Search results

This chapter presents five differentiated models of curriculum, each designed with templates created from learning theories. The discipline of distributed leadership is chosen to develop a cognition-based curriculum, a behavior-based curriculum, a performance-based curriculum, a values-based curriculum, and collectively arranged into a competency-based curriculum. The research literature frames the attributes of a competency-based curriculum on psychological competence.

In this chapter, curricula are developed to demonstrate the process of adapting theories of learning, instruction, and environment into design templates with which to differentiate the dimensions and components of a curriculum. In these curricula, multiple conceptual frameworks are employed to translate the content and structure of the discipline into instructional objectives, instructional engagement, instructional experience, and instructional environment to align the instructional processes with the intended learning. For these demonstrations, the discipline of organizational leadership is chosen due to the multidimensional structure of this discipline and the opportunities it presents to differentiate the curriculum and learning. Each component of the curriculum adapts an appropriate framework to align and interconnect the instructional processes into an optimized learning experience. The result is curricula that have a coherent flow horizontally across the components for each outcome as well as interconnectedness vertically between the outcomes. This approach creates coherence, alignment, and interconnectedness to the curricula and order to the learning process for the learners.

This methodology is applied to design the curriculum for five instructional modules. Module 1 focuses on dualistic thinking developed through a cognition-based curriculum. Module 2 presents a multiplistic learning experience through a behavior-based curriculum. Module 3 presents relativistic learning through a performance-based curriculum. Module 4 delivers complex learning through a values-based curriculum. Module 5 compiles these four modules into a competency-based curriculum model.

Each of these modules employs a unique set of theories to configure the components of the curricula to reflect the structure of each discipline. The use of each theory is explained and demonstrated in the design process.

In this chapter, each of the completed models of curriculum is presented and evaluated using criteria from the attributes of effective curricula discussed in Chapter 1. Explanations of the design strategies that are used to demonstrate each attribute in a differentiated manner are included. The evaluation process provides an evaluation methodology to demonstrate the effectiveness of each model of a curriculum in a credible and trustworthy way.

In the previous chapters, the individual parts of the curricula were configured, aligned, and interconnected to deliver specific outcomes in each learning module. In this chapter, the components of each curriculum are assembled into one table to exhibit the order contained within each learning module within the overall curriculum. The standards for curricular attributes adopted at the beginning of the design process are the criteria for the evaluation of the completed curriculum. The strategies used to configure the components of each curriculum provide evidence of the curriculum’s characteristics, which demonstrate compliance with each criterion.

The evaluation of these attributes within a curriculum serves several purposes. First, they provide a checklist to guide the design process toward curricula that reflect these standards as developed by the profession of curriculum design in higher education. Second, they provide a measurement of the attributes of the curriculum to demonstrate the compliance of each curricular design with conventional standards. Third, these measurements can be compared with other institutional data to uncover correlations between the design assumptions and learner performance. These correlations often reveal unanticipated results, which inform the effectiveness of the instructional system.

These criteria are applied to the evaluation of the curriculum for each module to demonstrate the diverse manner in which each can be achieved in a discipline-specific manner. The compliance with these criteria is explained to be a matter of demonstration, as used in the discipline of qualitative research. These qualitative evaluations can then be compared with other operational data to understand the effectiveness of the design assumptions for each curriculum.

This chapter provides a critical and comprehensive review of internationalisation models and strategies in higher education and offers a conceptual model for internationalising the curriculum, taking educational administration and leadership as an example of its implementation. The chapter starts with an introduction and overview of globalisation and how higher education institutions respond to its increasing effects by adopting different internationalisation strategies. This is followed by a discussion on the different forces and rationales involved and the various models and strategies adopted by higher education institutions as well as the many challenges and obstacles they encounter when implementing these strategies. The third section focuses on ways of internationising the curriculum and how it is a complex, dynamic and developmental process that requires the implementation of most internationalisation strategies. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the IHEC model which is created for internationalising the higher education curriculum, focusing on educational administration and leadership as an example. The IHEC model aims to provide students with a universal and holistic learning experience that prepares them for the increasingly competitive and diversified working environment. It also attempts to overcome the Westernisation indigenisation debate by adopting a holistic approach to knowledge and cultural practices that appreciates and integrates different perspectives, knowledge traditions and work practices into the curriculum.

