhouse was of the opinion that the objectives model drastically and significantly oversimplifies the educational situation. He believed that many of the problems of education stemmed not so much from its content as from the terms and conditions under which learners were required to access it. Consequently, he pioneered an approach to curriculum development and reform that stressed the quality of the educational process and the values that defined it. He argued that a plan changes in the process of implementation, and that teachers are professionals whose decision to change a plan in response to the needs of their learners should be respected. Stenhouse referred to the complexity of the multivariate situation in which curriculum research and planning must operate. A curriculum should provide areas of knowledge and guidelines for teaching, but should be written as a suggestion and not a prescription. Teachers should research as they teach, evaluate that research, and change course in the process of teaching if necessary. Curriculum proposals should be descriptive rather than prescriptive and subject to ongoing change. They should be adapted in response to what happens in practice as courses develop (Stenhouse, 1975: 84–97). Stenhouse also valued the development of individuality through a creative and critical engagement with culture. He was an early advocate of inclusive education and was committed to making an education available to all learners that was both challenging and empowering. His idea of “the teacher as researcher” lay at the heart of the process approach to curriculum as the means by which a worthwhile educational process could be progressively realised by teachers, through concrete forms of action within their classrooms and schools. Table 1.4 Summary of Stenhouse’s ideas See page 18 of 2nd edition Elliot and Norris (2012) summarise Stenhouse’s unique contribution to the field of curriculum as his distinctive conceptualisation of the relationship between the teacher, the learner, and the subject matter. They concur with other researchers that Stenhouse acquired an acute appreciation of the ways in which teaching enhances or inhibits, develops or displaces the potential for autonomous thinking in learners. In their view, Stenhouse changed the relationship between curriculum theory, educational research, and teachers; placing teachers right at the heart of the curriculum development process and the teacher as researcher at the heart of developing teaching professionalism. 1.3.4 Paolo Freire’s (1921–1997) pragmatic approach intertwined with a socio-political purpose The future isn’t something hidden in a corner. The future is something we build in the present.– Paolo Freire While working with out-of-school learners, Paolo Freire added a political /power-relationship perspective to the study of curriculum design by arguing that one must recognise that a curriculum is never value-neutral; thus one needs to look carefully at the hidden aspect of curriculum, since learning has the power to oppress or liberate the learners (Gerhardt, 1993: 453). Freire wanted to move away from context-free objectives, competitive and external evaluation, dualistic models that separate teacher and learner, meaning and context learning and environment, and models of linear progress through value-neutral information transmission. Freire’s focus on people’s understanding of and interaction with the world has been of great significance to those teachers who have traditionally worked with “those who do not have a voice” and who are oppressed. The idea of building a pedagogy of the oppressed or, more positively, a pedagogy of hope, and how this work may be carried forward, has been the aspect of his work with the most significant impact. An important element of Freire’s thinking was his concern with “conscientisation” – or the developing of consciousness that is understood to have the power to transform reality (Taylor, 1993: 52). What we teach and the way in which we teach either deepens learners’ feelings of powerlessness or assists them to address the reasons for their lack of power. According to Freire, a curriculum either empowers or it domesticates; it is always political. Hence, as teachers, we cannot ignore the political questions. Paolo Freire promulgated educational ideas and methods to ensure liberation through education. Freire’s criteria for developing, for instance, a language curriculum, are that it should be context- sensitive, ought to have phonetic value, and whenever possible should begin with simple, applicable, and appropriate words that serve a purpose in the process of understanding. Freire emphasised dialogue (communication) as important for all concerned in education. For him, dialogue was not just about deepening understanding, but was part of making a difference in the world. Dialogue in itself is a cooperative activity and can be seen as enhancing the community and building social capital (Smith 1997, 2002). Freire’s thinking focused attention on what the rationale, the purpose, and the aims of a curriculum should include (see Table 1.5). As mentioned earlier, in general, the purpose(s) of a curriculum may be single or manifold, and could include preparation for further or higher learning and /or preparation for participation in civil society and/or for employability. Freire’s thinking was that the purpose of curriculum should be to liberate learners, to free their potential, and to provide opportunities to find and express their own agency (Smith, 1997, 2002). Freire’s emphasis brought a new awareness of what the curriculum is intended to help the learner achieve. These achievements are frequently expressed as objectives, outcomes, or abilities that a learner can demonstrate. Besides the focus on the rationale of a curriculum, Freire valued the inclusion of well-defined aims in the curriculum. These aims need to provide further direction for what is intended to be achieved through the implementation of the curriculum. In general, well-defined aims clarify the relationship of the current curriculum to other levels of the education system and should therefore be  suited to the likely context(s) of the target group in which the subject will be taught and learnt  clear and specific  understandable and useful to those using curriculum documents  aligned with the purpose and the subject methodology, which in turn should be suited to the interests and capacities of learners at this level  based on and linked to a particular theoretical framework. It is important to keep in mind that the intended aims, purpose and outcomes, culture and context influence the structure of the curriculum as a whole. Table 1.5 Summary of Freire’s ideas See page 20 of 2nd edition In summary, the following aspects of Paolo Freire’s work have a particular significance for our discussion.  Freire emphasised dialogue as a working relationship between teacher and learner, a cooperative activity that involves mutual respect. For Freire, dialogue presupposes trust, mutual respect and commitment; and through the process of dialogue, thoughts will change and new knowledge will be created. He viewed dialogue as a way of making a difference in the world (Freire & Macedo, 1995: 379).  