12. Hope University 2010

8/18/2019 12. Hope University 2010

1/117

1

PRIMEVolume 4 (2) PRHE Conference Edition, December 2010____________________________

Contents

1. Editorial (Lin Norton and Ian Marsh) .......................................................................... 2

Curriculum issues

2. Curriculum interventions: embedded writing materials (Wendy Smeets, Formerly

Liverpool Hope University) .............................................................................................. 2

3. Meanings behind curriculum development in higher education (Marita Mäkinen &

Johanna Annala, University of Tampere) ......................................................................... 9

The students’ experience

4. The utilisation of the existing GIS model curricula to innovate a GIS pedagogy for

the 21st Century (Sanjeev Kumar Srivastava and Cynthia Tait, University of the

Sunshine Coast) .............................................................................................................. 25

5. Researching the ‗life of the mind‘ of students: An emergent perspective in

pedagogical research (Neil Haigh and David Nicholls, Auckland University of

Technology) .................................................................................................................... 38

6. A small-scale study on individual learning processes: implications for pedagogy and

quality assurance in higher education (Silvia Pellicer-Ortín, University of Zaragoza) .. 51

The teachers’ and lecturers’ experience 7.

Facilitating undergraduate students assessment for learning through the use of

appreciative inquiry (Christine Such, Anglia Ruskin University) .................................. 65

8. Quality of Professoriate: A Model of Professional Competencies (Marcelo Andres

Saravia Gallardo, Universidad Católica Boliviana San Pablo) ....................................... 75

9. Opening the space of variation and learning during teaching: the importance of

research to discipline-based expertise (T. Hathaway1 and M. Tozer2, 1Liverpool Hope

University 2University of Central Lancashire) ............................................................... 84

10. Pedagogical Practices in the Light of Critical Literacy and Multiliteracies (Daniel

de M. Ferraz, Universidade de São Paulo) ..................................................................... 98

11. Communities, peers and evidence: the development of EvidenceNet as an online

support service for evidence-informed practice (Dr Alex Buckley and Dr Laura

Hodsdon, The Higher Education Academy) ................................................................. 108


2/117

2

1. Editorial (Lin Norton and Ian Marsh)

It is a pleasure for us to write a brief editorial for this special conference issue ofPRIME, which has come out of the very successful third international PedagogicalResearch in Higher Education conference (PRHE 2010). This issue of PRIME is being

produced as an on-line, electronic resource and can be found at

http://www.hope.ac.uk/learningandteaching/lat.php?page=prime&current=prime, alongwith all the journal‘s earlier issues.

The PRHE conference was held in October 2010, and hosted by the Centre for Learningand Teaching at Liverpool Hope University. The theme of the conference wasresearch- teaching linkages to enhance student learning.

The range and quality of the papers included in this issue reflect the range and qualityof the papers given at this two-day conference. As well as inspirational talks from thefour keynote speakers: Professor Keith Trigwell, University of Sydney, Australia;Emeritus Professor Mick Healey, HE consultant and researcher, UK, Professor Jan

Meyer, University of Durham, UK and Assistant Provost, Randall Bass, GeorgetownUniversity, USA, the conference attracted 74 abstracts of which 60 were finallyaccepted as conference papers after review by two independent reviewers.

Nine of these conference papers have now been written up as formal journal articles andaccepted for this special issue of PRIME. These papers have been loosely groupedtogether under three sub-headings: Curriculum issues; the students‘ experience;teachers‘ and lecturers‘ experiences. The other article is in response to a request wemade to Dr Alex Buckley and Dr Laura Hodsdon from the Higher Education Academy,UK to write a piece on EvidenceNet, which is a wonderful online resource whichsupports and disseminates pedagogical research.

We hope you will enjoy this special issue and be stimulated by the papers that are presented. As you will see, the authors come from a truly international background and bring to the issue, diverse views and perspectives which give an enriching dimension to pedagogical research in general, and to enhancing student learning, in particular.

Lin NortonOrganiser of PRHE 10Founding Editor of PRIMEProfessor of Pedagogical ResearchLiverpool Hope University

Ian MarshAction Editor of PRIMEPrincipal LecturerFaculty of Sciences and Social SciencesLiverpool Hope University

2. Curriculum interventions: embedded writing

http://www.hope.ac.uk/learningandteaching/lat.php?page=prime&current=primehttp://www.hope.ac.uk/learningandteaching/lat.php?page=prime&current=primehttp://www.hope.ac.uk/learningandteaching/lat.php?page=prime&current=prime


3/117

3

materials (Wendy Smeets, Formerly Liverpool HopeUniversity)

Abstract

The Write Now CETL aimed to study different ways of offering writing support in UK Higher

Education. At Liverpool Hope University, the CETL, in cooperation with the Writing Centre,tried to implement elements of a 'Writing in the Disciplines approach'. This article describesone such initiative which was conducted within the Post Graduate Certificate in PrimaryEducation course. The design, implementation and evaluation of the writing component will bediscussed as will the possible implications for other institutions aiming to use embeddedwriting support materials.

This paper will discuss the design and evaluation of a 14-hour seminar component onacademic reading and writing designed conjointly by Faculty of Education staff and staff at theWriting Centre and the Write Now CETL at Liverpool Hope University (LHU). This seminarcomponent for PGCE primary students is an example of the initiatives promoted across theUniversity as part of a Writing in the Disciplines (WiD) programme.

The paper will analyse the rationale behind the WiD initiative, the issues of laying claim onvaluable seminar time in terms of content versus skill building and will go through the steps ofthe design process and subsequent evaluation.

Following the national skills movement in educational policy (Drew, 1998), academic writingcan be perceived in terms of the development of key skills that help the retention andemployability of students. These essential skills include written communication skills and―transformative attributes such as critique and synthesis‖ (Harvey et al. 1997:3 in Drew, 1998).

As pointed out by Torrance et al. (1999), the ability to write clearly and fluently is undoubtedlyone of the most important skills required of graduates and effective writing is fundamental tosuccess in higher education. As such, the WiD programme was set up to help departmentsdevelop subject-specific workshops or seminar components that enable students to improvetheir academic reading and writing, thus fostering skills that will be transferable to their futurework and studies.

Writing Support at LHU

Following policies of widening participation and indeed in response to a perceived decline inwriting standards among students, there have been calls for the provision of writing support in

UK higher education. The design of this kind of support is frequently based on a remedial viewof what writing support should entail with a strong focus on surface literacy. However,analyses of writing needs amongst students have shown different problems. Of course,grammar, spelling and punctuation are important, but our students struggle with much biggerissues which often form part of the process of familiarising themselves with the requirementsof HE in general and of their subject in particular. That is why writing experts such asGanobscik-Williams (2006:12) propose offering writing support from within the disciplinesaimed at helping students become ―accomplished players in the academy‖ who are familiarwith the codes and conventions of their subject area.

At Liverpool Hope, until recently, there was a traditional approach to writing support in thatthere was a generic provision which formed part of a holistic Student Support & Wellbeingservice. With funding of the Write Now CETL, a team of writing specialists took advantage of


4/117

4

the opportunity to give this support a more discipline based approach through a faculty basedmodel.

Liverpool Hope University has had a long history of writing support. In fact, its Writing Centrewas established in August 2003 making it one of the earliest university writing centres in theUK. A peer tutor writing support programme was run between 2006 and 2010 with fundingfrom the Write Now Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL). Tutorial

numbers increased from year to year with the Centre tutoring around 400 student writers andscheduling 750 tutorials in the academic year 2008-2009. The students who came for tutorialstended to reflect the demographic of the institution as a whole, though the number of

postgraduate students that were seen (21.5 per cent of the student constituency) wasdisproportionately high, as was also (but even more markedly so) the number of non-nativespeakers of English (20 per cent of all students registered with the Centre). Feedback onwriting tutorials was very positive, with 94 per cent of tutored students reporting that theyfound their session to be, at the least, very helpful.

As mentioned above, funding from the Write Now CETL allowed the team to attempt aWriting in the Disciplines approach in which one Writing Specialist was assigned to each

faculty. The post of Writing Specialist was that of a professional writing tutor who acted as thefirst port of call for writing support. With this extra staffing, the aim was to provide moresubject specific support through curriculum interventions designed with – and at timesdelivered with – staff in departments. It was in the author‘s capacity as Writing Specialist forthe Education Faculty that the course component that this paper aims to discuss was designed.