Placing gifted and talented students together organizationally is not a substitute for appropriate services. The placement or program model fundamentally serves as a vehicle to group or organize students together but programming, in practice, sometimes referred to as a service delivery model, is not the same thing as service. Placement is a management strategy. It must be coupled with curriculum and instructional modifications in order for substantial and positive academic and social–emotional effects to occur for gifted and talented students. Specifically, the program placement model is only as good as the curriculum and instructional models provided within that placement. This chapter provides descriptions and research evidence of the macro program models used for serving gifted students and more commonly used program placement models for grouping gifted students together within the traditional school day and beyond. Non-negotiable components and future directions are also discussed within the context of placement.

As universities grapple with the question of how to prepare students for increasingly uncertain futures, the development of evidence-based frameworks to guide academic program¹ design is critical. Here, we propose a strategic framework with a high impact on program design, implementation, and evaluation as well as mentoring and support for academic program leaders. High impact can be achieved when program leaders are enabled to embed key future-focused capabilities and skills across the curriculum in a program. In order to ensure that these capabilities are systematically and cohesively embedded in students’ learning journeys, we suggest that academic program leaders (e.g., Directors of Studies, Subject Area Coordinators, etc.) require strategic approaches to program design, implementation, and evaluation, as well as mentoring and support. Such approaches would ensure that high impact practices are consistently employed, rather than being the exception in isolated courses.² At Queensland University of Technology, we have developed a holistic model to support “whole-of-program” design for award programs across faculties and disciplines, in a coherent and strategic way. The model we use is based on a framework for curriculum design called the Future Focused Curriculum Design Framework (FFCF), and is an iterative model that places learners at the center of their learning to enable meaningful change to the design of programs. The adoption of the framework is supported by curriculum design studios situated within each discipline-specific faculty,³ which are made up of curriculum and learning designers, working closely with academics in different faculties. A key element of the process is that curriculum design studios enable relationships and communities to develop (Wenger et al., 2002), which in turn allows for contextualized practice. This holistic model supports whole-of-program design for award programs, in a coherent and strategic way and enables communities of practice to emerge in an iterative manner. In this chapter, we share our experiences with using this model and the impacts it has achieved, and we reflect on ways it be adapted for future use and in other contexts.

The kindergarten curriculum in mainland China has evolved through four periods and the current reform began in the end of 1980s. The reform aimed to transform kindergarten practice by shaping ideologies including respect for individual child, active learning, and play-based integrated curriculum. This review of research literatures shows that compared with the practice before the reform, many kindergarten teachers organize classrooms in learning centers, provide more play materials, pay time, and freedom for free play, and pay more attention to individuals. But indoor space organized in rice-seedling-bed model, teacher-led group instruction and teacher-controlled interactions are still often observed after three decades of reform efforts; there still exist great variations among kindergartens of different sponsoring bodies and in different regions. The problems resulted from the innate deficiencies of the top-down and value-priority reform, the conflicts between the advocated value and the traditional Chinese culture with emphasis on Ming-Fen, testing, and the value of children for the whole family and nation, and the unequal distribution of public resources decided by the educational institutions. Therefore, the curriculum reform is not a separate endeavor from other social changes, but a comprehensive and systematic change. To guarantee the success of the curriculum reform, the Chinese society needs cultural transformation and institutional reconstruction.

