Introduction – 4210 – Unit 2 Berit Karseth 6/11-08

Introduction – 4210 – Unit 2

Berit Karseth

6/11-08

Unit 2: Students and Staff in Higher Education

• Content: – Recent research and theorising about

research and teaching, – the changing roles and identities of students

and academic staff – Curriculum policy and curriculum

development.

Learning aims

• The students should be able to conceptualize and critically analyze the primary processes and its relations in higher education.

• To be able to use research in creating an argument and to discuss different theoretical and empirical approaches in relation to each other.

Teaching

• Organized from PFI

– Lectures and seminars

Evaluation - 4 hour written exam

• Ability to display critical and independent thinking.

• Demonstrate understanding of course literature through appropriate discussion of various articles; problematize and use articles to support your discussion.

• Response to questions must be written in a structured and cohesive manner, there should be a clear line of argument and written in an essay style.

Curriculum policy and development in higher education

Berit Karseth

6/11-08

Outline of the lecture

• Contesting discourses on curriculum in higher education– Present different curriculum models in higher

education with reference to Paula Ensor’s article and my own article on the reading list.

– Discuss the role of the student within the different approaches

• Qualifications frameworks – Present the idea of qualifications framework. Does

this idea represents a new curriculum policy in higher education?

The study of the curriculumLevels• Socio political level (international/ national)• Institutional level• Programme level • Classroom level• Individual level• Disciplinary level

Perspectives• A consensus perspective / a conflict perspective• A rational perspective / a social constructivist perspective• Approaches analysing changes or stability • Focus on curriculum understanding or curriculum development • A historical interest / a bureaucratic interest/ a knowledge interest

Slaughter, Sheila 1997 Class, race and gender and the construction of postsecondary curricula in the United State: social movement, professionalization and political economic theories of curricular change Journal of Curriculum Studies, Volume 29, no. 1, p. 1-30

Point of departure:

Contesting curriculum discourses in higher education

Discourse

“I use the term discourse to mean historically, socially and culturally specific bodies of meaning that constitute the meaning that events and experiences hold for social actors (cf.Gee 2000). Furthermore, in line with Mills (1997) a discourse is viewed as a set of statements which occur within an institutional setting and which make sense because of an oppositional relation to other discourses”

(Karseth 2006).

More on discourse:

”To enter into the study of discourse, therefore, is to enter into debates about the foundations on which knowledge is built, subjectivity is constructed and society is managed. These are debates about the nature of meaning. .. (..) at the heart of discourse studies are some complex but potent and profound discussions on what it means to be human, what counts as ’real’ and what the ’social’ is”. (Wetherell, M et al. (ed) 2001. Discourse Theory and practice. A reader. London: Sage Publications, p. 5)

Paula Ensor’s article

Research questions:– What is viewed from the perspectives of

government and higher education institutions, as the most significant contemporary ideas for higher education curriculum reform?

– How can we describe the implementation of policy on curriculum restructuring in faculties as science and humanities (undergraduate level)?

Degree of student selection

over curriculum

Discursive orientationIntrojective Projective

High Therapeutic Exchange /Credit-transfer

Low Disciplinary Professional/vocational

Questions addressed in my own article:

• What kind of curriculum models exist in today’s higher education?

• What are the main discourses behind these models?

• Do we see a shift in curriculum policy that challenge institutional values and practices?

Disciplinary curriculumDriving force: The knowledge production itself (cognitive

legitimation) (the importance of academic capital)

Structure Content Pedagogy Aims

The disciplines situated in departments“Subjects” offered on foundational-, intermediate- and graduate level

Disciplinary knowledge

Emphasis on cognitive coherence

Subject-based teaching

Vertical-pedagogic relations

Content-driven aims

Mastery of conceptual structures, methods and modes of arguments

Vocational curriculumDriving force: The need of trained employees for human service,

information and production (social legitimation)


Unified cumulativeprogrammes

Regulated by national core curricula

Multi-disciplinary knowledge

Emphasis on the integration of theory and practice

Teacher-based/ subject-based teaching

Vertical-pedagogic relations

Vocational-driven aims

Mastery of specific skills and a shared knowledge repertoire

Credit Accumulation and Transfer CurriculumDriving force: International mobility, employability,

competitiveness and universal participation (social legitimation) (the importance of economic capital)