Background

Like most PGCE courses taught in England, PGCE Primary provision at LHU began to beassessed at Master‘s (M) level in the academic year 2007-2008. Evaluations suggested that

although the actual assignments were giving opportunities to perform at M level, the quality ofwriting in some cases could be improved. Given that students studying on the PGCE primarycourse came from a range of subject backgrounds (e.g. English, Geography, Biology, Art andDesign) and therefore had been exposed to different expectations regarding academic writingat undergraduate level, it was proposed that a core module of academic reading, thinking andwriting skills could provide students with early scaffolding for writing at this level.Consequently the PGCE Primary team worked in collaboration with The Writing Centre andthe Write Now CETL to design a sequence of independent study tasks which would then bediscussed in tutor led workshops.

Design

Tutorial records were analysed to gain a better understanding of student writers‘ perceivedneeds and of the topics discussed in tutorials.

Some of our general findings were that much of the data pointed towards students struggling tocross borders; in other words students were going through transitions. One of the transitionsstudents were dealing with was switching between the conventions and rules of one disciplineto those of another discipline. This was the case with many M level students, especially on thePGCE courses where most students did not come from an educational background but ratherhad a first degree in another discipline. The same issue was observed with Combined Honoursstudents. The Writing Centre was used by a high percentage of both Master‘s level and

Combined Honours students and they often professed the difficulties Lea & Street (1998) referto when describing ―course switching‖.


5/117

5

Another transition students struggled with was that of moving from FE or HE outside the UKto UK HE. Students need to familiarise themselves with the requirements of UK HE and theirepistemological beliefs tend to be challenged in this process. This is illustrated by thedifficulties they have dealing with referencing and finding their own voice. The number of nonUK students is very low on PGCE courses, however, there are a high number of non-

traditional and mature students who may not be familiar with the requirements of HE as theymight not have been in education for a number of years and may therefore feel unsure aboutmeeting the current requirements.

Another transition is one in which students have difficulty coping with is linking theory to practice. This tends to be a real problem at Master‘s level where students need to reflect ontheir professional practice. All PGCE students go on work placements as part of their courseand one of the main aims of the PGCE curriculum is to help them become reflective

practitioners.

Materials were designed keeping in mind the data obtained on concerns expressed by studentsin last year‘s PGCE primary cohort as recorded during writing tutorials. The table belowshows a comparison between the students‘ perceived needs as expressed when registering atthe Writing Centre and the actual focus of their tutorials as recorded by the Writing Tutors. Itis interesting to observe that the only item maintaining its top position is structure. The secondmost frequently discussed topic is analysing the question. The need for support whenunpacking their assignment briefs can be observed across all Master‘s students. Anotherinteresting observation is that as students struggled to write a conclusion to their papers, theywere being redirected to their introductions by the Writing Tutors – something that serves toillustrate the cyclical nature of essay writing. All this information was kept in mind whiledesigning the materials for the embedded writing component.

Table 1: Needs analysis

Students’ Perceived Needs Tutorial Focus

Structure 58.1 Structure 66.67Referencing 48.8 Analysing the task brief 36.36Conclusion 41.8 Introduction 33.30Ordering ideas 39.55 Planning the assignment 33.30%

After a number of meetings between the GGCE Primary course leader and the author, it wasdecided to take a conceptual approach, aiming to develop students‘ critical reading and writing

skills. For an overview of the topics included please see appendix one.

The decision was made to implement the writing component in the first 7 weeks of thestudents‘ course. Two hours would be dedicated each week which would consist of self studytime for the students to tackle the self study tasks followed by a tutor led discussion to providefeedback and discussion.

Evaluation

The academic skills component was evaluated using a paper-and-pencil questionnaire as wellas focus groups with students and interviews with seminar leaders. Initial indications were thatthere had been some improvement in standards of submission but issues relating to consistentengagement with and delivery of materials, transferability of skills, student perception of taskand linkage of readings to the first assignment have also been evident.


6/117

6

The student questionnaire showed that students found the topics of Linking Theory to Practiceand Harvard Referencing the most useful. It could perhaps be argued that these were some ofthe most practical study tasks. On the other hand, the more theoretical and perhaps slightlymore abstract topics such as Critical Reading and Critical Writing were least popular in spiteof our efforts to link them to the students‘ main reading texts as well as their first assignment.

When asked what other materials could have been provided, around 45% of students requestedsample essays whereas around 25% wanted additional tutorial time. Furthermore,incorporating their school placement into their essays and critical evaluation were seen as areasthat required additional materials.

The focus group interviews showed that students were extremely concerned about meeting therequirements of writing at M level at the start of their course. It also became clear that even atthe end of their course, which is when the interviews took place; they still were not entirelysure what those requirements were. When asked to reflect on the differences between writingat undergraduate and at M level, the main differences mentioned were discipline related ratherthan level related. This confirms that one of the main transitions for PGCE students is that of

course switching. The other main areas of concern the students discussed during the interviewswere those of time management and finding an effective structure for their assignments.

The interviews with seminar leaders confirmed they continued to perceive a need for writingsupport. As such they were keen to keep the self study tasks on writing skills. However, at thesame time it became clear that it was a real struggle to find enough seminar time for the tutorled discussions especially in the weeks running up to the Christmas break and the students‘first work placement.

Figure 1: Impact on grades:

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

49.2 52.14 5.9

08-Sep

09-Oct

% improvement

The interviews also showed that the seminar leaders were aware of the difficulties of the firstassignment and they were quick to point out that perhaps the task brief itself needed to bechanged as the wording was deemed to be confusing. As a result, the decision was taken toreview the task brief during the summer break.


7/117

7

As for student attainment (see Figure 1), the grades of the cohort that received additionalwriting support for their first assignment were compared to those of the previous cohort for thesame assignment. A like for like analysis showed a percentile increase of almost 6%. Thisincrease might be due to a number of factors but we hope the Writing Skills componentcontributed to this improvement.

Discussion

As mentioned in the introduction, the Writing Skills component for the PGCE Primary courseformed part of a wider initiative to move towards a Writing in the Disciplines approach towriting support funded by the Write Now CETL. As such, the relative success of thecomponent served to highlight a number of issues; most importantly the question of how to

best move towards more embedded writing support getting both departmental staff and seniormanagement on board.

Departmental staff tended to be aware of a need for more discipline specific writing support but were wary of a possible increase in their workloads. Also, coming from a central support

service, it was not always easy to know who to best approach within a department to address possible changes in their writing support programme. Where senior management wasconcerned, there was a clear need to ‗sell‘ embedded writing support which leads to thequestion of how to best show impact. Universities are complex organisations anddemonstrating impact can be difficult as the recent discussions and debate about the UK REF(Research Excellence Framework) have shown.

We hope that the experience of promoting embedded writing support at Liverpool Hope willserve to help others considering a WID approach to make an informed decision.

References

Drew, S. (1998) Seda Special 6 Key Skills in Higher Education: background and rationale.Ganobscik-Williams, A. (in Ganobscik – Williams, L. , 2006) Building an Academic WritingProgramme from within a Discipline.Harvey, L., Moon, S., Geall, V with Bower, R. (1997) Graduates‘ work: organisational changeand students‘ attributes. Birmingham, Centre for Research into Quality, University of Central

Lea , M. R. & Street, B. V. (1998) Students Writing in Higher Education: An AcademicLiteracies Approach Studies in Higher Education 23:2, pp.157-173

Research Excellence Framework (REF) Outcomes of the pilot exercise on research impacthttp://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/impact/ [Accessed 30.11.2010]

Torrance, M. , Thomas, G.V., and Robinson, E.J. (1999) Individual differences in the writing behaviour of undergraduate students in British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 189-199

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/impact/http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/impact/http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/impact/


8/117

8

Appendix 1:

Critical Reading Objectives:

Reading with an aim; skimming and scanning,Finding information in a text,

Note-taking for future reference,

Critical interpretation of information.Critical Thinking Objectives: Reading for argument; assessing an argument,Evaluating evidence used: research scope and data.Criticality & Academic Writing Objectives: Structuring an argument,Critical appraisal,Inserting citations into short pieces of text.

Harvard Objectives: Learn where and why to use sources to provide evidence (re-enforcing the objectives

sessions on critical thinking and reading),Learn how to use the Harvard system of referencing for journal articles and edited boowhere to find the rules for citing other sources,Learn how to write a list of references.

Applying Theory to Practice Objectives: Applying theory to practice. Linking theory and practice in reading and writing tasks. Hlearning theories and research results relate to the classroom?Analysing a research article. How reliable is the methodology? How can these research

be applied to my own practice?

Critical Evaluation Objectives: Critically appraising research evidence,Linking different sources exposing opposing views,Giving evidence to support opinion.

