1 / 20

Cautious (r)evolution? Curriculum change at Key Stage Three Steven Chubb University of Cumbria Southport, January 2009

Cautious (r)evolution? Curriculum change at Key Stage Three Steven Chubb University of Cumbria Southport, January 2009. Planning the curriculum. ‘The process of designing and developing a curriculum is demanding. It is a creative process and relies on

Pat_Xavi
Download Presentation

Cautious (r)evolution? Curriculum change at Key Stage Three Steven Chubb University of Cumbria Southport, January 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cautious (r)evolution?Curriculum change at Key Stage ThreeSteven ChubbUniversity of CumbriaSouthport, January 2009

  2. Planning the curriculum • ‘The process of designing and developing a curriculum is demanding. It is a creative process and relies on inspiration as well as good subject and pedagogical knowledge’ (Kinder, 2008; 102). • ‘Planning the curriculum is a strange mixture of rational organization and serendipity’ (Rawling, 2007; 32).

  3. Teachers as ‘gatekeepers’ • ‘Teaching always involves value judgements about what to teach and what not to teach; about what is worth knowing and what is not; about how to think and how not to think; about which skills are ‘relevant’ and which are not. Teachers are, in effect, ‘gatekeepers’ who sanction and censure what you can know in the classroom’ (Castree, 2005, 299).

  4. Types of curriculum planner CautiousBalancedProgressiveAdventurous (Rawling, 2007; 32)

  5. Cautious – stay with known structure and well established units. Provide a secure base of knowledge and skills. Only make essential changes as required by PoS. • Balanced – assume some of existing course will stay. Consider new PoS and new ideas and add them alongside well-established units. Ensure new course is a balance of new and old. • Progressive – a complete review of course structure and content. Draw on lots of new ideas and materials. Keep some existing topics and approaches, tailoring them to new structures. • Adventurous – undertake a radical overhaul, starting with a clean slate. Take inspiration from academic geography and/or student’s experiences. Adopt new and innovative topics and materials, some of which may be untried. (Rawling, 2007)

  6. Background to research • Research consisted of semi-structured interviews with 9 teachers in charge of Geography in Lancashire Secondary schools. • They were asked how and why they were adapting their KS3 Geography curriculum. • Chosen by responses to initial postal survey – use sport in geography at KS3. • Varied gender/length of service of teacher in charge.

  7. Schools visited • 1 girls school • 1 academy • 2 church schools (CoE) • 1 humanities specialist school • three 11-18 schools • six 11-16 schools

  8. Industry Farming Tourism Development Italy Sport Brazil (x2) Japan (x2) Weather & climate Topics being ‘dropped’

  9. Topics being added • Sport • Geography in the news • USA • Global issues • Generally a more ‘local’ focus + local F/W • “Sport has obvious links to many of the key concepts in the new curriculum”

  10. Results - comments School G • new ‘Health’ topic was inspired by newspaper articles and developed by the department itself • ‘Music and geography’ a possibility under consideration School F • dropping Industry and Farming – not relevant enough to pupils and staff/pupils find it ‘boring’

  11. Results - comments School B • Year 9 country studies of Italy, Brazil and Japan being dropped – both staff and pupils not keen and Japan/Italy a hangover from the last curriculum. • Will spend more time on UK studies to develop spatial skills. School C • Sport possibly being dropped because of less curriculum time for relevant fieldwork – (Bolton, Reebok stadium). • Geography of crime introduced in 2007 to develop citizenship links

  12. Results - comments School A • Currently no F/W at KS3 and curriculum change a chance to introduce this with increased flexibility. • Keeping Brazil – resources available for this a key aspect. Keeping Japan – pupils like it. • Used ‘Geographical Worlds’ planning wheel concept • Yr 7 now a Humanities course School H • pleased with new flexibility – allows for creativity by teachers and back to pre-national curriculum times. • Old curriculum had become a bit tired and stale – chance to change • New country case study - USA • Yr 7 now a Humanities course

  13. Results - comments School I • Not anticipating making major changes to KS3 syllabus – department has always changed curriculum in the past as necessary. • Retaining country studies – Brazil popular with football/favela/crime links, Italy prepares for GCSE and links to development. School E • Yr. 7 ‘Learning to Learn’ course covers local studies, regeneration and country case studies (class choose which country to study). • Not making big changes to curriculum as have changed recently and current curriculum works well. School D • the number of changes this year and next are ‘ill thought out’ – too many for schools to cope with. • No need to make major changes to content – worried about ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’.

