Curriculum Development Process - Literature review Example

Introduction to Curriculum The idea of a curriculum has been associated with further education and the organization of a curriculum. This paper provides various definitions of curriculum and analyses the curriculum of Australia by dwelling on the development of Australian curriculum and curriculum models, the structure of Australian curriculum, how the curriculum meets the needs of diverse learners in the 21st century, and compare the current Australian Curriculum to local (state) and international models of primary curriculum. It is important to understand that definition of curriculum varies in different ways. Goodson (1995) says that curriculum can be set in two separate entities as the lived and the written. ACARA has acknowledged that the Australian curriculum is both lived and written. The curriculum does not command how teachers should teach and allows them to be flexible in planning the lesson so that they can decide the best way to teach their students (ACARA, 2009a). This allows them to meet the needs of individual students. Rogers (1999) defines curriculum by dividing it into four parts; (i) the core curriculum which includes general capabilities needed by people to develop and use in their lives, (ii) formal curriculum which includes methods, understandings and disciplinary rules, (iii) chosen curriculum created by the choices made by teachers and students, and (iv) meta-curriculum including traditions, events and activities arranged by schools to promote character and personal development of learners. Australian curriculum is presented as a whole curriculum seeking to define all students in formal and core curriculum but leaving teachers, students, parents and schools to decide on the Meta and chosen-curriculum. According to Marsh (2009), curriculum is the subject matter to be taught or what is taught in schools and is certain that many individuals understand curriculum in this way. The Australian curriculum fits Marsh’s definition because ACARA continuously presents the curriculum as setting expectations of what should be taught in Australian schools. Marsh also says that depending on different perspectives and value orientations various curriculum definitions will vary. This is seen in the Australian curriculum where three Cross Curriculum perspectives have been set including sustainability, indigenous perspectives and Australia’s relationship with ASIA. These values are important to the education system of Australia. The development of Australian curriculum started in 2008 after both state and territory agreed to establish and implement a national curriculum. The development management settled on the Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA). The developed K-12 curriculum was aimed at focusing on science subjects and was printed out in phases which tackled different subjects. There were about eleven curriculum models in Australia which was supported by the government though their development wasted a lot of resources. Uniformity in the different models was meant to be set by the Australian government by the establishing a national curriculum. Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians guides the development of the Australian Curriculum. Its emphasis is on skills and understandings of learning areas, cross-curriculum priorities, general capabilities and knowledge as the basis for a designed curriculum to support learning in 21st century. The Australian Curriculum is developed in several phases with phase one already implemented and includes English, Mathematics, Science and History. Phase 2 is Languages, Geography and the Arts, and phase 3 is Health and Physical Education, ICT, Design & Technology, Economics, Business and Civics and Citizenship. The F-10 Australian Curriculum sets out the general capabilities, skills, understanding and core knowledge that are important for all students of Australia. The curriculum provides the power of learning to students which is a basis for their future growth, active participation and learning in the Australian community. It sets out clearly what young Australians should be learning as they advance through schooling. The Curriculum is a high quality teaching foundation that is aimed at meeting the needs of all Australian students. A curriculum is written using models of curriculum. Tyler’s Objectives Model of Curriculum is written by Ralph Tyler. The model starts with those framing the curriculum identifying goals or objectives they want to be accomplished by students. Learning experiences are selected and then organizing them. Evaluation of objectives is then achieved (Brady and Kennedy, 2010). Tyler does not specify the philosophy to be used when coming up with objectives, or selecting learning experiences or organizing them, which is a weakness of the model. On the other hand Tyler wanted it to be flexible to curriculum writers to make a decision on how to do that and to allow teachers to teach the curriculum in the best way they see benefiting the students. The Australian curriculum follows this model as it is flexible and makes it flexible for teachers to teach what they see best. Walker’s Naturalistic Model is another model of curriculum development which states that “a model of curriculum development frankly based on practice should illuminate novel facets of the curriculum development process, correct misconceptions about that process, and enable us to understand both the failures and the successes of the classical model” (Walker, 1971,). The there elements to curriculum that Walker brings into limelight are the platform, deliberation, and the curriculum design. The curriculum’s platforms are the values and belief