Reflective Writing Objectives: Reflective writing & reflective practice,Writing a reflection on a reading text,Writing a reflection on own experience.


9/117

9

3. Meanings behind curriculum development in highereducation (Marita Mäkinen & Johanna Annala,University of Tampere)

Abstract

Understanding curriculum development is ambiguous within the academiccommunities. The article reports on a study of the various meanings the academics giveto the curriculum development in contemporary higher education (HE). The dataconsists of 45 theme interviews in two multidisciplinary universities, and the analysiswas conducted by qualitative content analysis. In this article, the interpretations arediscussed in the light of the framework based on the schema by Barnett and Coate(2005) and on the concepts of projection and introjection by Bernstein (1996). Theresults bring to the fore curriculum in a comprehensive framework. The given meaningsvaried within nine complementary domains, composed of polarities and interconnectedviews. The findings indicate that meanings of curriculum appeared diverse and vague,

often narrow and not well fitted into the academic field. The findings propose a modelof interconnected curriculum that can be useful when conceptualising curriculum andcreating proactive curricular culture towards the nexus of research, teaching andlearning in HE.

Introduction

Numerous interpretations have been made of curriculum in the discourse on highereducation (HE). However, HE policy has not been engaged with scientific discourseconcerning curriculum (Barnett & Coate 2005; Trowler 2005). Still the research-teaching linkages are crucial for understanding what kind of learning is to be enhanced

in HE curriculum. An absence of research interest has left room for hidden functions ofcurriculum (Margolis 2001). For example, curriculum has served as an implicitintermediary in those processes through which students‘ trajectories and identityforming has been driven from within the university, often based on the cultures ofdisciplines (Becher & Trowler 2001). These practices may tacitly emphasise or elide theclassic goal-oriented, product-based view (Tyler 1949), or other accents relating totraditional, emerging and transformative features of curriculum (Barnett, Parry & Coate2001; Parker 2003).

On the other hand, the idea of ‗emancipatory‘ curriculum by Fraser and Bosanquet(2006) represents a comprehensive perspective where the interactive and dynamic set ofstudents‘ experiences is seen as central to curriculum design. Similarly, Barnett andCoate (2005) argue that a student‘s personal relation to knowledge plays a pivotal rolein HE. They introduce an idea of curriculum as engagement, in which the cornerstoneof studies is the process of coming to know. Barnett and Coate (2005) propose thatcurriculum should be one of the main concepts in the discourse on HE. It is throughcurriculum that the core of the discipline is put into practice, affecting students‘learning. That is why the prevailing meanings of curriculum and their relation tocurriculum theories should be reflected.

During the last decade curriculum has become one of the most significant means of

regulating HE from outside the university. The societal approach has long traditions incurricular work. Already at the beginning of the twentieth century Bobbit (1918/1972)harnessed curriculum as an instrument of social control. His idea was that curriculum isa way to respond to the challenges of contemporary society. Similar features are


10/117

10

discernible in the HE policy of today. European Commission attempts to moderniseuniversities for the competitiveness of Europe in global knowledge economy (COM2008; EU 2009a; 2009b; 2010a). One means of achieving the goal has been thedevelopment of more flexible curricula (EU 2010b). Likewise in the US there have

been extensive curricular reforms in HE occasioned by the dissatisfaction of economiclife with the civic skills of university graduates, i.e. problem-solving, ethical-moraldecision-making, interaction and communication (AAC 1985).

The service function regarding society and the world of work is stipulated in thelegislation governing Finnish HE. According to the Act on University of AppliedSciences (UAS) (564/2009), the emphasis is on teaching based on the needs of labourmarket and regional development, whereas research university (RU) education isoutlined to promote free research and to give the uppermost, research-based teaching,

but also to educate students to serve their country and humanity (Universities Act558/2009). When taking care of the tasks, higher education institutes (HEI) shouldoperate in interaction with the society and promote the social effectiveness of researchresults. Moreover, the universities have to promote lifelong learning.

Consequently, HE curriculum design is firmly linked to political, social and culturalforces, but having its special character, traditions and diversity within differentdisciplines. To have a comprehensive view, we understand that curriculum developmentis an intentional and dynamic process, which reveals the values and principles inrelation to learning, knowledge and disciplines, and the cultural and political purposesof developing HE (cf. Barnett & Coate 2005; Pinar et al. 1995).

Focus of the study

The aim of this study is to describe and analyse the various meanings of curriculumdevelopment in HE. Our previous findings (Mäkinen & Annala in print) suggest that thedevelopment of curriculum is driven primarily by norms coming from outside the HEI.The purposes of curriculum design from the external point of view were to implementknowledge-intensive education, to produce competent professionals for the employmentmarket and society, and to enable individuals‘ career success. The curriculum designwas secondarily driven from the internal intentions of the discipline where the purposesof curriculum were seen as representations of the disciplinary knowledge, as supportingthe growth of academic expertise, and as giving contribution to identity formation

processes.

In this paper, our intention is to bring to the fore a variety of the purposes and

endeavours of curriculum development as it has a crucial role as an interpreter andimplementer of the universities‘ internal tasks, likewise those imposed from outside.

Analytical framework

The research was conducted in a multi-faculty RU and a UAS, i.e. vocational HE andcarried out in the form of semi-structured interviews during autumn 2009. The datainformed in this article is interview transcripts of the academic teachers from RU(N=27) and UAS (N= 18) representing various departments. All academics wereinvolved in curriculum design and teaching. On average the interviewees had 13 yearsof working experience in HE (range 3 – 30 years). Interview themes concerned practices,

processes and reforms in curricular work.

The strategy for organizing and making sense of the data was based on qualitativecontent analysis. The aim of the analysis was to reveal not just a set of various


11/117

11

meanings of curriculum, but to identify the intentions and relationships of the meanings,and to find a logically inclusive structure reflecting the responses of the interviewees.Through the content analysis it was possible to articulate variations in the interviewees‘ways of experiencing the curriculum design (cf. Krippendorff 2004; Kondracki et al.2002).

There were four main stages in the analysis process: close reading, categorising and

reducing data, developing the conceptual framework and summarising. In the closereading, the transcripts were examined as a whole, with note taking of free associations.In the second stage, we used the open coding procedure to categorise the data. The basicunit of analysis was the notional expressions and the themes of ideas. The views andthemes emerging from the data were reduced to ten categories which were named insuch a way that they encapsulated as concisely as possible the features of the themessituated along the coding scheme. The categories were as follows: knowledge,discipline, work, profession, expertise, effectiveness, benefit, change, identity and life.At this step of the analysis ATLAS.ti software was used. The coding consistency wasassessed by rechecking the basic units and transcribed excerpts in their original contextsin the data.

In the third stage, we approached the meanings behind curriculum through a conceptualframework with two dimensions. First we applied a schema developed by Barnett andCoate (2005) where three curricular domains are proposed, namely knowing , acting andbeing . The domain of ‗knowing‘ refers to the core knowledge of the discipline. ‗Acting‘emphasizes skills and actions that students are expected to acquire and refers to how astudent‘s expertise grows and develops through activity. The domain of ‗being‘ denotesthe formation of student‘s personality and identity. (Barnett & Coate 2005.) In this

paper, we qualified knowing, acting and being according to our data, that is, what kindof qualities were emphasized in curriculum design.

The other dimension of our framework rested on Bernstein‘s (1996) conceptions ofintrojection and projection which have been used in describing the starting points of HEcurriculum design (e.g. Clegg & Bradley 2006; Moore 2001). By introjection Bernstein(1996) refers to the construction of curriculum on the basis of internal disciplinaryinterests, curriculum taking shape according to the subject taught. By projectionBernstein (1996) describes the curriculum development on the basis of externaldemands, for example, on the competence demands of working life. According toBernstein (1996), some disciplines have stronger inner boundaries than others. In this

paper, we use a more straightforward approach setting aside diverse disciplines, onefocusing on a comprehensive view of curriculum.

In the summarising stage, the data were scrutinised alongside the research objectives,the conceptual framework and in close reading with the noted themes. The emerginginterpretations evolved towards a comprehensive framework of curriculum which tookthe form of nine blocks (Figure 1). Each of them reflects distinguishing domains whichcommunicate and conceptualise the meanings of HE curriculum development. In thefollowing paragraphs, each of these will be addressed separately. The interview quotessubstantiating the findings are numbered and coded in such a way that the quotesdisclose the speaker‘s organization (UAS or RU) and gender (male M or female F).