Freire’s insistence on situating educational activity in the lived experience of participants has opened up a series of possibilities for the way in which informal teachers can approach practice. His concern with looking for words that can generate new ways of naming and acting in the world when working with people around literacies is a good example of this. 1.3.5 Tyler, Stenhouse, Freire and the interpretation and implementation of a curriculum South Africa embarked on a radical transformation of education and training between 1989 and 1994, and subsequently during reviews of the curriculum. One of the most challenging aspects of the initial transformation was the adoption of an OBE approach that underpinned the introduction of C2005. C2005 tried to capture aspects of all three of the approaches discussed above, but just as there was tension between the three different approaches of Tyler, Stenhouse and Freire, so there was tension between different aspects of policy (see Chapter 3). Tyler used the narrow definition of curriculum, while Stenhouse argued for a broader definition, and Freire simply assumed a broader definition. But that was only their starting point. The main focus of their debate was on what should go into a curriculum and how it should be approached (see Table 1.6). For this reason, these different approaches become useful tools for sharpening our understanding and interpretation of C2005, both its revisions and the amended NCS, referred to as the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS). The CAPS is discussed in more detail in Chapters 3 and 4. Table 1.6 Approaches to curriculum planning according to Tyler, Stenhouse, and Freire: a summary See page 21 of 2nd edition The following universal principles in approaches to curriculum, but also to teaching and learning, are to be found in the views of Tyler, Stenhouse and Freire, as shown in Table 1.6:  Experiential learning  Clarity of focus  Expanding opportunities  Defining outcomes, aims or objectives  Importance of knowledge, skills, and values  Evidence of achievement  Individual learning  What and whether we learn is more important than when we learn it Tyler wanted structure in the teaching and learning situation and argued that there should be clarity of focus in what to teach, how to teach, and how to assess what has been taught. Therefore, the first step in effective teaching is to define objectives (outcomes), keeping in mind that these objectives should be context-bound. The teacher should ask four basic questions: 1. What educational purposes should the school seek to achieve? By “purpose” Tyler was referring to behavioural objectives (developed by gathering information from three sources: the subject matter, the learners and society). 2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to achieve these purposes? 3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organised? 4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being achieved? Tyler argued that individual learning would ensure that each learner achieved the set objectives (outcomes). We can interpret this to mean that educational experiences should be derived from objectives, based on the results of an analysis of the situation (learner, subject, society), and that objectives should be filtered through a philosophical/psychological screen before being finalised. It is important to develop citizens who are able to solve problems and who can engage in democratic processes. The principles mentioned above have their roots in the competency-based education movement and in mastery learning. They are based upon the premise that we can help learners to create definite and reliable evidence of achievement. This model focuses on the need to create favourable learning conditions in terms of time, teaching strategies, and learning success. A more detailed look at competency-based learning reveals that Stenhouse’s ideas of a teaching- learning process prepare learners for success in fulfilling various roles. It is important to test, adapt, and evaluate the process to see whether it is an enlightening one, and in this manner, expand opportunities for application. Stenhouse stressed the importance of doing research while teaching and of following the route of “design down, deliver up” – a developmental process where the teacher can change the teaching-learning environment according to context and learners’ needs. The learner should change in the teaching-learning process to internalise information and form opinions of his or her own. Mastery learning promotes the idea that all learners can achieve the desired teaching outcomes if given favourable learning conditions, such as flexibility, sufficient time, and alternative ways of learning. Freire focused on these aspects; he wanted teachers and curriculum developers to make sure that educational experiences could be used in real life. Experiential learning was of the utmost importance: learners should be able to reflect on the value of learning. What is also considered here is the perception of what the ideal learner in a particular field should look like, be like, act like and think like. Freire felt it was important to identify specific knowledge in order to attain a skill that could be applied in practice as the connection between reflection and action. 1.3.6 The impact of these approaches in terms of curriculum interpretation If we translate the approaches described above into teaching and learning principles, methodology, the use of learning materials and assessment, then teaching implies providing the learner with learning experiences; and guiding, supporting and mediating the learning content by facilitating understanding. Learning implies the development of not only the learner’s knowledge, but also his or her understanding of concepts, skills, activities, and values. All these should then be based on interaction between teacher, learner, context, and content. Learning is relevant to the real-life situations and experiences of the learner; therefore cross-curricular integration of knowledge and skills might prepare learners for reality and the world of work. Some examples of methodology and teaching strategies are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2, but in short, they imply that teaching involves critical thinking and reasoning, reflection and action. Learners must take responsibility for their learning by being actively involved in the teaching-learning process. This also means that the teacher should use a variety of approaches and learning material to accommodate different learning styles. Assessment is viewed as an integral part of teaching and learning, is continuous, and is based on a wide variety of techniques apart from testing. Feedback in connection with assessment is valued as part of learning. Assessment is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. 1.4 CONCLUSION An understanding of the theoretical background of a curriculum is essential for its interpretation and subsequent implementation, which includes planning for teaching and structures that enable learning to take place. The views of Tyler, Stenhouse, and Freire elucidate the interpretation and implementation of the curriculum. Although the focus in this chapter was on the instrumental (objectives) approach, the process approach, and a pragmatic (purpose) approach, a holistic perspective is essential to encourage the emergence of compassion, optimal learning environments, equitable relationships, and ecological sustainability, which are echoed in the postmodern philosophy of curriculum development. The chapters to follow provide background that highlights the importance of context: context of meaning, and the understanding of rootedness in terms of time and place. This means that understanding context, policies, the place of knowledge, and applied knowledge influences how the curriculum is interpreted and implemented. REVIEW QUESTIONS 1) Explain briefly how the “intended curriculum” differs from the “enacted curriculum”. 