  14. ‘Curriculum inertia’? • Roberts used the term ‘curriculum inertia’ to describe the situation where ‘teachers continue with their existing choices even when not constrained by prescription’ (2005; 62) • Roberts encouraged use of pupil voice in exploring children’s geographies and designing new curricula

  15. School C surveyed year 10 pupils about the possible curriculum changes: Pupils wanted to study • Global warming, poverty, war/political issues, crime • Places – USA, Iran, Iraq, UK, China, Afghanistan, Africa, Europe Pupils wanted to keep • Fashion, volcanoes/earthquakes, weather and tourism Pupils wanted to drop • Brazil, Japan

  16. Planning the new curriculum • ‘The new PoS requires all geography teachers to think carefully about their rationale for selecting content. Local opportunities and practical considerations (e.g. resources available) will doubtless play a role. Relevance to the lives of learners is vital, as is the need for learning to build on learners’ previous geographical experience.’ (Rawling, 2008, cited in Kinder, 2008; 99) • A key tool in the selection of content is the idea of geographical significance.’ (Kinder, 2008; 99)

  17. Concluding thoughts… • Varied responses to possible curriculum change – generally more cautious/balanced than progressive/adventurous • Busy with other changes so many have made limited changes to KS3? • Responses suggest that age and length of service not so important as teacher type? • A possible typology – • ‘The Geographer’ • ‘The Manager’ • ‘The Cross-Curricularist’ • ‘The Traditionalist’

  18. Concluding thoughts… • Curriculum change currently perhaps more connected to structure rather than content – change to Humanities courses, starting GCSE early in year 9, less time for geography • Chance to introduce a more critical geography may be being missed • Impact of GA training/’Teachers Toolkit’ not obvious

  19. Have we been here before….? • Prior to 1988…’Geography departments were free to decide on content, method of delivery and the nature of assessment that fitted their localities and needs’ (Jones, 2002; 3) • Innovative curriculum development had often led to Humanities courses, shared with History and RE. • ‘This allowed for greater flexibility but often led to Geography being taught by non-specialists’ (ibid.) • ‘The critical issue for geography teams remains that of time. In 2000 schools were planning for the new specifications to be introduced post-16. Much of 2001 was spent planning for new A level and GCSE specifications, diverting energy and planning away from KS3’ (ibid.)

  20. References • Holloway, S. et al. (eds) (2003) Key Concepts in Geography London: Sage • Jackson, P (2006) ‘Thinking Geographically’. Geography, Autumn 2006, p.199 • Jones, M (2002) Working with the National Curriculum ch. 1 in Smith, M (ed.) Aspects of teaching secondary geography, London/New York: Routledge/Falmer, O.U. • Kinder, A (2008) ‘A teacher’s toolkit for KS3’ Teaching Geography Autumn 2008 • Lambert, D (2004) ‘Geography’ ch. 6 in White, J (ed.) (2004) Rethinking the School Curriculum London/New York:Routledge/Falmer • Morgan J (2002) ‘Teaching Geography for a Better World’ The Postmodern Challenge and Geography Education’ International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education vol. 11, no.1, pp. 15-29 • Pointon and Wood (2007) ‘The new AS/A level specifications’ Teaching Geography Autumn 2007 p. 124/125 • Rawling, E (2000) National Curriculum Geography: new opportunities for curriculum development? in Kent, A (ed) Reflective Practice in Geography Teaching, ch. 9, p.99-112 London: Paul Chapman Publishing • Rawling, E (2007) Planning your Key Stage 3 Geography Curriculum Sheffield: GA • Rawling, E (2008)’ Planning your KS3 curriculum’ Teaching Geography Autumn 2008 • Roberts, M (2005) ‘Constructing the world through the curriculum’ in Changing Horizons in Geography Education, Donert, K & Charzynski, P (eds) HERODOT • White, J (ed.) (2004) Rethinking the School Curriculum London/New York:Routledge/Falmer

More Related