12/117

12

Figure 1. Comprehensive curriculum framework

Curriculum in service of external purposes

First we interpret the meanings given to curriculum development on the utmost forms ofexternal purposes (Figure 1). The reactive curriculum reflected the extreme perspectiveson ‗knowing‘ and the knowledge-intensive HE services for society, whereas theentrepreneurial curriculum emerged from the extreme ‗acting‘ point of view. The

purposes regarding the domain of ‗being‘ were expressed in commodified curriculum.

Reactive curr icul um

With reactive curriculum, we refer to those arguments where academics linkedcurriculum development to the knowledge-intensive economy requirements, but, inspite of critical arguments, they seldom evinced any solutions or alternative models tothe problems noted. The attitude towards curriculum emerged in a somewhatcompulsive adaptation with minimum effort, where curriculum development was placedmarginally, as follows: ―All we really do is holding the mandatory meetings which thefaculty requires‖ (RU14F).

The interviewees were quite aware of the European Commission‘s economist focus onHE policy (COM 2008; EU 2009a; 2009b). Nevertheless, the qualitative analysis aimsfor universities concerning the creation of the ‗knowledge triangle‘, i.e. the linkages

between education, research and innovation (EU 2009a; 2010b), were often ignored orfaced with criticism, especially in RU. Several academics refused to conceptualise thecurriculum development through the ‗knowledge triangle‘ agenda, as follows: ―in ourdepartment we take the view that is quartal economy talk and we don‘t like the term,competence objective that comes from commercial something (laughter) productivityspeak‖ (RU5F).

The external forces were seen as a threat to the university‘s autonomous position of theresearch-led knowledge generator. Therefore, the academic staff did not sympathisewith the mission of EU (2010a; 2010b) according to which the universities should bemore relevant to the needs of the society. This perception is consistent with Naidoo‘s


13/117

13

(2005) notion that academics are portrayed as resisting such efforts and protecting theirown interests against those of the stakeholders.

These statements reflect what Barnett and Coate (2005) call the reproductive functionof HE. According to this, the mission of education and the role of curriculum are themaintenance and consolidation of the prevailing settings within the HEI and in thesociety as a whole. Then the curriculum is not perceived to be a meaningful tool in the

further development of students‘ learning, HE nor society.

Entrepreneuri al curri culum

According to the academics, the curriculum development was firmly linked touncertainty and the unpredictable dwindling of economic resources. Competition forstudents and between HEIs emerged in both universities:

This unit is quite small enough even after the merger, when we think

within the EU, this fight for survival (laughter). But, yes indeed,

curriculum should be such that we can get these things into sellable

articles. So I do think that Finland should make education such an item for sale. (UAS2M.)

With this notion an academic teacher defined HE curriculum as a product whoseviability is contingent upon the competence objectives inscribed in curriculum. Thiskind of high attention to the market mechanisms may lead to a situation in which HEI

becomes a production plant sensitive to market forces. We call such extreme forms asentrepreneurial curriculum in which the traditional values of HE – disciplinaryknowledge, research and cultivation – are replaced by the values of economic life.Especially in UAS effort was made to satisfy the needs of the customers from the

perspective of the students‘ expectations as well as of the competence objectivesconcerning employment market. Still confusion was caused by the contradictory natureof the expectations:

Are we to produce all-round engineers who do alright in some jobs but

then they don‟t cope so well in those professional tasks or are we to

produce specialists, when the danger exists that that we‟ll make the

wrong prognoses and the job placements won‟t work out (UAS11M).

Rationales for the entrepreneurial approach on curriculum development have beenlinked to the pressure on universities to become responsive to external demands, to the

international mobility of employees, and to the significance of the economically productive innovations (cf. Garraway 2006; Naidoo 2005). Herewith the yardstick ofcurricular quality is the employment and success rates in global markets.

Commodif ied curr iculum

The academics had observed that many students were not keen on rhetoric of slowgrowth but had already taken on board the ideology of effectiveness before arriving inthe HE. This extreme curricular view was named as commodified curriculum. Manyinterviewees pointed out that many students perceive HE as an investment for the futureand regard the degree as a key to the job market (cf. Brown 2003; Parker 2003). The

danger in this point of view is that students are encouraged to make use of curricula justfor the worth of their own interests, as one RU teacher describes: ―Make a product packet of yourself‖ (RU9M). The students were encouraged to invest time and effort to


14/117

14

getting qualified which would pay off in terms of a personal capital forming, good jobsand high incomes.

In this case the student‘s personal development planning (PDP) was seen as a separateone-off paper or a career planning draft introduced by the teaching staff (cf. Clegg &Bradley 2006). UAS teachers especially pointed out the tendency to support students‘activities in creating the career and social status. The RU teachers appeared to be more

confused than the UAS teachers regarding the time and success objectives of today‘sstudents (cf. Clegg & Bufton 2008). They had observed that at the same time asstudents seek courses which are useful to them and promote success, they are wary ofanyone exploiting them. This gives rise to contradictions, if new solutions, for example,research-based and tutored strategies (cf. Healey 2005) were sought for engagingstudents within research activities across the curriculum. According to one interviewee,this was turned down by the student association: ―We won‘t do a stroke of unpaid workfor you, so do your research yourselves‖ (RU25M).

Brown (2003) calls such views acquisitive learning indicating students‘ focus on thelearning they need to pass examinations and get a diploma. It is based on a rational

calculation where the moral foundations of HE are lost (Lawn 2001).The means to passing through may turn out questionable, like plagiarism, which did not appear in thisstudy, but has been discussed alongside with instrumentalism (Brady & Kennell 2010)and commodification (Parker 2003) in conceptualising the curriculum.

Curriculum in service of internal intentions

Next we interpret the meanings given to curriculum development from the perspectiveof the extreme forms of internal intentions (Figure 1). The intentions concerning‗knowing‘ turned out as personified curriculum, whereas the domain of ‗acting‘

manifested itself as fragmentary curriculum. The intentions concerning the domain of‗being‘ found expression in unilateral identity forming curriculum.

Personi fi ed cur r iculum

The present data showed that the RU teachers in particular devoted a great deal of timeto considering how the most essential in their respective specific knowledge wasconveyed to students. These findings are indicative of a hidden curriculum in which thecore of the discipline or degree programme could be found in the academics‘ personalstrengths. In this view, curriculum is traditionally understood as a part of private

pedagogic transactions between academics and students (Coate 2009). It has been

justified through the autonomy of HE and by the possession of the highest knowledge.The personalising nature of knowledge in curriculum design is illustrated in thefollowing statement: ―When people retire, begins discussions whether such (content) isstill needed in curriculum, as it is an everlasting old relic‖ (RU20F).

Such a perspective is paradoxical in the HE environment where knowledge is otherwisesubject to constant reform and assessment. Barnett and Coate (2005) argue that themembers of a scholarly community are rather reluctant to engage in critical evaluationof the curriculum design from within. The rationale behind it may lie in understandingHE as research-led teaching, meaning that curriculum is structured around subject andthe content selected is based on special research interests of teaching staff (cf. Griffiths

2004; Healey 2005). This may lead, firstly, to a deep but narrow focus into certainthemes which may not be relevant when thinking about curriculum as an entity, andsecondly, to a situation in which knowledge is held to be of intrinsic value and infalliblewhen it is actually haphazard.


15/117

15

This kind of approach projects Vallance‘s (1986) concept of academic rationalism. The purpose of HE is then to ensure that students assimilate knowledge structures pertainingto a certain academic tradition and to conserve, added to that, the prevailing socialhierarchies. Then curriculum again manifests itself as a function of reproductivecurriculum, this time from within the disciplinary cultures (cf. Barnett & Coate 2005).

Fragmentary curr iculum

Fragmentary curriculum refers to the splintered nature of the content of studies, but alsoto the isolation of HE from society and labour market. The changes in the life of workwere usually recognized as pressure, as something which should be taken into account:―The life of work had changed, but higher education had not‖ (RU7F). Yet in RU thecooperation with the stakeholders was rare in the curriculum development. The need toconsider the acting skills for working life was often solved in line with the goal-oriented(cf. Tyler 1949) and, as we call it, fragmentary curricular thinking: as a separate coursemodule. Consequently, predicting the required competencies and the supply in thecurriculum did not always seem to match.

The interviewees had recognized that students with an eye for societal changes and thelife of work look for a basis for why it is worthwhile studying something, taking intoaccount what it especially brings forth. This appeared for example in the extending ofthe degree in such a way that it would ensure the individual‘s employability, as in thefollowing:

I have many students that are going too broad, in a way trying to

specialize in everything, and they talk about lifelines. I can well

understand that in order to ensure a placement somewhere in the life of

work they try to find competencies that would fill every box there could

be – situations vacant. (RU7F.)

