Curriculum design and learning objectives

1. Curriculum design and learning objectives In light of quality assuranceand enhancement in higher education Roumiana Peytcheva-Forsyth Faculty of education Sofia University

2. Learning objectives Curriculum design Quality assurance

3. What is the understanding of these three concepts? How it changes during the last decades ? This presentationwill try to touch the following ?s: What factors provoke these changes? How the theory applies in the quality assurance of the courses I run? An example The learning objectives and curriculum design for the future generations!

4. Quality as exceptional– something exclusive, not achievable by many people Quality as perfection of the educational process – zero defects A/ The notion of quality Quality as fitness for purpose – assessment based on the purpose of the product or service Quality as value for money – based on the concept of market and linked to accountability Harvey,L & Green,D (1993), Defining quality, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9-34 Quality as a process of students’ transformation and added value

5. Linking the notion of quality with the purpose of higher education Barnett defines 4 dominant conceptions of the purpose of higher education High quality Institution produce workers/professionals who succeed in the world of work HE as the production of highly qualifies manpower QIs are based on the research activities of the academics and entry qualifications of students HE as training for a research carrier Barnett,R. (1992), Improving Higher Education. Tottal quality Care.Buckingham:SRHE&Open University Press

6. HE as an effective management of teaching provision Q is understood as an ability of HEI to provide teaching effectively HE as a matter of extending life changes: Universities are means for social mobility QIs are the level of diversity of students regarding qualification, class, age, ethnicity or disability Both approaches in defining the quality and its measurement are focused on the provider of education – the HE Institution

7. Notions of quality focused on the students/learning Quality is defined as ‘the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bare on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needsof the students’ Yorke (1999) Quality is ‘where a student’s expectations for his/her learning are met or exceeded’. Pond (2002)

8. Factors provoking change is HE goals, respectively the change of learning objectives: • The changing world of economy • The state/ European policy • The rapid development of the digital technologies and their penetration in life and education • The changing characteristics of the learners (digital natives, new millennium generation, F-generation) • The new pedagogical paradigms – shifting the focus to the learner: his/her needs and learning experience rather than the content and the tutors

9. B/ The concept of ‘Learning objectives’ O P E R A C I O N A L I S A T I O N • Purpose of higher education • Mission of HE Institution/Purposes of HE Institution • Aims and objectives of a degree programme • Learning objectives/learning outcomes of a course/module

10. Learning objectives • P. Watson (2002) defines a learning outcome as ‘being something that students can do now that they could not do previously … a change in people as a result of a learning experience’. • Education and training are concerned with bringing about change in individuals • The use of learning outcomes to describe these changes - in 1930s in the USA, Ralph Tyler pioneered an ‘objectives-based’ approach to education in schools. • The most well known contribution to the development of outcomes-based curricula was the publication of A Taxonomy of Cognitive Objectives by Benjamin Bloom in 1956 • Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) updated Bloom’s taxonomy

11. The importance of learning objectives Functions of the Learning objectives/outcomes: • Can act as a benchmark for assuring quality and efficiency of education • Are a basis for developing the performance indicators • Can (should) act as a landmark and starting point for the curriculum design • Are key factor for tracing the students’ progress • Are key factor for students’ assessment – formative or summative. • Important for students to make sense of what is expected/required from them.

12. Learning objectives in HE • Traditionally HE has tended to focus on the content and process of teaching rather than on learning and its outcomes (UDACE, 1989) • Universities usually described (still DO) their provision in terms of courses and syllabuses and have required (still DO) students to adjust themselves to an established curriculum and mode of delivery. • The past decade has witnessed a serious culture change in HE by moving away from the conception of a content-based curriculum design to a more student-centred approach and outcome-based curriculum • The introduction of outcomes based curriculum design is bind with the change of the pedagogical paradigm: social constructivism

13. The focus is moved from ‘know what’ to ‘know how’ Emphasis has been placed on so called ‘life skills’ Contempo-raryunderstan-ding of LO: Together with subject-specific outcomes are introduced transferable skills: communicate effectively, problem solving, working in groups, ICT skills, work independently etc. academic skills –critical thinking, academic writing, synthesis ideas

14. C/ Curriculum design – the constructivistic view (Design for learning) • A curriculum is a planned sequence of learning experiences • In designing a curriculum, whether for a whole degree programme or for a particular course/module, we are planning the intellectual 'journey' of our students as a series of experiences that will result in them learning what we intend them to learn (learning objectives/outcomes) .

15. A good pedagogical design is "to ensure full coherence and consistency between the content to be taught, teaching methods that will be used, the learning environment in which learning takes place and assessment procedures. Underlying this approach is constructivistic paradigm with a focus on learners and learning activities that are at the heart of the overall design.“John Biggs (1999):

16. Approaches to curriculum design depending on the learning objectives: Traditional (discipline based approach) Performance (system)-based approach Based on strict definition of the learning objectives Based on use of such means that will ensure the goals achievement Itwas a promise to bring the applied science in education Ralph Tyler ; educational technology • The courses follow the structure of the knowledge of the discipline • The units and topics are based around important concepts, theories, paradigms • The logical bases for curriculum design is the logic of the subject matter NOT the students needs, interests, way of learning

17. Approaches to curriculum design depending on the learning objectives: The cognitive approach Experiential (personal relevance) approach The curriculum is designed in concern with students – their needs and interests Malcolm Knowles – coined the term andragogy – the theory for of adult education ‘Adults learn in order to be able to perform a task, solve a problem, or live in a more satisfying way’ • The major functions of the University are to develop students’ minds and their intellectual abilities, to help them to learn how to learn • The content is chosen for the potential it provides for the development of key intellectual abilities