2) Define the term “covert curriculum”. 3) Briefly explain what is meant by “an approach” to curriculum design. 4) What is the difference between a “curriculum” and “syllabus”? 5) Ralph Tyler (product), Lawrence Stenhouse (process) and Paulo Freire (pragmatic) had different views on curriculum design and development. Discuss the core features of these views by using the guided questions below: 5.1 Which principles for selecting content and making decisions about sequencing the content underpin each approach? 5.2 What is the intended role of the learner and that of the teacher? 5.3 How is the place of assessment being viewed? What evidence could you find of a focus on assessment as and for learning in the approaches? 5.4 What is the most valuable aspect of each approach? 6. Whatever the approach followed by curriculum developers, how can developers ensure more coherency in a curriculum? 7. If a curriculum developer wants to prepare learners for instance for the 21st century, what skills should be included, in particular for the diverse South African context? 8. Curriculum development focuses on improvement and innovation in education. During this process, which may take many years – especially where generic curriculum development is concerned – and which extends beyond a specific local context, desires and ideals are incorporated in a cyclical process of design, implementation and evaluation to achieve concrete results in practice. Discuss the core activities in curriculum development by referring to the cyclical process. 9. Write an essay in response to the following statement: In the enactment of the curriculum, it is insufficient for the educator to frame the development of learning programmes and instructional designs in a narrow perspective of the term “curriculum”. Discuss this statement in an essay of three to four pages. In your answer, I. describe the different ways of understanding “curriculum” II. describe what universal principles are applicable in the interpretation of a curriculum III. describe the factors that would influence the way a curriculum is being implemented (enacted) in a particular context, considering that the curriculum is not neutral; is politically loaded and carries values. To illustrate your argument s,use examples from the prescribed book and from your own experience 2. Influences on the teacher’s interpretation of curriculum 2.1 INTRODUCTION The way in which we interpret the world around us is determined partly by our beliefs, values and norms, but mostly by contextual influences. The teacher’s interpretation and implementation of a curriculum is also influenced by context and his or her understanding of how learners learn. Choices regarding planning, the inclusion of particular instructional strategies, and practical application are embedded in knowledge and an understanding of the educational situation. Influences that affect teaching and learning range from the political, social, and economic culture to the norms and knowledge structures of teachers. This chapter aims to help teachers understand these contextual influences, because this is a prerequisite for being able to design teaching strategies that enable learning to take place. 2.2 THE IMPACT OF CONTEXT ON CURRICULUM INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION Context can be described as the circumstances, background, environment, framework, setting, or situation surrounding an event or occurrence. In terms of the educational environment, the view of the child, the choice of teaching strategies, reflection on roles, and the broader socio-economic and socio- political environment might influence the teaching and learning context and the way in which the teacher might interpret the curriculum. 2.2.1 A socio-constructivist view of the impact of context on curriculum interpretation Lev Vygotsky, an educationist who argued for a socio-constructionist perspective in education, was a young man during the Russian Revolution (1917–1918), a time of great change in his culture and society. He believed that the lifelong process of development is dependent on social interaction, and that social learning actually leads to cognitive development (Vygotsky, 1978). Traditionally, schools have not promoted environments in which learners play an active role in their own education as well as that of their peers. Vygotsky’s theory, however, requires teachers and learners to play non-traditional roles as they collaborate with each other, because both are influenced by the contexts in which they live, teach, and learn. Instead of teachers dictating meaning to learners for future recitation, they should collaborate with learners in order to create meaning in ways that learners can make their own (Hausfather, 1996). Learning becomes a reciprocal experience for both learners and teachers. This means that a teacher cannot ignore context when planning and during the process of developing learning programmes. According to Vygotsky’s theory, the physical classroom should provide clustered desks or tables and workspaces for peer learning, collaboration, and small-group learning. Like the environment, the learning material should be structured to promote and encourage learner interaction and collaboration. Thus, the classroom becomes a community of learning. Because Vygotsky asserts that cognitive change occurs within the zone of proximal development, instruction should be designed to reach a developmental level that is just above the learner’s current developmental level. Vygotsky (1978) argues that the overall development of the child and a new stage of the development process should be kept in mind when learning is planned. Appropriation is necessary for cognitive development within the zone of proximal development. Individuals participating in peer collaboration or guided teaching must share the same focus in order to access the zone of proximal development. “Furthermore, it is essential that the “partners” in this educational environment be on different developmental levels, and that the higher-level partner be aware of the lower partner’s level. If this does not occur, or if one partner dominates, the interaction is less successful. This is why joint attention and a common understanding of the problem-solving process are needed to create a cognitive, social, and emotional interchange between the “partners” in the educational environment (Driscoll, 1994; Hausfather, 1996). This requires the teacher to have a good understanding of contextual influences in terms of planning, instructional design, and assessment in the teaching-learning environment. 2.2.2 The influence of changes in the South African context on curriculum The context in which we live has undergone significant economic, political and social changes in recent years (see Figure 2.1). These changes are not necessarily of South Africa’s making, but are economic imperatives driven by global factors. They are nevertheless influencing the new educational policies in our country. The type of learner we produced in the past no longer meets the requirements of our rapidly changing world, so we have to explore a variety of forms of assessment to meet today’s requirements. Figure 2.1 Contextual influences on education Source: Steinberg (2006). See page 28 of 2nd edition In the South African situation, we can accept that the following social structures have had a powerful impact on the South African curriculum:  The changing economic relations as a result of the transition from an agrarian to an industrial economy  The shifting power relations both within and between power groups in connection with economic changes  The shifts in ruling-group ideology necessitated by and contributing to these changes Why was it necessary to change the approach to teaching and learning and the curriculum framework? In all countries, national curriculum frameworks shape and give direction to teaching and learning. They set out a country’s educational goals. 