Following Jaspers (1960/2009), this kind of fragmentation curricular thinking may turnHEIs and their curricula into intellectual department stores. Such fragmentariness servesto increase emphasis on the isolation of knowing and acting from their contexts (cf.Young 2010). Then the studies may appear to the students as a very uncontrolled andinconsistent process.

Uni lateral identity forming curr iculum

The notion of studies serving to develop one-sided or narrow identities emerged in bothuniversities. In this notion the curriculum design does not pay attention to the studies asan entity and has inflexible views of students‘ life course. Some academics madeconnections between subject matter and identity, such as ―I can imagine that people

build identity according to the major subject in university degrees, that I am a student ofthat and that subject‖ (RU17M), whereas in UAS interviews identity was spoken ofmostly in connection with the professional identity. It was frequently considered that

professional identity only takes shape in the life of work, as the next interviewee puts it:―Well of course professional identity develops here to some extent, but, certainly morein working life‖ (UAS17M).

This kind of unilateral identity forming curriculum is problematic from the perspectiveof the students‘ disciplinary and generic sk ills as well as their workplace experiencesand future careers. Barnett and Coate (2005) suggest that curricula are educationalvehicles for developing the student as a person. Yet the means for forming and


16/117

16

encountering personal identities are not necessarily present in HE. For instance, Kunttuand Huttunen (2009) has reported that as many as 25 per cent of Finnish students in HEdo not find their studies meaningful. Therefore studying should not be seen merely asmastery of the content of a certain subject or as a process of creating a CV foremployment, but rather as a qualitative process building personal meanings (cf. Barnett2009).

Comprehensive curriculum framework

Between the previously examined uttermost polarities, an interconnected perspective(Figure 1) was revealed on curriculum development. In the implementation of thefeatures of this comprehensive schema, both the external and internal purposes and theengagement domains – knowing, acting and being – were interconnected andoverlapped. Next, we present these three twofold features of interconnected curriculum.

Discipli ne based and societall y conscious curr icul um

Some academics stressed that the curriculum could be understood as a proactiveinstrument to influence the society. This kind of discipline based and societallyconscious curricular thinking reflected an awareness of the contradictions which werenot perceived to be conflicts but productive tensions. The EU and ministerial guidelineswere taken as an opportunity to develop as HEIs and as curriculum redesigners. Thestrength of such views was awareness of societal forces with externally imposed

pressures for change jumpstarting proactive curricular reforms. This requires theevaluation of the contemporary knowledge-base in curriculum, as one intervieweedescribed it:

Too many things have been the same for too long, we were responding

only poorly to what was apparently relevant or how research has progressed in this discipline. It was a common resource pressure that

finally got us moving, but many of us were not sorry that we had to make

a move. (RU7F.)

Influences coming from outside the universities were brought to the fore and reflectedin relation to disciplines and research as a basis of the curriculum development. Thesocietal consciousness appeared as a need to implement changes in the spirit ofmodernising the HE knowledge base, and to reposition the HE towards democracy andactive citizenship (cf. Walker & Nixon 2004). The academics stressed the efforts to takeaccount of the challenges of the present society by reflecting nexus of actual societal

issues, teaching and curriculum design. HE curriculum was seen as a vehicle making it possible to take a stand on what the core body of disciplinary knowledge as an entity is(cf. Parker 2003).

Accordingly, the attempts for the reanalysis of the body of knowledge came to thosediscourses in which the academics focus was on phenomena, key themes or thresholdconcepts as opposed to the subject areas or contents taught. This emerged especiallywhen the discussion turned to merging of subjects taught or interdisciplinarycollaboration, exemplified in the following quotation:

We had to consider how two separate subjects can be merged into one

discipline, and what that discipline ultimately is. And how such extensivematter could be taught in a meaningful and comprehensible manner.

Here we set out so that we take certain phenomena for scrutiny. And we

put the phenomenon on the table, then we set about delving deeper to see


17/117

17

what can be found when we set about looking into the background.

(RU16M.)

The interviews confirmed that multi-disciplinarity had become a core theme incurriculum design (cf. DeZure et al. 2002). Such kind of disciplinary discourses opensup a vista for students‘ engagement with knowledge generation and inquiry. Teachingcould be more student-focused, if the intention of teaching is on developing and

chancing students‘ conceptions (cf. Trigwell & Prosser 2009). In all, this approach gaveroom to the traditions of disciplines – without the personified feature – but took intoaccount the changes in the society and the world, and was aware of the externaldemands when developing curriculum – not in reactive, but in a proactive and reflectiveway.

I ntegrative and working li fe conscious curr iculum

The second interconnected approach, namely the integrative and working life consciouscurriculum, was proposed to bridge the gap between market-oriented competencies andfragmentary curricular thinking. ‗Acting‘ was characterised by domain-specific and

generic competencies, as in the following:

Knowledge in itself, there needs to be a great deal of it, expertise is the

basis of everything, but actual competence subsumes so many other

things so that in order to be able to use that knowledge you need to be

able to do so many other things (RU18F).

Highlighting the competence objectives is not to diminish the inherent value ofknowledge and research, but rather a new kind of curriculum thinking in whichknowing, acting and context-dependent generic skills are perceived as a part ofcompetency and domain-dependent knowledge (cf. Aamodt & Plaza 1994; Crawford etal. 2006). The academics argued that HE should find a way to define and accomplishthe competence objectives widely enough, as the following quotation shows:

As I see it really the only thing you can do for the students are to

encourage them to respond to challenges and so that they learn in such

a way that they understand that the learning is for them. In a way this

notion that “I am transferring something into your head and then you

can go out”, well that‟s long gone, because if we talk about IT, for

example, in two years after you‟ve taught some things they are out of

date. (UAS12F.)

The citation possesses two significant points. First, work cannot offer a universalcategory with which to develop HE curricula (cf. Barnett & Coate 2005), because it isimpossible to anticipate that which has not yet been invented or innovated. Theexpertise and know-how produced by curriculum must be scrutinised in a wider frameof reference than the present needs in working life, because it is difficult to know whatthe working life or society will be like when the student graduates. Employment ofgraduates is usually reflected as one of the most important factors for the quality of HE,

but it can only be a weak indicator of programme quality (cf. Barnett & Coate 2005; Parker 2003). The employability agenda has turned out to be too narrow and

problematic for example in the UK, where academics discuss the oversupply of

graduates and on-going changes in the labour market and society in general (e.g. Brady& Kennell 2010; Tomlinson 2008).


18/117

18

Second, the teaching and learning processes should be taken into account in curriculumdesign. It is challenging to interconnect them, but in our data we had some examples ofintegration of the specific and the generic, in curriculum design and its implementation,like the following:

In the group exam the students made it clearer to themselves how their

knowledge is constructed, not in relation to me, the person in charge of

the studies, but in relation to other students. (--) they had to defend theirown stances and views, which is one kind of core skill. One as it were

main competency in working life. (RU20F.)

This refers to how Barnett and Coate (2005) view acting: as invisible, like the personalmastery of discipline and visible, like the engineer‘s or journalist‘s knowing how andknowing why. The transferable and generic skills were characterised to be one of themost important work-related competence objectives within various disciplines, butseldom openly declared in curricula (cf. Bennet et al. 2000). By integrating andexplicitly articulating the skills that are based within subject-specific areas, the skillsthat are intended to be transferable and the employment-related capabilities in the

curriculum, students could be facilitated to cope in different contexts (Barnett & Coate2005).

Integrative and working life conscious curriculum seeks to respond to knowledge andcompetency needs expected by job markets, but positioning them into the academicteaching practises and curricular intentions. The possible direction here is that educationtranscends the dualism between thinking and doing – the disciplinary and the generic

practice.

Autobiographical and career-conscious curr icul um

The interviews raised the question of the relation of knowing and acting to the student‘sown meaning making, life course and identity building. The third interconnected featureof the comprehensive curriculum could be illustrated in terms of autobiographical andcareer conscious curriculum. The view motivates students to understand, and to beaware of the connections between studies, growth of expertise, working life and theirown life course. These were even seen to be rewarding and proof of the success of theacademic teacher‘s work:

Somebody comes along and tells you that their career has got off to a

great start – what they‟ve done in their life, there are absolutely

fantastic success stories. And I think that‟s what sustains us, in the best possible manner, if we get good feedback from working life, that‟s

another. (UAS12F.)

