1.4.2.

Higher Education Curriculum Development

Basically, curricula are viewed as products of processes, i.e. the curriculum is a plan, or
a ‘document’, that is issued through a gradual elaboration of a number of elements – its
constituents. Therefore, curriculum design or development can be defined as ‘a process
implying a wide range of decisions concerning learning experiences’ (Braslavsky; 2003: 02).
However, three different types of processes can be identified: a top-down approach, a
bottom-up approach, and a ‘networked’ approach. The first type is adopted by the majority
of centralized countries, i.e. in countries where a national ministry (a provider) produces
the curriculum, while the second type is common in cases where the curriculum is
produced by individual states (federations) or institutions and may be approved by local
authorities. With the modern ‘transversal tendencies’, more and more countries are moving
toward the other ‘side’ or perspective: some trying to move toward decentralization and
others trying to ‘find elements of national cohesion’, thus approaching curriculum
development from a third perspective: developing curricula with several top-down and
bottom-up interactions.

Taba's scientific heritage and especially her vision of curriculum development have
certainly brought great significance for today's curricula. The main principles underlying
her theory and that are identified in Krull (2003:08 ) impose a reconsideration of today's
practices in terms of curriculum development and course design. First, she advocates a
non-linear approach to all social processes; that is to say,'' learning and development of
personality cannot be considered as one-way processes of establishing educational aims
and deriving specific objectives from an ideal of education proclaimed or imagined by
some authority.'' Therefore, the well organized curriculum cannot and should not be merely
planned from a top-down perspective:'' a well-founded and coordinated system of
development from bottom to top'' has to be taken into account by authorities and
institutions if they wish their programmes to be effective and the education they offer to be
of a quality. Basically this is true as '' the changes and learning underlying it [the bottom-
up approach] take place more easily, and meet less opposition if they are not imposed by
the central institutions but are initiated in the periphery, and gradually spread all over the
structure.''(Ibid: 09). Another principle that should not be overlooked is the '' the well-
founded distribution of work''; that is to say, only a ''partnership based on competence, and
not on administration'' could be reliable for an effective curriculum development because
the different decisions of the different stages of the design have to be taken in charge by
specialists – in the field of curriculum design and not (as traditionally understood) scholars
or teachers with a long 'experience' in teaching- , each assuming his role with
accountability and a great professionalism, and all cooperating and working together with
a common purpose.

Taba's vision of the curriculum process is ideally set in seven steps: (1) needs analysis,
(2) formulating objectives, (3) selecting content, (4) organizing content, (5) selecting the
learning experiences, (6) organizing the learning experiences, and (7) assessment and
evaluation (what to evaluate & how). The first step clearly reflects the bottom-up

44
perspective; however, her approach is not as linear as it seems because, in fact, not
evaluating students' progress (what is learned) so as to adjust accordingly the teaching
(what is taught) is teaching 'blindly' according to her philosophy. And here lies another
Taba's principle: '' renovation of curricula and programmes is not a short-term effort but a
long process, lasting for years.'' (Krull; 2003: 08). Therefore, curricula can never be 'final
products' but continuous processes of ‘‘planning, implementing, and evaluating''
(Lunenburg; 2011: 01). Verily, as Lunenburg words it ''[t]o realize our intentions, we will
need to address the characteristics of our curriculum, the features of our teaching, the
forms of our evaluative practices, and the nature of our workplace.'' (Ibid: 06). Since Taba's
pioneering views – that is more than half a century ago, we are still unsure of the best
practices for developing and implementing curricula that really serve educational purposes.

Ideally, the curriculum is developed by experts because of its technical or professional

dimension; however, its political and socio-economic dimension cannot be overlooked.
The political, social, economic, and technological, changes are affecting enormously the
development of the modern curriculum as they encourage learning that is viewed as
‘useful’ –utility principle- for both individuals (employment) and for societies
(development and growth). Nonetheless, only educational experts and professional
curriculum designers are cognizant of the importance of providing learning for its own
sake and for the real development of individuals and societies. Therefore, charging an
individual or a body with the responsibility of developing a curriculum cannot be without
serious consequences if they lack expertise in this domain:

...the curriculum is a field of ideological and political struggle that takes

place in each society in order to give meaning to education. It is recognized
that this meaning not only originates among experts, following professional
criteria, but also through complex cultural processes. (Braslavsky; 2003: 02).
The UK Higher Education Academy (as cited in Hicks; 2007: 02) offers a model that
presents the elements around which curricula are to be designed (see Figure1.1.). It indicates
that a curriculum should include a content (what), a rationale or underlying philosophy
(why), a process (how), a structure or organization of the learning process (when), and
assessment of learners’ achievement (how learning is demonstrated). Though the model
demonstrates a consideration of some contextual issues, Hicks criticizes it for being
‘somewhat static’ and not offering an understanding of the curriculum as a concept. Yet,
this model with its three circles puts conceptions and philosophies, that is to say beliefs and
values, in the inner circle from which the curricula emerge. At a second stage, decisions
about the learning goals, teaching methods, content... are made and based on the previous
one. In the outer circle , issues like design principles, context , change and development,
and quality assurance are considered as guiding and controlling the inner circles. For
modern higher education curriculum design, this model could be very useful.(Figure 1.1)

45
 Figure1.1: UK Higher Education Academy Model of a Curriculum
( in Hicks; 2007: 06)

The model that Hick suggests (Figure 1.2) is “an attempt to highlight the factors
influencing curriculum in present university arrangements in Australia” (2007: 08). In fact,
it is more effective in the sense that it is not theoretical as it presents the actual elements
that can be examined at the campus level. Moreover, it clearly points at the ‘interactive’
relationships between the curriculum on one side and faculty and students on other sides.
The other contextual factors that influence the curriculum participate also in its shaping –
though with various degrees- as they constitute either resources to the enrichment of the
curriculum or hindrances that weaken its effectiveness - in the sense of providing or not an
‘adequate’ learning environment.

46
 Figure 1.2: Hick’s (2007)Typical Influences on Curriculum

Though not as global as Hick’s, another Australian model is presented by Barnett &
Coate (2005; in Hicks; 2007: 07). The suggested scheme respects the disciplines’ or courses’
characteristics. This model that includes three domains: knowledge [Knowing], action
[Acting], and self [Being] goes beyond generalization and varies according to the
discipline (see Figure 1.3). ‘The knowledge component is comprised of discipline-specific
subject matter; the action component includes the necessary skills of the discipline; and
the self concept includes identifying oneself with the competencies of the discipline.’ This
is applicable to all disciplines without distinction and ‘the way the three domains are
weighed and integrated differs depending on the subject matter. (Howard; 2007:03).
Therefore, according to Barnett & Coate’s conception, the field of specialty not only
defines the type of knowledge, or content to be selected, but also imposes constraints on
the interactions between the three ‘components’. Yet, this model can apply better to a
course framework rather than the curriculum.

47
 Figure 1.3. Barnett & Coate’s Schema for Curricula
(in Hicks; 2007: 07)

In fact this model somehow relates to the traditional triad ‘Knowledge-Teacher-

Learner’. Before the Knowledge Boom era, the teacher, the Knower, stood somewhere
between the student, the ‘vessel that should be filled’, and Knowledge, or the ‘curriculum
content’; however, as the technological development has made resources more available
(among many other changes), the student can have a direct access or interaction with
Knowledge, but still the teacher has a powerful influence through the choices he makes
and the guidance he offers or withholds.

Therefore, at the level of higher education, the circumstances, or contextual factors, and
the participants’ –faculty and students’- cognizance and interpretation are at the centre of a
more critical and profound understanding of the curriculum (meaning and form). In fact,
the traditionalists’ perspective in which knowledge is assumed to be an external and
independent body of ‘facts’ that is independent from the knower (teacher) and that waits to
be learned (by students) does no more stand as valid. Tierney’s (1995:39) critical view
adheres to
the notion that the curriculum is inherently ideological. Instead of
conceiving of teaching as providing students with “background knowledge
that all students need in order to think critically” (Ravitch, 1988, p129), from
the critical perspective the pedagogic struggle is to expose the
underpinnings of that which is learned. Participants become active learners
who understand their own relationships to one another, the curriculum,
knowledge, and ultimately, society.’

48
Tierney’s stand highlights again the ‘constructive’ dimension of the curriculum: it cannot
be de-contextualized and brought to reside somewhere as if the ideological characteristics
and the implicit culture (both the curriculum inherent culture and the new context’s) can be
ignored. Thus, for him, one should consider – or more appropriately, submit that the higher
education curriculum is ‘culturally constructed’ and, hence, it is ‘inherently partisan’ in a
sense that it strongly supports the opinions, beliefs and values of those who participate
actively or passively in its construction – a construction that practically happens during its
implementation and the one that has been theoretically started during its design. Thus, a
thorough understanding of the higher education curriculum requires a consideration of the
culture of the campus community within which it ‘exists’, by primarily uncovering how the
institution and the participants conceive of or perceive the curriculum in general and of
knowledge more precisely.