systems brought to task by curriculum developers which guide the curriculum development. This platform may include a vision or idea of what ought to be. The framers of the Australian curriculum began by deciding on the platform on which the curriculum was to be launched. According to ACARA (2009b), the shaping phase was the first phase in the development of the Australian curriculum and was in three steps: identifying key issues and developing position papers, preparing initial shape paper, and preparing and publishing the Shape Paper. At this stage key issues and debating of issues were done, as well as reviewing existing policies and deciding what they wanted students to learn. Walker allows deliberation as the second element something that ACARA has allowed by consulting various professionals as well as the general public through their website. The last element is final curriculum design which ACARA is still in the process of working on. There are three dimensions of Australian Curriculum structure: cross-curriculum priorities, learning areas and general capabilities. These dimensions give students rich and deep opportunities of learning. Achievement standards and content descriptions is included in each learning areas including English, Mathematics, Science and History. Each year level has content descriptions specifying what is supposed to be taught by each teacher and what students are expected to learn. Achievement standards show that students should demonstrate as a quality of learning at a particular point in the course of their schooling. Content descriptions are illustrated in the developed content elaborations to provide teachers with further support and guidance. The Australian Curriculum also compromises of three cross-curriculum priorities and seven general capabilities which contribute to content descriptions and elaborations of learning area. The seven general capabilities include literacy, numeracy, information and Communication Technology (ICT), critical and creative thinking, personal and social capability, ethical understanding and intercultural understanding. The three Cross-curriculum priorities include Aboriginal and Torres strait Islander histories and cultures, sustainability, and Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia. The general capabilities in the Australian Curriculum provide a set of behaviours, skills and dispositions that are established and practiced across subject-based content. The year levels of Australian Curriculum start from Foundation to Year 10A. The Australian curriculum puts into account the needs of the learners in the 21st century. Having acquired international recognition, the curriculum aims at ensuring that the youths are ready to face any challenges they come across in the 21st century. The Australian curriculum was developed and set by various stakeholders from different arms of the government with the purposes of providing quality learning to the youth in the 21st century. The expertise of most talented individuals in various sectors were consulted and involved in the development of this curriculum. Learners are guaranteed best education by the curriculum structure. The clarification of the content that is to be taught, the information and amount of which is to be taught, and understanding level at each year level is done. It also specifies the skills that each student is expected to develop at each year level. The monitoring and implementation of the curriculum is done by ACARA which ensures that standards are put in place (ACARA, 2010). Learners have a chance of meditating on what they are taught while looking into both local and international ideas. Vocational programs are also availed to those individuals who do not have eligible to enter higher education levels. Education in Australia has received meaning by the ideas, structure and scope presented in the Australian curriculum. The curriculum has catered for the learner’s overall ability including ability to embrace teamwork, creative and critical thinking skills. Studying of these ideas is done with reference to a given subject (ACARA, 2010). Therefore, the Australian curriculum brings out individuals’ general abilities required in their daily lives. Australian curriculum is also strong due to the use of ICT together with the input of professionals, allowing learners to receive everything online (ACARA, 2010). This makes it easier to update the curriculum as well as keeping it active. Being online enables learners to give opinions or feedback on the curriculum and thus modeling it to fit needs of their daily lives. Learning theory states that the aim of learning is to add new expertise and knowledge in the knowledge already found and to allow the learner to easily access the knowledge. Learning starts with the eagerness of a learner to receive new knowledge. Where there is active involvement students have the ability to retrieve information. The Australian curriculum allows students to learn by providing them with necessary content. The human development theory states that the minds of children grow as they grow and thus having the ability to accommodate complex ideas. In the same way the Australian curriculum allows different knowledge to be learnt at different levels, thus connecting the knowledge that is existing to the new knowledge. There is a comparison between the current Australian Curriculum to local (state). The alignment of English content coverage is highly aligned across all territories and states apart from South Australia. There is a however a variation in terms of cognitive demand between state and territory curricula and the Australian Curriculum. The focus of Australian curriculum is in ‘Analyse/investigate/evaluate’ but is weaker in ‘Demonstrate/generate/create’ and ‘Explain/perform procedures (ACARA, 2011). Mathematics also shows well complete practical alignment across all Territories and States in all jurisdictions. In cognitive demand the strength of the Australian jurisdiction in ‘Make connections/solve non-routine problems’ while the strength of the States and Territory curricular is in ‘Formulas/memorise facts/fluency/definitions’. The alignment in Science is not consistent and is high in all Territories and States except Victoria. This is because there is misalignment of topic groups at most phases. In the case of cognitive demand, Australian Curriculum very strong in ‘Make connections/Apply concepts’, while the Territories and State curricular are stronger in ‘Formulas/definitions/memorise facts’ (ACARA, 2011).. History shows moderate alignment in all Territories and State except Tasmania, Queensland and NSW which have a high alignment. In a nutshell History has reasonable alignment across Australia. In the case of cognitive demand there is consistency in all Territories and States focusing greatly on ‘Apply understanding/Demonstrate’. The Australian Curriculum is stronger on ‘Process information/investigate’ and ‘Memorise/recall’(ACARA, 2011). The mapping of international curriculum took place in Sydney in 2010 with curriculum experts comparing the Australian Curriculum with the international curriculum. Australian English Curriculum was compared with Ontario, New Zealand and England. Mathematics curriculum for Australia was compared with Singapore, Finland and Hong Kong, and Australian science curriculum was compared to Ontario, Finland and Singapore (ACARA, 2011).. Australia’s English content topic coverage aligns highly with Ontario. The two curricula are closely similar as seen in the way they align in almost all schooling phases. The alignment of cognitive demand is also closely related between Ontario and Australia curricular though Ontario focuses strongly on ‘Demonstrate/Create/Generate’ while Australia’s strong focus is on ‘Recall/Memorise/Evaluate’. The alignment between Australia and New Zealand in terms of content topic coverage is moderate. Australian curriculum represents ‘Evaluate’ in cognitive demand while New Zealand curriculum focused on ‘Explain/ Perform Procedures (ACARA, 2011). The alignment of Australian Curriculum in Mathematics content topic coverage is moderately high with Finland and Singapore curricula. Six schooling phases of Singapore is highly aligned to Australia while its three schooling phases are moderately aligned. In cognitive demand Singapore focuses strongly on ‘Make connections/Solve non-routine problems’ running across the schooling years especially in early secondary and late primary years’. Australia’s focus is mainly on ‘Generalize/conjecture’. Regardless of some misalignment areas these two curricular are aligned to a substantial degree. The comparison between Australia and Finland curricular in term of cognitive demand is similar to Singapore (ACARA, 2011). Alignment of levels in Australia’s Science topic coverage is moderate with Finland and Ontario, although the variation occurs due to timing differences than on curriculum. In cognitive demand Australia and Ontario highly align because there are no variations. However, Finland focuses on ‘Investigate/ perform procedure’ with greater representation of ‘Communicate understanding of science concepts’, while cognitive demand for Australia focuses on ‘Apply concepts/make connections’ and ‘Analyse information and advance scientific argument’ (ACARA, 2011). Curriculum has various diverse definitions ranging from experiences the students undergo in their learning to what is taught in class. The Australian curriculum was first developed in 2008 after the agreement between territory and state to develop a national curriculum. The development of the curriculum is based on several models of curriculum like Tyler’s Objectives Model and Walker’s Naturalistic Model. The Australian Curriculum is composed of three dimensions which give students rich and deep learning opportunities. These dimensions include cross-curriculum priorities, learning areas and general capabilities. The Australian curriculum through its provision of skills and understanding of these dimensions and knowledge has proved to support the needs of diverse students in the 21st century. References ACARA.  (2009a). Curriculum design.  Retrieved on March 20, 2013, from http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Curriculum_Design_Paper_.pdf ACARA. (2009b). Curriculum development process.  Retrieved on March 20, 2013, from ACARA. (2011). Curriculum Mapping Project Phase 4a: Comparing Current State and Territory Intended and Enacted Curriculum against the Final Australian Curriculum.  Retrieved March 20, 2013, from ACARA.  (2010). The shape of the Australian Curriculum.  Retrieved on March 20, 2013, from ACARA.  (2011). Curriculum Mapping Project Phase 4a: Comparing Current State and Territory Intended and Enacted Curriculum against the Final Australian Curriculum.  Retrieved March 20, 2013, from Brady, L. & Kennedy, K.  (2010). Curriculum Construction.  French’s Forest, New South Wales: Pearson Australia. Goodson, I.  (1995). The making of curriculum: Collected essays (2nd ed.).  Great Britain: Burgess Science Press. Marsh C.J. (2009). Key Concepts for Understanding Curriculum, 4th ed, Routledge. Rogers, B (1999). ‘Conflicting approaches to curriculum: Recognizing how fundamental beliefs can sustain or sustain school reform’, Peabody Journal of Education, vol. 74, no.1, pp. 29–67. Walker, D.  (1971). A Naturalistic model for curriculum development.  The School Review, vol. 80, no.1, pp.51 – 65.  Read More