When the objective of studying is clearly in mind, studies will likely progress well, also promoting the productivity targets set for the HEIs. The view is suggestive withVallance‘s (1986) description of personal success and the curriculum concept stressingself-fulfillment. Still many students are in a life situation in which they are activelyseeking their subjectivity and place in society, because ―they don‘t really know whatthey are about‖ (RU9M). The challenge is how to surpass the lack of engagement (cf.Clegg & Bufton 2008). Students unsure of their fields of study and future objectives

may drop out of success-oriented HE, especially if curriculum as lived text is ignored.A university teacher describes this dilemma as follows:


19/117

19

The students may zigzag, of course, according to their life situations, in

a different way from what has been predicted in the curriculum. So how

do we get them together in such a way that the student achieves on the

one hand a meaningful study experience with an eye to the future, an

entity that makes sense? (RU24M.)

The citation refers to a need to reflect the curriculum design from the point of view of

autobiographical curriculum (cf. Pinar 1994). The view is interesting in a sense thatalthough HE should promote the ability to cope with the demands of the future, thestarting points for learning are in the lived and the present moment. Autobiographicalcurriculum is reminiscent of the cyclical process of learning in which the student‘sexperiences of his/her own past and visions of the future dovetail into each other.Together they help students to attach themselves to study processes and to positionthemselves in their post-education life trajectories. PDP could be a way for studentsmeaning making, but the most viable when integrated into the curriculum (e.g. Annala2007) and entailing temporal views to past, present and future (cf. Clegg & Bufton2008).

The interconnected autobiographical and career conscious approach in curriculum can be perceived as opposition to the narrowly focused processes of socialization and theidentity building in commodified or unilateral curriculum. Instead, students could

benefit from situational and participatory learning processes (e.g. Lave & Wenger 1993)designed in curriculum, enabling a student to gain membership of an academiccommunity with the status of junior colleague - not just a customer or consumer. Thisapproach could make room for a personal commitment (Vallance 1986) and personalrelation to knowledge and knowing (Barnett & Coate 2005), as well as promote the ideaof inquiry-based and lifelong learning in the changing world (cf. Hodge et al. 2008).

Discussion

The present study brought to the fore curriculum in a comprehensive framework. Themeanings behind curriculum development varied within nine complementary domains,composed of polarities and interconnected views. Regardless of the disparate legallyinstituted profiles and HE offered by RU and UAS, against expectations, there werevery few differences in the talk of the institutions. Instead, disciplines and professionalfields have their complex backgrounds, history, nature and research areas, whichemerged in diverse curricular cultures (cf. Becher & Trowler 2001; Jaspers 1960/2009).

According to the results, the three extreme perspectives that raised the issue of

curriculum in service of external purposes reflected the various attitudes towards theneo-liberal influences in HE policy. Several authors have argued about the effects ofincrease in market-driven principles in HE (cf. Evans 2004; Coate 2009; Naidoo 2005;Smith 2003). These perceptions may arise from the view on curriculum development asan ambivalent requirement: it is by law the task of the HEI, but autonomy in itsimplementation is provided for.

From the uppermost internal point of view, the findings suggest that it was difficult forthe academics to conceive of what is relevant knowledge in HE and the nature of itsconnection to the knowledge society needs. In all, the danger in strong views is thatthey did not position the HEI as a proactive driver of societal debate, reform and

interaction between academics, representatives of working life and other stakeholders.Moreover, the problem is that obscure criticism in the staff serves to distance thestudents and curricular work as invisible objects.


20/117

20

The interconnected features in curriculum development pursue proactive HE fromwithin by asking what kind of working life and society HE seeks to produce, and whatkind of capabilities HE curriculum development reaches for. The results propose that bycurriculum redesign it could be possible to take a stand on the core of a given discipline,learning environment and changes in the world as an interactive process. Thus, learningconcerns not only the students but also the academic community (cf. Wenger 2003).The theory of expansive learning stresses communities as learners and learning as a

transformation and creation of a new culture (Engeström & Sannino 2010; cf. Parker2003). Barnett and Coate (2005) also support the transformation principle challengingcurricular hierarchies, setups perpetuating and resulting in inequality towards reform ofthe teaching.

Furthermore, the interconnected perspective on curriculum seems to be fruitful inunderstanding the processes of integration between research and teaching as well as

between students‘ academic engagement. The findings indicate that curriculum basedon research-led teaching, when manifested in a personified or fragmentary way, should

be extended towards research-based, research-oriented and research-tutored curriculumdesign and inquiry-based learning (Healey 2005). This could also turn student‘s focus

from acquisitive learning towards inquisitive learning, which is not consumer driven butinvolves an intrinsic interest in knowledge and learning for its own sake, personalgrowth and development (Brown 2003).

In the processes of knowing, acting and being the most fundamental question is how thestudent finds a personal relation to knowledge (Barnett 2009). On the basis of the

present data, we suggest that it is a continually changing process in which the student builds his/her identity and conception of ‗self‘ and the relation to others and the world.Dewey (1902/1956) defined a scientific attitude as the ability to enjoy uncertainty. Themain issue in autobiographical curriculum design is to pay attention on what a studenthas actually learned or what kind of expertise acquired during his/her studies. Thesefacts do not appear in the most exclusive CV or on the speed whereby studies have beencompleted. The strength of career-conscious and autobiographical view is its initialinterest in the well-being of the students, the future and place in society. In curriculumdesign, it serves to ensure that the HEI is a place where knowing, acting, being and theworld meets.

The findings are in line with the so-called ‗emancipatory‘ curriculum proposed byFraser and Bosanquet (2006) and with the comprehensive perspective on curriculumemphasised by Pinar et al. (1995). Therefore, curriculum design could be understood asa process of change and development which consists of a series of social interaction,

reflective examination of discipline and personal life histories within complexinstitutional contexts. The results suggest placing particular emphasis on developing partnership with university staff, students and practitioners in discipline-specificcontexts as proposed by other researchers (e.g. Aamodt & Plaza 1994; Barnett & Coate2005; Crawford et al. 2006). Therefore, the developed framework could serve as areflective tool for evaluating the prevailing meanings of curriculum within differentdegree programmes and HEIs in their contexts. The research will advance in the future

by scrutinising difference between disciplines and reflecting meanings of curriculumagainst various scientific cultures. Next we will analyse interpretations of curriculumand its significance generated by students.


21/117

21

References

AAC (1985) Integrity in the college curriculum: A report to the academic community,Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.

Aamodt, A. and Plaza, E. (1994) ‗Case-based reasoning: foundational issues,methodological variations, and system approaches‘, Artificial Intelligence

Communications, 7: 39 – 59.

Act on the Amendment of the UAS Act 564/2009.

Annala, J. (2007) Merkitysneuvotteluja hopsista ja sen ohjauksesta. Toimintatutkimushopsin ja sen ohjauksen kehittämisestä korkea-asteen koulutuksessa [ Negotiatingmeanings of PSP and guidance therein. A study applying action research to personal

study planning and guidance therein in higher education] Doctoral dissertation,University of Tampere: Tampere University Press.

Barnett, R. (2009) ‗Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum‘, Studiesin Higher Education, 34 (4): 429 – 440.

Barnett, R. and Coate, K. (2005) Engaging the curriculum in higher education,Berkshire, GBR: McGraw-Hill Education.

Barnett, R., Parry, G. and Coate, K. (2001) ‗Conceptualising curriculum change‘,Teaching in Higher Education, 6 (4): 435 – 449.

Becher, T. and Trowler, P. (2001) Academic tribes and territories. The intellectualenquiry and the cultures of disciplines, Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.

Bennett, N., Dunne, E. and Carré, C. (2000) Skills development in higher education andemployment, Buckingham: SHRE and Open University Press.

Bernstein, B. (1996) Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. Theory, research,critique, London: Taylor & Francis.

Bobbit, J. (1918/1972) The curriculum, New York: Arno Press.

Brady, N. and Kennell, J. (2010) ‗Pedagogical responses to student instrumentalism inhigher education: an experiment in assessment for learning in a New University

Business School‘, Paper presented in PRHE Conference, Liverpool, UK, 26.10.2010.

Brown, P. (2003) ‗The opportunity trap: education and employment in a globaleconomy‘, European Educational Research Journal , 2 (1): 142 – 180.

Clegg, S. and Bradley, S. (2006) ‗Models of personal development planning: practiceand processes‘, British Educational Research Journal, 32 (1): 57 – 76.Clegg, S. and Bufton, S. (2008) ‗Student support through personal development

planning: retrospection and time‘, Research Papers in Education, 23 (4): 435 – 450.

