Reconsidering curriculum development: A framework for co-operation

Abstract

AaSTgACT: Conventional approaches to curriculum development employed in western countries have proved to be unsatisfactory. Much of the literature as well as the practice of curriculum development have focussed on two traditional stances w the administrative and grass-roots models --and neither has been able to accommodate concurrently the theoretical and practical objectives, skills, and needs of central administrators, teachers, and curriculum specialists. In this paper, a brief examination of the characteristics, prevalence, benefits, and major shortcomings of these two models provides a basis for describing an approach that may better fulfil the multiple and competing demands of educational administrators and users. The article elaborates upon and defends a theoretical plan for involving administrators and educators in co-operative curriculum developmerit, and specifies additional organizational requirements and constraints which would need to be dealt with in order to effect its intent.K~YWORDS: policy making, administration, centralization, decentralization, school-based, constraints, Australia, Canada In many respects, curriculum development approaches employed in Canada, Australia, Britain, and other countries over recent years have been unsuccessful. Many of the difficulties have stemmed from continued reliance upon inadequate models of curriculum production. Educational policy-makers need to consider alternative slrategies for the development of school curricula in order to capitalize upon the strengths and minimize the undesirable characteristics of current approaches. This paper advances and defends a plan for revising curriculum development policy in locations which have long adhered to administrative and grass-roots models, thereby providing a basis for renewed discussion of curriculum development strategies.Many contributors to the literature on curriculum development have focussed upon problems associated with the conventional models. Some have offered conceptualizations --in most instances, compromise plans --to guide efforts

Collaborative curriculum development in teacher design terms

“…While validity can be assessed before curricula are implemented (thus when they are still in their written form) and practicality can partly be assessed before curriculum products are used (in the written form and at the initial implementation or piloting), effectiveness can be assessed only when curriculum products are implemented. Johnson (1993) describes two extreme types of curriculum development with an implication for the teachers' role. In the administrative model decisions are made 'top-down'.…”

“…Creating a better fit between the planned curriculum and the context of work-teachers are aware of the context, the needs and problems of their students, and assess the potential of curricular ideas and materials for their classrooms (Johnson, 1993;Kimpston & Rogers, 1988;Skilbeck, 1998).…”

“…Promoting learning and understanding by the teachers themselves in the process of curriculum design (Johnson, 1993;Skilbeck, 1998).…”

Improving student internship through collaborative curriculum design in Ghanaian polytechnics

“…This research seeks to design curriculum materials for student internship through collaborative curriculum design in design teams having received input from other key stakeholders (students and industry personnel). Collaborative curriculum design (CCD) as bottom-up approach is gradually advancing in education as a means to create teacher ownership during curriculum innovation (Borko, 2004;Johnson, 1993;Skilbeck, 1998;Villegas-Reimers, 2003), because in this approach to curriculum development the needs of the stakeholders involved in the design process are identified and understood, and their interest taken care of (Waddoups, Wentworth, & Earle, 2004).…”

“…Since stakeholders (teachers, students and industry personnel) are involved at the start of the design, it facilitates implementation of the improved curriculum because stakeholders who jointly contribute understand its contents (Ko, 2008). Hence increasing the sense of ownership of improved curriculum by the teachers and therefore increasing the quality of implementation (Johnson, 1993). However, in order to ensure sustainability of CCD as a means to curriculum improvement, there is the need to blend top-down provisions and bottom-up participation.…”