Illustrated through ethnographic data drawn from a case study of a full-day kindergarten in Ontario, Canada, this chapter argues for an approach to inclusive curriculum that places the ethical relation at the center and promotes children’s rights through opportunities for multimodal communication. Theoretically, this case drew on multimodal literacy and ethical curricula. The study used ethnographic tools such as class observations, semi-structured interviews, and collection of children’s work. Findings indicate that responsive, ethical curricula through multimodal pedagogies were intrinsically inclusive of all children’s funds of knowledge and encouraged children to become curricular informants and take control of their choices of meaning making.

Information literacy education plays a vital role in developing students’ information capabilities in higher education. Curriculum integration of information literacy is advocated by ACRL (2000) in the United States and ANZIIL (Bundy, 2004) in Australia and New Zealand. Research (Derakhshan & Singh, 2011; Dixon-Thomas, 2012) suggests that the most effective way to provide information literacy education is to integrate information literacy throughout the curriculum. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss curriculum in higher education and to introduce a model of curricular integration of information literacy.

The curriculum of a university (as one form of higher education) is usually seen as an educational plan to engage learners in the acquisition of knowledge and skills leading to a degree, diploma or certificate. The curriculum can be viewed at various levels, namely: institutional, faculty, programme, course and class levels. Therefore, information literacy can be integrated at different levels: university, faculty, programme, or courses and associated classes. This chapter will explain a model of curriculum integrated information literacy developed by Wang (2010) which was based on sociocultural theories and practitioners’ experiences in information literacy curriculum integration in higher education. Explanations of how to apply it in curriculum integration and curriculum design in higher education will also be provided.

Entrepreneurship is one of the fastest growing disciplines at colleges and universities today. Programs span campuses offering traditional coursework and a variety of experiential learning options for students from all majors. While most agree that as much learning, if not more, occurs outside of the classroom, there has not been a model for integrating curricular and cocurricular components in entrepreneurship programs. Moreover, there has not been clear agreement on how to assess value from these programs.

To resolve this, we used a five-phase competency development process to create a customized learning model that engages the learner, the educator, and the community volunteer in the learning and assessment process at both the individual and program levels. This chapter presents a case study in a private, metropolitan university of 8200 students. The case study presents the problem and rationale, a history and overview of the application of competency-based education, and a five-stage process used to develop the model and apply the model to achieve a customized learning path for students in entrepreneurship.

The five-stage model of competency-based education can be applied to develop a customized learning approach and assessment path for students who study entrepreneurship. The use of a technology support platform can extend and simplify the use of this model and allow for the integration of curricular and cocurricular components of an experiential education.

This is a unique approach to integrating curricular and cocurricular education to provide a holistic experiential education for learners. The value of this program extends to faculty who assess learning and volunteers who participate in the learning experience. Specific attention is given to the challenges and process for curriculum mapping and the use of this model for assessment.

The chapter is a practise led example of how the inclusive pedagogical approach in action (IPAA) framework lives as evidence of inclusive pedagogy. In particular it draws on understandings of cross-curriculum design as an approach that supports teaching practises for all children. Some readers may be familiar with the language of curriculum differentiation. Commonalties may be seen in the approaches that advocate for curriculum differentiation and cross-curriculum design, however not a lot is gained by adding another language game or rule of curriculum talk which asserts the power of difference by applying the language of differentiation as the focus for inclusive pedagogical action. As the IPAA framework stresses, teachers must believe that they are qualified and capable of teaching all children. Teachers who are engaged in the IPAA in action continually develop creative new ways of working and their professional stance is one where they are willing to work with others (including all of their students) to continually enhance their professional learning through practise orientations. Hence, in this chapter, both the theoretical underpinnings of effective teaching associated with the cross-curriculum design are assumed to have a potential link to any one of the other curricular areas specified in this book. Cross-curriculum design inherently foregrounds inclusive pedagogical possibilities and a concern for knowing more about curriculum theorising and reimaging classroom practice for all students, that is engaging in generative and productive pedagogical work.