Coate, K. (2009) ‗Curriculum‘, in M. Tight, K.H. Mok, J. Huisman and C.C. Morphew

(eds.) The Routledge International Handbook of Higher Education, New York:Routledge, pp. 77 – 90.


22/117

22

COM (2008) Report from the Commission to the Council on the Council Resolution of23 November 2007 on modernising universities for Europes‘s competitiveness in aglobal knowledge economy. Available electronically here (accessed 26 November2010)

Crawford, J., Adami, G., Johnson, B., Knight, W., Knoernschild, K, Obrez, A., Patston,P., Punwani, I., Zaki, M. and Licari, F. (2006) ‗Curriculum restructing at a North

American dental school: rationale for change‘, Educational Methodologies, 71 (4):524 – 530.

DeZure, D., Lattuca, L., Huggett, K., Smith, N. and Conrad, C. (2002) Curriculum,higher education, Encyclopedia of Education. Available electronically here (accessed29 May 2010)

Dewey, J. (1902/1956) The child and curriculum: The school and society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Engeström, Y. and Sannino, A. (2010) ‗Studies of expansive learning: Foundations,

findings and future challenges‘, Educational Research Review, 5 (1): 1 – 24.

EU (2009a) Conclusions of the Council and of the representatives of the governmentsof the member states, meeting within the Council, of 26 November 2009 on developingthe role of education in a fully-functioning knowledge triangle. EUOJ C 302/03,12.12.2009. Available electronically here (accessed 1 November 2010)

EU (2009b) Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework forEuropean cooperation in education and training (‗ET 2020‘) EUOJ C119/02, 28.5.2009.Available electronically here (accessed 1 November 2010)

EU (2010a) Europe 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.Available electronically here (accessed 3 November 2010)

EU (2010b) 2010 joint progress report of the Council and the Commission on theimplementation of the ‗Education and Training 2010 work programme‘ EUOJ C117/01, 6.5.2010. Available electronically here (accessed 1 November 2010)

Evans, M. (2004) Killing thinking. The death of the universities, London: Continuum.

Fraser, S.P. and Bosanquet, A.M. (2006) ‗The curriculum? That's just a unit outline,

isn't it?‘, Studies in Higher Education, 31 (3): 269 – 284.

Garraway, J. (2006) ‗Creating productive interactions between work and the academy‘, Higher Education, 52 (3): 447 – 464.

Griffiths, R. (2004) ‗Knowledge production and the research-teaching nexus: the caseof the built environment disciplines‘, Studies in Higher Education, 29 (6): 709 – 726.

Healey, M. (2005) ‗Linking research and teaching: exploring disciplinary spaces andthe role of inquiry- based learning‘, in R. Barnett (ed.) Reshaping the university: newrelationships between research, scholarship and teaching, Berkshire, UK: McGraw-

Hill Education, pp. 67 – 78.

Hodge, D., Haynes, C., LePore, P., Pasquesi, K. and Hirsh, M. (2008) From inquiry todiscovery: developing the student as scholar in a networked world. Keynote address,

http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/docs/en/areas-of-action-universities-council-resolution-2007.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/research/era/docs/en/areas-of-action-universities-council-resolution-2007.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/research/era/docs/en/areas-of-action-universities-council-resolution-2007.pdfhttp://www.highbeam.com/doc/1g2-3403200167.htmlhttp://www.highbeam.com/doc/1g2-3403200167.htmlhttp://www.highbeam.com/doc/1g2-3403200167.htmlhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:302:0003:0005:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:302:0003:0005:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:302:0003:0005:EN:PDFhttp://eur/lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:119:0002:0010:EN:PDF.rehttp://eur/lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:119:0002:0010:EN:PDF.rehttp://eur/lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:119:0002:0010:EN:PDF.rehttp://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdfhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:117:0001:0007:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:117:0001:0007:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:117:0001:0007:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:117:0001:0007:EN:PDFhttp://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdfhttp://eur/lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:119:0002:0010:EN:PDF.rehttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:302:0003:0005:EN:PDFhttp://www.highbeam.com/doc/1g2-3403200167.htmlhttp://ec.europa.eu/research/era/docs/en/areas-of-action-universities-council-resolution-2007.pdf


23/117

23

Learning Through Enquiry Alliance (LTEA), Inquiry in a networked world conference,June 25-27, University of Sheffield. Available electronically here (accessed 26 October2010)

Jaspers, K. (1960/2009) ‗The cosmos of knowledge‘ , in R. Lowe (ed.) The history ofhigher education. Major themes in education. Volume IV The evolving curriculum.London & New York: Routledge, pp. 93 – 110. Original: Jaspers, K. (1960) The idea of

university. London: Peter Owen.

Krippendorff, K. (2004) Content Analysis: An introduction to its methodology,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kondracki, N., Wellman, N. and Amundson, D. (2002) Content analysis: review ofmethods and their applications in nutrition education, Journal of Nutrition Educationand Behaviour, 34 (4): 224 – 230.

Kunttu, K. and Huttunen, T. (2009) Korkeakouluopiskelijoiden terveystutkimus 2008 [Student Health Survey 2008: a national survey among Finnish university students]

Helsinki: Research Report of Finnish Student Health Service 45.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1993) Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lawn, M. (2001) ‗Borderless Education: Imagining a European Education Space in a Time of Brands and Networks‘, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of

Education, 22 (2): 173 – 84.

Margolis, E. (ed.) (2001) The hidden curriculum in higher education, New York &London: Routledge.

Moore, R. (2001) ‗Policy-driven curriculum restructuring: academic identities intransition?‘, in C. Prichard and P. Trowler (eds.) Realizing Qualitative Research into

Higher Education, Hants: Ashgate, pp. 121 – 142. Available electronically here (accessed 5 October 2010)

Mäkinen, M. and Annala, J. (in print) ‗Understanding curriculum in Finnish highereducation‘, in S. Ahola and D. Hoffmann (eds.) Higher education research in Finland – emerging structures and contemporary issues. CHERIF: Yearbook of Higher EducationResearch. Jyväskylä: Institute for Educational Research.

Naidoo, R. (2005) ‗Universities in the marketplace: the distortion of teaching andresearch‘, in R. Barnett (ed.) Reshaping the university: new relationships betweenresearch, scholarship and teaching , Berkshire, GBR: McGraw-Hill Education, pp.27 – 36.

Parker, J. (2003) ‗Reconceptualising the curriculum: from commodification totransformation‘, Teaching in Higher Education 8 (4), 529 – 543.

Pinar, W.F. (1994) Autobiography, politics and sexuality. Essays in curriculum theory1972 – 1992, New York: Peter Lang.

Pinar, W.F., Reynolds, W.M., Slattery, P. and Taubman, P.M. (1995) Understandingcurriculum. An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum

discourses, New York: Peter Lang.

http://networked-inquiry.pbwiki.com/About+the+LTEA2008+keynotehttp://networked-inquiry.pbwiki.com/About+the+LTEA2008+keynotehttp://networked-inquiry.pbwiki.com/About+the+LTEA2008+keynotehttp://www.google.com/books?id=RY1-LiHc9z0C&lpg=PA121&ots=_oWAo49xj0&dq=Policy-driven%20curriculum%20restructuring%3A%20academic%20identities%20in%20transition%3F&lr&hl=fi&pg=PA121#v=onepage&q=Policy-driven%20curriculum%20restructuring:%20academic%20identities%20in%20transition?&f=falsehttp://www.google.com/books?id=RY1-LiHc9z0C&lpg=PA121&ots=_oWAo49xj0&dq=Policy-driven%20curriculum%20restructuring%3A%20academic%20identities%20in%20transition%3F&lr&hl=fi&pg=PA121#v=onepage&q=Policy-driven%20curriculum%20restructuring:%20academic%20identities%20in%20transition?&f=falsehttp://www.google.com/books?id=RY1-LiHc9z0C&lpg=PA121&ots=_oWAo49xj0&dq=Policy-driven%20curriculum%20restructuring%3A%20academic%20identities%20in%20transition%3F&lr&hl=fi&pg=PA121#v=onepage&q=Policy-driven%20curriculum%20restructuring:%20academic%20identities%20in%20transition?&f=falsehttp://www.google.com/books?id=RY1-LiHc9z0C&lpg=PA121&ots=_oWAo49xj0&dq=Policy-driven%20curriculum%20restructuring%3A%20academic%20identities%20in%20transition%3F&lr&hl=fi&pg=PA121#v=onepage&q=Policy-driven%20curriculum%20restructuring:%20academic%20identities%20in%20transition?&f=falsehttp://networked-inquiry.pbwiki.com/About+the+LTEA2008+keynote


24/117

24

Smith, D.G. (2003) ‗Curriculum and teaching face globalization‘, in W.F. Pinar (ed.) International handbook of curriculum research, Mahwah, New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, pp. 35 – 51.