2.2.2.1 The key economic forces that drive the South African education system One of the forces that drives our new education system is globalisation. Since South Africa’s first democratic elections in 1994, we have re-entered the world economy, which means that the economy of the country has to grow at a rate that is comparable to the growth rates of countries in the rest of the world. But has this happened? There are also global expectations in terms of skills and ways of thinking, capacity to drive the economy, and performance of education systems and in international tests, such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). According to the United Nations Development Programme Report (2015: 209), South Africa is currently rated 116 out of 188 countries on the United Nations Human Development Index with an HDI value of 0.666 for 2014, thus falling in the medium human development category. This suggests that our country is not producing people capable of competing with their counterparts in other parts of the world in terms of producing high-quality goods cost-effectively. Does this have something to do with how we plan, teach, and assess? Does the education system focus on providing the learner with the right skills and attitudes to enter the job market? The economist, Nobel Prize winner, and Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, James J. Heckman, argues strongly that the economic strength of any nation depends on the skills of its people. According to Heckman (2000; 2007), the emphasis in education should be on human capital development and the enhancement of life skills, with a special emphasis on the economics of early childhood. The context in which the development of human capital takes place should be considered, and should be coupled with the enhancement of non-cognitive skills such as self-discipline and persistence, which affect educational attainment. Ndhlovu, Bertram, Mthiyane and Avery (1999: 54) confirm that we need to develop “economic capital; money and physical resources as well as ‘human’ capital; people with knowledge, skills and [positive] attitudes”. They further stress that we need to develop and assess entrepreneurial abilities to enable people to start their own businesses, thus providing employment for themselves and others (Ndhlovu et al., 1999: 54). In an effort to develop human capital in South Africa, trade unions such as the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), and educational initiatives of their time such as the National Education Policy Initiative, organised business initiatives such as the Private Sector Education Council and the National Training Board. The ANC and other stakeholders began to debate and explore the unification of education and training in South Africa. There was growing consensus regarding the need to transform education and training and to address the difficult issues facing development. All the parties agreed that the following needs had to be addressed:  Change perceptions that mental work has more value than manual work.  Change perceptions that academic education has a higher value than technical-vocational education.  Close the gap between what schools deliver and what success in the workplace requires.  Achieve equity in providing quality education, learning resources, and access to education.  Improve national productivity in order to be internationally competitive. COSATU has been exploring international trends in training since the 1980s. Its discussions helped the ANC to formulate a proposal for a National Qualifications Framework (NQF). This was to be a single national framework that would bring together all education and training under one authority. In June 1995, a draft NQF bill was published, and in October 1995 an act was passed to establish the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) to govern, manage, and recognise all educational and training qualifications in South Africa. In 1996, the SAQA Board was appointed and the NQF, one of the first formal structures of its kind in the world, became a reality. The National Qualifications Framework (NQF) Act 67 of 2008 repealed the South African Qualifications Authority Act of 1995. The NQF Act (67 of 2008) provides for the National Qualifications Framework, the Minister of Higher Education and Training, the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA), Quality Councils, transitional arrangements and matters connected therewith. The NQF Act was amended in 2010. 2.2.2.2 Influences from South Africa’s social context The South African education system encourages learners to develop tolerance and understanding for people who are different from themselves. The social aim is to break free from any form of prejudice or stereotyping, and to reflect a global move towards a world in which the spiritual aspects of our existence are valued, rather than simply our rational thinking abilities. This might explain why many South African policies emphasise holism and educating the whole person. 2.2.2.3 Influences from South Africa’s political context As history shows, those in power tend to give education a “flavour and form” that reflects their interests. Over the past 23 years, political changes in South Africa have been focused on removing the legacies of the apartheid regime, in particular the aspects of segregation and inequality. Democracy has also found its way into school structures, and governance is now in the hands of the school community: the parents, teachers, and learners. This signals a move away from the highly centralised, tightly controlled bureaucratic system of the past to a more open, flexible, democratic and participatory system. Schools are central to building a new culture of tolerance in South Africa. One way in which this can be achieved is by building more democratic and participatory structures. Another way might be through teaching learners the skills and attitudes that will enable them to participate critically, promote tolerance of differences, eliminate prejudices, and foster respect. South Africa’s past teaching practices were aimed at learning with the intent to promote and achieve a particular result, while Outcomes-Based Education perceived attainment in terms of whether specific outcomes had been achieved. The current national curricula are organised around topics and have a content-driven character. In future, traditional modes might be combined with objective-driven or content-based education. All of these will be determined by the acceptance of particular approaches in the educational environment, and the roles that teachers and learners should play in the teaching- learning environment. 