An interesting and clear conception of the curriculum is openly suggested by Adelaide

University in its Guidelines for Curriculum Development and Review. It states

The term ‘curriculum’ used in these guidelines is in accordance with Print’s

[Print 1987] definition in Curriculum Development and Design.
‘Curriculum is defined as all the planned learning opportunities offered to
the learners by the educational institution and the experiences learners
encounter when the curriculum is implemented’ (1987, p4). For the
University of Adelaide, this definition means that ‘curriculum’ is not only
what is written in the Syllabus Outlines of the Calendar but also
encompasses among other things, course and subject design, course
development and approval, content, teaching and assessment strategies,
facilities, timetabling and access to information. Importantly, the
curriculum is affected by what is and is not included. For example, by
omitting to teach problem solving skills and not providing problem solving
activities the implication to students is that problem solving is
unimportant.’(Hicks; 2007: 04)

In fact, this ‘definition’ offers a clear and wide cognizance of the concept, or construct,
including, the official, the covert, the hidden, the ‘neglected’, the implemented... facets of
the term. Such definition represents implications for course and curriculum designers, i.e.
faculty mainly, and for the course or curriculum ‘consumers’, i.e. students, as well: it
obliges the first to have a deep and wide cognizance (knowing and understanding) of the
Knowledge they will be ‘teaching’ so as to be able to select and neglect, offer and
disregard..., and it enlightens the second about the university’s approach to the curriculum
so as to be aware of the worthiness of the programmes and the learning experiences
offered on its campuses.

Henceforth, it is clear that cultures and ideologies of the higher education institutions
and communities have a great impact on defining the curriculum, and more importantly on
defining knowledge. In fact, while some would conceive of –or take it for granted-
knowledge as universal in form and content, others would argue that social and political
perspectives of individuals involved around it have great influences on its form and
content. Therefore knowledge definition and differentiation is a key factor in the
49
understanding of the higher education curricula. Truly, and at least for the higher education
institutions, there are dynamic processes at the level of campuses that participate in the
‘shaping’ of knowledge: ‘as if knowledge is a jigsaw puzzle that can be shaped into
multiple parts; even though different representations can be drawn, the pieces of the puzzle
are the same to all of the organizational players.’(Tierney; 1995: 36) Therefore, the
participants who do not know all the pieces of the puzzle will be at a disadvantage; hence
Tierney stresses the idea of ‘empowering’ the students and engaging them actively and
intellectually in the learning of the different pieces of the puzzle first so that they can
participate in the construction of knowledge, and thus of the curriculum.

1.4.3. Evaluating Higher Education Curricula

Above all, it is important to stress once more the idea that curricula cannot be separated
from the contexts in which they operate; that is to say, without understanding and taking
into account the circumstances in which they are designed and implemented, no coherent
understanding or development can be reached.

Not only we must understand the organizations in which curricula operate,

but we must also investigate the cultures that surround the curriculum. By
way of excavating cultural artifacts such as the pedagogical practices used
to convey knowledge or the decision processes called upon to decide what
counts for knowledge, we gain a fuller understanding of the curriculum’s
relationship to knowledge and power than if we tried to create
decontextualized taxonomies of high education’s curriculum. (Tierney; 1995:
45)

Truly, being aware of, knowing and deeply understanding the curriculum and the
institution where it operates are the only door to an effective and efficient evaluation, and
enhancement of the higher education curriculum. Therefore, the university, which mission,
and reference value, is to create, transmit and defuse knowledge, has become conscious of
the necessity to reconsider deeply the approach that is adopted to develop and implement
its curricula. It is now conscious of the ill-functionality and the ‘everlasting’ crises that are
touching the institution’s image, the teaching and learning processes, as well as the
students’ time, efforts and motivation. It has become aware that the realities of
globalization are urging it to pursue good quality education. However, being aware is only
a step in a long process of change.

Moreover, and despite the international concerns about the off-springing of

university comparisons and rankings that are performed by some private as well as
governmental bodies – concerns that at times grow to a powerful opposition - no one can
deny the strong need and even the vitality of quality assurance and accountability within
modern higher education institutions. Hence, due to acceleration in the higher education
globalization process, and with varied drives and for different objectives, many national
and international, individual and collaborative, independent and governmental (among
other differentiating characteristics) systems, agencies, mechanisms, organizations … are
being promoted to actively engage higher education institutions in evaluating their
50