Tomlinson, M. (2008) ‗The degree is not enough: students' perceptions of the role ofhigher education credentials for graduate work and employability‘, British Journal of

Sociology of Education, 29 (1): 49 – 61.

Trigwell, K. and Prosser, M. (2009) ‗Using phenomenography to understand theresearch teaching nexus‘, Education as Change, 13 (2): 325 – 338.

Trowler, P.R. (2005) ‗A sociology of teaching, learning and enhancement: improving practices in higher education‘, Papers, 76: 13 – 32.

Tyler, R.W. (1949) Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.

Vallance, E. (1986) ‗A second look at conflicting conceptions of curriculum‘, Theory Into Practice, 25 (1): 24 – 30.

Walker, M. and Nixon, J. (2004). Introduction. In M. Walker & J. Nixon (Eds.) Reclaiming universities from a runaway world , Berkshire, UK: SRHE and OpenUniversity Press, pp. 1 – 11.

Wenger, E. (2003) Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Universities Act 558/2009. Available electronically here (accessed 26 November 2010)

Young, P. (2010) ‗Generic or discipline-specific? An exploration of the significance ofdiscipline-specific issues in researching and developing teaching and learning in highereducation‘, Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 47 (1): 115 – 124.

This study has been carried out in Campus Conexus - project funded by Finland‘sMinistry of Education and European Social Fund.

http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2009/en20090558.pdfhttp://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2009/en20090558.pdfhttp://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2009/en20090558.pdfhttp://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2009/en20090558.pdf


25/117

25

4. The utilisation of the existing GIS model curricula toinnovate a GIS pedagogy for the 21st Century (SanjeevKumar Srivastava and Cynthia Tait, University of theSunshine Coast)

Abstract

This study presents an effective implementation of curriculum design principles forteaching an introductory geographical information systems (GIS) course offered tomultidisciplinary undergraduate students. The pedagogy utilises existing pedagogicalcontent knowledge for the course material, identifies the threshold concepts for thediscipline, involves students in active and authentic learning, as well as providingexperience with problem-based learning, and takes into account the multidisciplinary

backgrounds of the student cohort. The designed pedagogy also provides an opportunityfor flexible learning. Furthermore, the curriculum design principles are utilised in thevariety of assessment-tasks together with several opportunities for feedback. This

effectiveness of the design is constantly evaluated and modified based upon feedback provided by students in conjunction with their performance in assessment and learningtasks. Finally, the usefulness of the approach is substantiated with examples fromstudents‘ feedback on the course together with their performance data from the keyassessment task.

Introduction

The field of Geographical information systems (GIS) is becoming a popular disciplineacross a range of degree programs in several different universities globally. GIS, a

technology driven discipline, was introduced into the educational system only in 1990s.GIS technology and principles are being applied across wide ranging discipline areas;from environmental science to anthropology and engineering to education (Koch &Denike, 2004). Within a short period, the nature of the GIS has changed rapidly,making it simpler for them to be useful for a larger number of diverse disciplinarygroups. Nevertheless, these developments, especially the availability of easy-to-usesoftware applications, have encouraged superficial approaches to learning andassessment in this emerging GIS discipline.

Past student results and feedback have shown that many students fail to retain therelevant discipline knowledge. The Learning and teaching research undertaken in this

paper aims to address the issue of superficial learning by promoting deeper learning aswell as critical thinking. It is proposed that the pedagogical principles underlying thedesign of the assessment to support learning has a significant impact upon students‘ability to demonstrate deep learning (Gibbs & Dunbar-Goddet, 2009, Ramsden, 2003).Consequently, the study presents a model, coupled with initial data collection, whichlinks the pedagogic design principles that underlie assessment, with the recentdevelopments in GIS pedagogical content knowledge.

One of the major recommendations emerging from the current pedagogical contentknowledge in GIS, such as Geographical Information Science and Technology Body ofKnowledge, is the need to cover the three facets of GIS, which are (DiBiase et al.,

2006): GIS as a discipline which has a theoretical basis, a technology part in the form ofsoftware as well as hardware, and the application of GIS to different disciplines.Judiciously designed formative and summative assessment tasks with timely verbal and


26/117

26

written feedback are the best ways to engender deep learning in all of these facets ofGIS.

This study presents a learning-assessment-feedback model involving several curriculumdesign principles, coupled with an initial qualitative data set, used in an introductoryGIS course with over one hundred multidisciplinary students every year. This researchstudy demonstrates the effectiveness of this learning-assessment-feedback model, in the

GIS context, underpinned by empirical evidence. This model incorporates severalcurriculum design principles such as the utilisation of a model body of knowledge,active learning, problem-based learning, and flexible learning in the assessment-feedback regime.

Context

GIS is a relatively new discipline and universities worldwide are already including GISin their curricula across a range of disciplines. Graduating students with GIScompetence are reported as having greater employment opportunities (Gewin, 2004).Therefore, for an effective learning of the discipline, it is essential that recent

developments in the education research are foregrounded in its teaching. Several areaswhere research has been done are:

designing a curriculum; identifying key learning concepts through the determining of threshold concepts

in the discipline; an effective and diverse assessment-feedback regime; active and authentic learning; and, problem-based learning in a real-world context, flexibility in learning, and

taking into account multidisciplinarity for GIS.

Students

Appropriate

•Scope, sequence•Related to aims

•Related to Practice

Content•Background

•Ability

•Experience

Student oriented•Variety of methods

•Opportunity for self direction

•Learning in real life settings

Clear blueprint•Formative

•Summative

Situation

C o n t e n t

Teaching and learning Assessment

O r g a n i s a

t i o n Explicit organisation

•Blocks•Units

•Timetable

Student

feedback•Questionnaires

•Focus group

•Participation

Clearly stated•Aims

•Goals

•Outcomes

Figure 1: The GIS pedagogy model in use, modified from (Prideaux, 2003)Such an approach starts from designing the aims and outcomes of the course followed

by a sequential arrangement of learning activities, leading up to appropriate assessment


27/117

27

all of which is related to relevant content. This approach is student-centred, with severalopportunities for self-direction, guided responsibility for their learning choices andlearning/assessment opportunities offered in real-world contexts. Furthermore, all thesecurriculum design principles for GIS learning are incorporated in the assessment-feedback regime, involving both summative and formative assessments. The learningcentric model presented in the study, similar to that suggested for medical education(Figure 1) (Prideaux, 2003), is then continuously evaluated and revised using the

feedback from students.

Incorporation of curriculum design principles in the assessment

feedback regime

The assessment feedback regime

The assessment regime is articulated through a series of weekly quizzes, a two-partassignment, with the first part a project proposal for GIS application in students‘discipline, and the second being the execution and documentation of the proposed-

project, and finally an invigilated examination.All the assessment tasks for the course are designed to interlock and build upon earlierunderstandings of simple knowledge concepts and moving toward a deeper leveldemonstration of analysis and critical thinking in the second assignment task togetherwith an invigilated examination. This regime is designed to assess and reinforce the keyconcepts practices and knowledge students have gained from participating in thelearning/assessment tasks throughout the semester. The online quizzes are drawn fromknowledge of GIS theory and technology. Participating in them each week enablesstudents to check their understandings regularly, thus these quizzes serve the additional

purpose of being formative, as they provide immediate feedback to both the student and

the lecturer regarding their knowledge and understanding of essential GIS theory andaspects of GIS technology. These quizzes are marked weekly, and feedback is providedimmediately to students in the form of correct answers.

In the first part of the two-part assignment, students have to submit a project proposaldemonstrating how they can apply GIS in their discipline areas. Thus students movefrom understanding the theoretical concepts of GIS to linking the technology anddiscipline directly to the students‘ primary discipline. Students are provided with ampleopportunities to discuss their proposal with the lecturer. An assessment rubric is used tomark both assignments, and is given to students with the tasks. This students‘evaluation approach not only enables faster marking in large classes but also provides

appropriate, specific and targeted feedback to students and supports moderation acrosstutorial groups. Additionally, detailed written and verbal one-to-one forward-focusedfeedback is provided for the first project proposal assignment, leading to a moreeffective, considered consequent GIS project. This assessment regime anchors thestudents in an understanding of the practical real-world application of GIS, and thusoffers an authentic real-world task which students can use as evidence when applyingfor future employment.

Model body of knowledge

Several models for the selection of course content have be

Documents

12. Hope University 2010