2.2.2.4 The influence of diverse contexts: Africanisation and decolonisation If we think about Africanisation and decolonisation, we think about transformation and the diverse African context. A transformation is “a thorough or dramatic change”. Not all such changes are positive. Thus, those who seek particular changes need to demonstrate that they are desirable ones (Benatar, 2017). Advocates of “transformation” also claim that the curriculum needs to be “decolonised” or “Africanised”. It is very difficult to understand what exactly this is meant to imply. Decolonisation and Africanisation are not similar. Decolonisation is the undoing of colonialism, i.e. where a nation establishes and maintains its domination over dependent territories (Wikipedia, 2017); while Africanisation is generally seen as a renewed focus on Africa – reclaiming what has been taken from Africa – and the emergence of a new sense of pride. With regard to the local curriculum, there is a renewed focus on indigenous knowledge and an African community competing in a global society (Louw, 2010: 42). It is about affirming the African culture and its identity; in a word: community. Africanisation is also the process of defining or interpreting African identity and culture – a learning process and a way of life for Africans (Louw, 2010: 42). It entails aspects such as African character, making something African in nature, bringing under African influence, adapting to African necessities, or simply becoming African. Decolonisation, on the other hand, implies taking responsibility for independent thought, and understanding the condition that make us who we are (Gordon, 2015 in Cross & Ndofirepi, 2017). Decolonisation as a universal aspiration may or may not coincide with identifying as African or South African, in both the general and inclusive sense; and the exclusionary, parochial and indigenous sense (Nyamnjoh, 2016). “Decoloniality” (and all its technical terminology) is one particular perspective among many, and is not the obviously right one to adopt. Decolonisation as a political, economic, intellectual, cultural and social project owes its origins to resistance to Empire as the predominant form of imperialism prevalent at the onset of the early twentieth century. It is associated with a range of activists such as Gandhi, Nkrumah and Tambo, and intellectuals such as Biko, Plaatje, Fanon, Cesaire, Achebe and Ngugi, who began writing from the 1950s. By the 1970s, movements enriched through resistance politics (whether pacifism as adopted by Gandhi or Tambo in the early years, or active resistance as adopted by Mandela, Mugabe, Slovo and Njoma) and cultural production, began to question issues concerning equality in a more fundamental manner, calling to account not only assumptions made in the colonial project, but also the role, purpose and future possibilities of institutions founded in the colonial period by colonial powers, whether for settler or ‘native’ populations. Key to this questioning was a concern with the impact of exploitation (economic) and associated dehumanisation on the peoples conquered by Western imperial powers. In South Africa the most recent manifestations of this intellectual work can be found in Peoples Education and Equal Education which gained currency in the 1970s and 1980s, preparing the way for the substantive revisions to the curriculum and the education sector after 1995 (EDF Colloquium, 2017). Histories of the scramble for Africa and the African, Indian and Chinese diasporas abound (e.g. Chappell, 1995), and the scholarship of decolonisation was by the 1980s a fully-fledged part of university canons, though not focused on equally or to the same extent across the hemispheres. Indeed, the degree to which post-colonial literatures and post-conflict scholarship (found typically in disciplines like History, Literature, Languages, Sociology and Anthropology) come to be embedded in the formal curriculum of schools or universities depends largely still on geopolitical context (the use of indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) in the Sciences, for example, is still relatively rare). The great strides made in South Africa between 1995 and 2004 cannot be underestimated and provided the foundations for an education system that aspired to quality provision, equal access, and the generation of new knowledge suited to the new needs of a modern and recently emancipated South Africa. The knowledge generation (or intellectual) project, however, has been slow in part because changing institutions and political structures can be undertaken more easily than changing people and values, or developing a new generation of academics (EDF Colloquium, 2017). It is sometimes suggested that African ways of thinking should be affirmed and that “European” or “Western” ways of thinking should not be privileged. One problem with this suggestion is that it oversimplifies “African” and “European” ways of thinking. For example, the ways of thinking that characterised European universities or schools several hundred years ago have changed. If European universities had insisted, as conservatives might have wanted, on preserving traditional European thinking, there would not have been the advances in knowledge that did occur (Benatar, 2017). Similarly, if advocates of decolonisation insist on strict adherence to traditional African ways of thinking, there would be similar stagnation. The success of modern universities and schools is not based on self- consciously pursuing or affirming traditional or ethnic-specific ways of thinking. Instead, the goal is to pursue knowledge as a common human endeavour. Thus, we should be interested in whatever methodologies and innovations work, and adopt them irrespective of their origin. Europeans did not reject Indo-Arabic numerals on the grounds that they were not of European origin. (This is one illustration of the fact that not everything brought to South Africa by Europeans was European in origin.) (Benatar, 2017). Parts of the school curriculum are already Africanised in some sense – African languages, literature, and religion are taught. This is entirely appropriate, but not all disciplines lend themselves to Africanisation. It is not clear, for example, what it would mean to “decolonise” Physics or Mathematics. There is only universal Mathematics – not European or African or Asian mathematics. For Louw (2010: 43), “Africanisation reflects our common legacy, history and postcolonial experience. Through this legacy, we have to connect with the broader African experience and establish a curriculum that binds us together. We then confront our own sense of Africanness, transcend our individual identity, seek our commonality, and recognise and embrace our otherness”. As curriculum designers, we can ask the following questions: What can we adopt and adapt from the West? What has the West adopted from Africa? What must we reject as detrimental? How can we integrate what we borrow with our own continuities? If we can answer these questions, we can design a holistic, Afrocentric curriculum within a learning environment that supports values where all learners belong and are able to share their opinions – whether these are derived from traditional African or Western cultures – in other words, the curriculum should be collectively created. To accommodate all learners within a diverse context, a classroom without barriers, in which we are all co-learners, should be part of our teaching strategy. Not only does this provide each individual with a sense of belonging, it also has the potential to unify a very diverse community with diverse cultures and values. 