18. Based on the communal constructivism course design – an attempt to break up the TRADITIONAL (transmission) model of university COURSE DESIGN

19. The ideas of communal constructivism –as a methodological background for curriculum design Communal constructivism ‘...symbiosis between the new immerging technologies and learning practice as a further step in the development of social constructivism. Holmes et al. (2001) „… is an approach to learning in which students not only construct their own knowledge (constructivism) as a result of interacting wtith their environment (social constructivism), but are also acively engaged in the process of constructing knowledge for their learning community.” Holmes and Gardner, 2006 • ‘...this type of learning environment within which the focus is on learning from, with and for others’ G. Salomon and D. Perkins,1998

20. Characteristics of the design based on the communal constructivist model • The ideas of the learners are subject to investigation; • The artifacts they produce are publically available, and are used to produce other, more sophisticated ones; • The collective knowledge is of importance. • The goal of the learning community is the permanent improvement of its’ members knowledge. • The responsibility for learning is transferred to the learner and the group. • Students receive part of the responsibility for planning, managing, asking questions, and systematizing knowledge for the group. • The teacher in this model has the role of a “learning expert” who designs the learning activities and guides the practice of enriching group knowledge.

21. “ICT in social work” course design • Macro-design Level (H. Beetham, 2005) • Blended course as part of the activities are performed in a virtual learning environment (Moodle), and part are in a traditional classroom. • Students work in small groups of 4 to 5 people on a group project based on a particular topic. • Phases of the group work: • investigating information resources on a selected topic; • designing and conducting a research on a selected issue in this area – web 2.0 technologis • developing a paper and a presentation, and presenting it before the class.

22. Performance phase • (Students dominated) • Dominance of online learning activities • Presentation of the group results before the audience and feedback • - All resources developed by the students and tutors are available for all students in order to support their preparation for the final essay on the course content. Micro-design level • Developmental phase • (Students- teachers equally dominating) • - development of group projects – information search, collection, analysis, design and carry out a research etc. • balance between traditional and online modes of learning • active feedback • more intensive use of the VLE. • (second 5 weeks) • Introductory phase • (Teacher dominated) - traditional methods of teaching and learning. • Introduction to different technologies • Introduction to VLE • Introduction to group work • (the first 5 weeks)

23. Students’ opinion and attitudes towards the course key elements • Most of the students evaluate extremely positively the overall quality of the course

24. Tutor’s team motivate students to do their best

25. Encourages students to develop their personal and academic interest

26. Knowledge and skills gained through the course have a great value for the future professional realization

27. Student opinions towards the key characteristics of the constructivist design: • I. Choice on the course content and tasks: • 57% students believe that the course gives the opportunity to choose contents; • 53% believe that they are given “a lot of freedom to choose tasks to be done’’ • BUT! The majority of the students declare their preferences towards well-structured content (72%).

28. II. Stimulating the individualized approaches to learning and student creativity

29. Giving out varied and constant feedback on student progress

30. Students as co-designers of the course content Student opinions towards the key characteristics of the communal constructivist design:

31. The advantages of this design have pedagogical characteristics. They are related to learning and its efficiency.

32. The nature of the disadvantages is technical, technological and ethical.

33. Conclusions • Communal constructivism can have an sufficient role in influencing the way the learning take place and its effectiveness • It could prompt a valuable debate around the issues of how to build learner-centred, supportive curriculum design • Communal constructivism supports the development of transferable skills and skills for life in general • The curriculum design based on this paradigm is open, flexible and students’ needs oriented

34. The learning objectives and curriculum design for the future generations!

35. The new learners • The ‘new millennium learners’ (NML) - those born after 1982 - are the first generation to grow up surrounded by digital media, and most of their activities dealing with peer-to-peer communication and knowledge management are mediated by these technologies (Pedró, 2006). • Characteristics attributed to NMLs: • they are “hardwired” to simultaneously utilize multiple types of web-based participatory media (Baird & Fisher, 2006); • they are ‘technologically savvy’, have grown up with the Web and are “always-on”; • they are adept with computers and creative with technology (Olbinger & Olbinger, 2005); • they are highly skilled at multi-tasking (Pedro, 2006). Some commentators are now taking the view that the new learning skills acquired by NMLs have changed cognitive patterns.

36. The ‘widening participation’ agenda and the new pedagogical paradigm The move to mass higher education has been accompanied by new provocations to HE: • Students’ diversity in terms of age and ethnicity, class, cultural and linguistic background • Students’ educational background – diversity of the students entry level • Students unavailability for face-to-face training • High rate of drop outs during the study! • The listed factors may influence the quality of HE.

37. One possible solution! All these calls for rethinking University teaching towards the development of more open, flexible, student’s oriented, personalised curriculum design. A design that builds bridges between formal, non-formal and informal education. A design which allows m-learning –any time and at any place.

38. It is argued that Personal Learning Environment (PLE’s) will replace formal educational environments, like the school and the University, so that learning becomes literally ‘life-embedded’ – part of a seamless process in which there is no separation between school, home and work. Graham Attwell (2008) http://www.checkpoint-elearning.com/article/5655.html

39. Thank you for your attention! Your questions are welcome! Roumiana Peytcheva-Forsyth R.Peytcheva@fp.uni-sofia.bg