ModulesCredits

Multi-disciplinary knowledge

Market relevance

Student-based teaching

‘Service-provider’ – ‘consumer’ relations

Competence driven aims (learning outcome)

Generic/transferable skills

The role of the student in different curriculum models

• Participator • Spectator • Apprentice • Consumer

• Active • Passive • Autonomous

• Risk-taker • Risk- avoider

• Elite student• Mass student

Reference:

Naidoo, Rajani and Jamieson, Ian (2005)

Empowering participants or corroding learning? Towards a researh agenda on the impact of student consumerism in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, vol 20 (3):267-281)

Alternative discourse:

Purpose: Educate students to contribute and to be responsible

in local, national a global contexts. Towards technological and cultural citizenship – to educate criticality

Driving force: Justice, democracy, solidarity, multiculturalism, environmental awareness and the global need of sustainable development


Qualifications framework – a new curriculum policy in higher education?

• Curriculum issues that used to be dealt with on an institutional level have become political issues on a national and international level

• Emphasis on learning outcome • The underlying curriculum assumption

represents a critique of a content driven curriculum approach.

Karseth, Berit (2008) Oualifications frameworks for the European HIhger Education Aera: a new instrumentalism or ‘Much Ado about Nothing’? Learning and Teaching, vol. 1(2) 77-101.

New architecture of higher education

• Cycles• Learning outcomes• Quality assurance• Credits• Recognition• Life long learning

Qualifications framework becomes an important intrument to reach the objectives of the Bologna process and EU by facilitating the transparency and portability of qualifications.

The empirical point of departure

• European Documents; Bologna Declaration 1999, Lisbon 2000,Berlin Communiqué, 2003,Bologna Working Group on Qualifications framework, 2004, 2005, 2007, Bergen Communiqué 2005, Trends V, Bologna Process Stocktaking report 2007, London Communiqué 2007

• National documents; Report from a working group 2007 on the national qualifications framework, Comments (høringsuttalelser) from higher education institutions

A framework for Qualifications of The European Higher Education Area

“Learning outcomes statements are typically characterised by the use of active verbs expressing knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation, etc. With ‘outcomes-based approaches’, they have implications for qualifications, curriculum design, teaching, learning and assessment, as well as quality assurance. They are thus likely to form an important part of 21st century approaches to higher education (and, indeed, to education and training generally) and the reconsideration of such vital questions as to what, whom, how, where and when we teach and assess.”

(Bologna Working Group on Qualification Framework (2005). Ministry of Siceince, Technology and Innovation, Copenhagen, p. 38)

Qualifications frameworks

• European Qualifications Framework (EQF)– Facilitate mobility and lifelong learning (8

levels) (from primary to PhD)

• Bologna Qualifications Framework – Dublin Descriptors (3 plus 1 level) (higher

education)

• National Qualifications Framework

To European frameworks

Bologna Framework

• Knowledge and understanding• Applying knowledge and

understanding• Making judgments• Communication skills• Learning skills

”can communicate information, ideas, problems and solutions to both specialist and non-specialist audiences” (first cycle)

EQF

• Knowledge• Skills• Competence (in terms of

responsibility and autonomy)

”Take responsibility for managing professional development of individuals and groups” (level 6 – should correspond with first cycle)

Conclusions• The attempt to develop qualifications frameworks at a national and

European level fits well with an objectives driven curriculum model based on a strong utilitarian ethos.

• It represents a standardization where all qualifications of importance need to ”fit within the columns”. “Columnialisation”

• The idea of qualifications frameworks based on measurable learning outcomes represents a turn towards an instrumental curriculum approach which stands in a sharp contrast to Humboldt’s ideals.

• We may ask whether the idea of a qualifications framework takes the distinctiveness of sites of learning or epistemological constraints into account.

• A new instrumentalism or ”Much Ado about Nothing”

Reference:

Clifford Adelman (2008) Learning Accountability from Bologna: A Higher Education Policy Primer. Issue Brief.

Institute for Higher Education Policy

http://www.ihep.org/publications/publications-detail.cfm?id=112

Seminar: The Bologna process and beyond – a global process?

• Group work:– How would you characterize the discursive orientation

of the undergraduate programmes that you have participated in?

– Are there new arguments and ideas discussed on the policy level concerning purposes, structure, content, pedagogy, and assessment?

– Critical comments on the approaches presented in the lecture

Discuss and share your experiences