2.2.2.5 The influence of the educational system, infrastructure and policies on interpretation and implementation of the curriculum Since 1994, South Africa has undergone a great deal of educational change. Before 1994, the education system was unequal and fractured (there were 19 different educational departments), and was separated according to racial, geographic, and ideological lines. The emphasis was on what the teacher would do rather than on what the learner would be able to do at the end of the learning experience. Working in an outcomes-based teaching/learning environment changed the role of the teacher: he or she became a facilitator, and the learner had to take more responsibility for active learning. Future changes might once again emphasise the role of the teacher as that of transmitter of facts and concepts. The roles of teacher and learner are closely linked to the broader framework and aims of a curriculum. Following the 1994 elections, one of the first tasks of the National Education and Training Forum was to begin a process in which the national curricula were revised, and certain subjects were rationalised (i.e. phased out). The purpose of this was to lay the foundations for a single, national core curriculum following an outcomes-based approach, with the intended result that the learner would be able to achieve critical and developmental outcomes. The White Paper on Education and Training, the South African Qualifications Act (Act 58 of 1995) and the National Education Policy Act (Act 27 of 1996) provided a framework for these educational changes. The NQF was created to bring together education and training, thus closing the gap between the two. The principles that support the NQF ensure that the NQF will promote everything we do in South Africa to develop our people. The philosophy of the NQF asserts that good learning contributes to national development, and recognises that individual learners have different needs. The NQF holds that all learning must be recognised and valued, that achievement standards should be transparent and uniform, and that learning should be a lifelong activity (Kramer, 1999). All this has an impact on how the teacher interprets and implements the curriculum. Working at a secondary teaching level requires the teacher to also take note of the Higher Education Qualifications Sub-framework as an integral part of the NQF, and to ensure the formal recognition and certification of learning achievement awards by an accredited institution (see Chapter 3). 2.3 CURRICULUM, CONTEXT, AND THE TEACHER The ideas of Ornstein and Hunkins (1998) regarding a broader definition of “curriculum” agree with the views of Grundy (1987), Kraak (1998) and Killen (2007), who acknowledge both intended and unintended learning, and who view a curriculum as a social construct. This means that a particular society’s culture will influence the development of a particular sort of curriculum, just as that curriculum will, in its turn, contribute to shaping and forming that society and its culture. Education is a dialogic process, both formative and transformative (Freire, 1976). Necessarily, this process involves contact, transmitting and acquiring knowledge, and developing skills, habits and values. This mutual influence of education and context is ongoing, so that we should not think of curricula and social structures as entirely separate. Kitchens (2009: 255) states that, by situating education in the space of local communities, and by connecting the curriculum to the everyday life of learners, situated pedagogy allows these learners to be involved in a conversation that creates new understandings of the world and their place in it. Furthermore, Wei (2009: 271), when referring to the enactment of the curriculum, explains that it “should meet the needs of all the learners and be oriented to the learners’ development; embody the nature of science; be focused on scientific inquiry; and even reflect the advance of modern science and technology”. Figure 2.2 illustrates how aspects like space, time, resources, community integration, organisation, economics, political and historical background, theories (for instance communication and systems theory), philosophical ideas, and developments in technology will influence the approach to and interpretation of a curriculum. It is therefore inevitable that curriculum development is a never-ending process of reflection and change. Figure 2.2 A curriculum involves a network of contextual relationships Source: Adapted from Steinberg (2006) See page 6 of 2nd edition Ornstein and Hunkins (1998:2) explain how an individual’s view of the curriculum reflects that person’s view of the world, including what the person perceives as reality, the values he or she deems important, and the amount of knowledge he or she possesses. By understanding a teacher’s approach to or view of the curriculum, and the prevailing curriculum approach of the school or school district, it is possible to tell whether the teacher’s professional view conflicts with the formal organisational view. A view of the curriculum includes an understanding of how a curriculum is designed and developed; the role of the learner, teacher, and curriculum specialist in planning a curriculum; the goals and objectives of the curriculum; and the content, concepts, and skills that need to be assessed. Kelly (1989) agrees that the view of the curriculum cannot be scientific or philosophical only; this view is too narrow because the demands of society must also be met. Therefore, the understanding of practicalities, innovation, and values is also important. By means of contextualisation based on the characteristics of the population, local features, habits and history, schooling becomes an easier and more successful process. Paliwal and Subramaniam (2006) emphasise the diversified mosaic existing in modern schools and classrooms. They assume that taking context and diversity into consideration will make difficult content more understandable and familiar, thereby creating greater meaning in learners’ daily lives. Considering the impact of context makes a more promising response to promoting success possible. 2.4 CONCLUSION Understanding how your planning and teaching design are influenced by various factors enhances praxis. Only when teachers acknowledge and consider the impact of context and/or perspectives, consider the role of language and mediation in the teaching and learning situation, and realise the influence of the particular teaching strategies chosen, can they plan effective teaching and learning. Applying the knowledge gained may lead to a new way of thinking about the interpretation and implementation of the curriculum – a real paradigm shift. REVIEW QUESTIONS There is often a gap between policy and practice, with policy representing intended change and practice representing actual change. Thus, policy might be aimed at achieving substantive change while the change that actually happens at grassroots level may be superficial only. One of the reasons for this discrepancy between policy and practice could be that not all people perceive and respond to change in the same way. Those who equate change with instability and a lowering of standards will probably try to avoid change by maintaining the status quo or, at least, by controlling the extent to which they allow change to happen. Those who view change as natural and inevitable, on the other hand, will support and/or encourage it wherever possible. Taking the above into consideration, critically discuss the following: 1.1 The impact of context on curriculum by referring to the contextual evaluation of the whole curriculum. 1.2 The influence of changes in the South African context on curriculum by briefly referring to the most important economic, social and political forces. 1.3 Your own response to and experience of curriculum change. 2. Distinguish between what the impact of decolonilisation and Africanisation would be on curriculum development on the one hand and curriculum enactment on the other. Discuss your views in a few paragraphs. 3 Considering policy in curriculum interpretation and implementation 3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter continues the discussion in Chapter 2 on curriculum design, with specific reference to the South African situation regarding curriculum changes and the influence of educational policy on curriculum interpretation and implementation. For a curriculum to be effectively implemented, teachers need to take many factors into consideration. They must have a sound knowledge of the relevant policy documents, and the ability to interpret and plan according to these documents, as well as the ability to select and prepare suitable textual and visual resources for learning. This chapter aims to familiarise teachers with the National Qualification Framework (NQF), its sub-frameworks, and key aspects of educational policy that might influence curriculum interpretation and implementation. 3.2 CURRICULUM AS POLICY 3.2.1 The question of centralisation and decentralisation Governments have to make substantive choices to guarantee the sustainable quality and social relevance of education. Different strategies are used to weigh and define the core of the curriculum and to legitimise and validate the choices that are made. Experts and various other stakeholders may play a part in this. When justifying curricular choices, the first arguments put forward are those concerning the relevance and desirability of the objectives and the content components. Obviously, all interested parties want to join in this debate; however, where the practicality of their wishes is concerned, schools and teachers must lead the discussion. Important questions regarding expected competencies, social support for innovations, learning time, and educational arrangements include the following:  Can learners fulfil the new roles expected of them and achieve the expected competencies?  Do teachers have the necessary expertise (competencies) to implement the innovations?  How positive are schools and teachers about the intended change?  Can the innovation be carried out within the available time frame?  Are relevant teaching approaches and learning resources available? Besides the choice to follow a technical, process, or pragmatic approach in curriculum development, as discussed in Chapter 1, the organisation of curriculum policy making also considers whether  the emphasis should be on a communal and uniform educational programme or on flexibility, diversity, and choices for schools and learners  there should be central steering or decentralised autonomy and responsibility  supervision should be based on a firm control system and on centrally defined results, or on a decentralised accountability system based on confidence in the competencies of schools and teachers. There are different ways in which governments control curriculum decision making. Many countries have a highly-centralised education system. At government level, a defined curriculum contains detailed regulations for objectives and content, school time, selection of educational materials, teaching standards, and assessment. Currently, there is little room for curricular input by schools and teachers. Lately, there have been periodic shifts and movements in curriculum policy towards more or less central or decentralised control in most countries (Kuiper, Van den Akker, Letschert & Hooghoff, 2009). Both forms of curriculum policy have strengths as well as weaknesses (Fullan, 2008; Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009). A centralised, detailed, prescriptive curriculum presents a clear view of the desired results, and there is a view that in practice it offers better learning results than a more decentralised model. However, it turns out to be a very complex matter to achieve these effects sustainably. On the other hand, a more flexible curriculum, to which teachers might add richness when they interpret and implement it, requires the direct involvement and co-ownership of schools and teachers. This is highly motivating and will stimulate professional development; as a result, it will lead to a more sustainable form of educational improvement. However, this policy lacks a clear, communal focus on objectives and content, making it more difficult for schools and teachers to work systematically towards large-scale educational improvement. A more flexible curriculum also expects teachers to be well trained, both in a particular field and in methodology, and to display the necessary skills and competencies to act as curriculum interpreters and implementers. 3.2.2 Curriculum change and review in South Africa Educational and curriculum change are a universal, global tendency. Educational change in South Africa has been stimulated by the major political changes of the 1990s, which brought about the abolition of apartheid and the introduction of a democratic South Africa. The vision for education that emerged aimed to integrate education and training into a system of lifelong learning (Adu & Ngibe, 2014). In 1995, the government carried out a national audit on teaching that revealed many disparities and problems. In 1997, Curriculum 2005 was launched, which, in its ideology, content, and pedagogical approach was in stark contrast to the curriculum in effect at the time. Curriculum 2005 was an outcomes-based model. It drew from models operating in several developed countries and sought to place the South African curriculum among the most progressive internationally. This curricular policy became a hotly contested issue within South Africa (Department of Education, 2000a). In 2000, the Minister of Education set up a Curriculum Review Committee, which led to a modification of the curriculum and a more “streamlined” approach. The policy and the ensuing debate caused much confusion and uncertainty. The “cascade model” of in- service education proved to be most inadequate and reached schools in a much-diluted form. In 2000, the government published the Norms and Standards for Educators (NSE). This, document sets out, in broad generic terms, the requirements of the Department of Education in respect of the knowledge, values, and skills that educators/teachers needed to acquire. It represented a competence-based approach to teacher education. The word “educator” was preferred to “teacher” and was aimed at “encompassing all personnel with an educational role to play” (Department of Education, 2000a). In 2002, the curriculum was reconstructed once again in the form of a Revised National Curriculum Statement, which was approved on 15 April 2002 and implemented in 2004 (Department of Basic Education, 2010). This revised version became known as the National Curriculum Statement (NCS). The 2008 Grade 12 group wrote the first national examination to achieve the National Senior Certificate (NSC), a 130-credit certificate at Level 4 on the NQF. In July 2009, the Minister of Basic Education appointed a panel of experts to investigate the challenges and problems experienced in implementing the NCS. During 2011, the NCS was reviewed again, amendments were made, and the amended NCS was named the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) (Department of Basic Education, 2009; 2011b; Pinnock, 2011). On 28 December 2012, the approval of the regulations pertaining to the amended NCS Grades R–12 was published in Government Gazette No. 36041. According to this document, the CAPS stipulates the aim, scope, content, and assessment for each subject listed in the NCS Grades R–12 (Department of Basic Education, 2012c: 3). Besides the curriculum changes, the National Policy Framework for Teacher Education and Development in South Africa was issued in 2006, which was described as having “been a long time in preparation, and [was] certainly overdue given the state of our education system” (Department of Education, 2008b: 27). Another wide-ranging change took place in 2009, namely, the separation of the Department of Education into the Department of Basic Education and the Department of Higher Education and Training; these bodies are custodians of the delivery of general education and training and higher education and training respectively (Bot, 2013: 6). 3.2.3 The role of the teacher in curriculum change Change involves much more than just implementing a new policy. Continuous change in curricula affects the lives, relationships, and working patterns of teachers, and the educational experiences of the learners. It affects the community, which is aware of schools through the outward conduct and attitude of learners, whether rightly or wrongly understood. A school curriculum is all about the fundamental reasons why children should learn, planning of learning content and subjects, and philosophical (and pragmatic) reflection on all these matters (Adu & Ngibe, 2014). Carl (2012) concurs by saying that, whatever the outcome of a curriculum design may be, a school curriculum can be regarded as successful only if it involves the teacher in as many curriculum decisions as possible. Without adequate participation of teachers, the chance of successful implementation is greatly diminished. This lack of participation may lead to a misconception regarding what is expected and how it should be implemented (Saylor, Alexander & Lewis, 1981; Loucks & Lieberman, 1983). The perception is often that teachers are against curriculum change, and that they will therefore resist it because they have not been involved. However, teachers should play a major role in curriculum change and must have opportunities to make a contribution to curriculum improvement. Teachers should be available and willing to participate in curriculum development. Although the curriculum is determined by the Department of Basic Education, the teacher may become actively involved in curriculum and subject development in the classroom. More practical guidelines are provided in Chapter 4. The policy documents that are important for you as a teacher are discussed in section 3.3.4 and Table 3.5 3.3 FROM NATIONAL CURRICULUM STATEMENT TO CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT POLICY STATEMENT Figure 3.1 shows the developments in curriculum design over the past number of years. In terms of teaching methods and assessment, Figure 3.1 reflects what is being aimed for rather than what has been achieved. According to the Department of Basic Education (Pinnock, 2011), the CAPS is not a new curriculum, but an amendment to the National Curriculum Statement (NCS). It therefore still follows the same processes and procedures as the NCS Grades R to 12 (2002) (Pinnock, 2011). The amendments were made to address four main concerns about the NCS, as identified by a task team and reported to the Minister of Education in October 2009 (Department of Basic Education, 2009). The four concerns were as follows: 1. Complaints about the implementation of the NCS 2. Teachers who were overburdened with administration 3. Different interpretations of the curriculum requirements 4. Underperformance of learners Figure 3.1 Changes in curriculum design and assessment (Pinnock, 2011) See page 95 of 2nd edition Much of the debate about the CAPS centres around whether it is an amendment, a repackaging or even a whole new curriculum. If it is accepted that the NCS has been repackaged, it is to make it more accessible to teachers and to give details for every subject in each grade in terms of what content teachers ought to teach and assess. These details include clearly delineated topics for each subject and a recommended number and type of assessments per term (Pinnock, 2011). This means that the CAPS is an adjustment regarding what to teach (curriculum) and not necessarily how to teach (teaching methods). There is still much debate about Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) being removed. It is, however, important to keep in mind that OBE is an approach to teaching and impacts on teaching strategies that pertain to the preferred methodology used to unpack and implement the curriculum. The CAPS documents are written in content format rather than outcomes format, which means that the CAPS is more oriented to traditional teaching methods than to OBE methods (Maskew Miller Longman, 2012: 8). 3.3.1 Background to investigating the implementation of the National Curriculum Statement The information below is adapted from the Department of Basic Education Report (2009), Coetzee (2012), and the CAPS Stakeholder Workshop presentations (Department of Basic Education, 2011b). In July 2009, the then Minister of Basic Education appointed a panel of experts to investigate the challenges and problems experienced in implementing the NCS, and to develop recommendations designed to improve its implementation. The minister’s brief was in response to wide-ranging verbal and written comments received over several years from a range of stakeholders, such as teachers, parents, teacher unions, school management teams, and academics, regarding the implementation of the NCS. While there has been positive support for the implementation of the RNCS/NCS, there has also been considerable criticism of various aspects of its implementation, manifesting in teacher overload, confusion and stress, and widespread learner underperformance in international and local assessments. While several minor interventions were made over time to address some of the challenges experienced when implementing the curriculum, these changes did not have the desired effect. The panel consequently set out to identify the challenges and pressure points, particularly with reference to teachers and learning quality, to deliberate on how things could be improved, and to develop a set of practical interventions. The report of the panel set out the context, nature, and causes of these pressure points, and presented the Minister and the Department of Education (now the Department of Basic Education) with a five-year plan to improve teaching and learning, via a set of short-term interventions aimed at providing immediate relief and focus for teachers, and medium- and longer-term recommendations intended to achieve real improvement in student learning within a five-year period. The panel worked closely with the deputy directors-general for General Education and Training (GET) and Further Education and Training (FET) to identify key areas for the investigation, with reference to the major complaints and challenges encountered since 2002 when the

CUS 3701 Textbook PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue