To meet society’s changing demands, the responsive development of curricula is vital, and curriculum developers need to increasingly foresee and incorporate changes into their curricula in a timely manner. However, responsive curriculum development is a complex problem for curriculum developers in vocational and (higher) professional education, and comprehensive research on this theme is scarce. This study focused on responsive curriculum development processes in a Dutch higher professional education institution (N = 77 experts). A group concept mapping study into the supportive factors of this process revealed six factors: (1) a vision of education and learning, (2) a continuous and iterative development process, (3) teamwork, (4) involving stakeholders, (5) a conducive environment and conditions, and (6) agency. Participating experts highlighted the importance of ensuring that equal attention is devoted to each of these factors. However, the results also reveal the challenges that curriculum developers face. To deal with these, a framework of factors is suggested to facilitate curriculum conversations in which developers can negotiate – and give meaning to – the desired change in the curriculum context.
LINK
Due to fast and unpredictable developments, professional education is challenged with being responsive, which demands a rethinking of conventional curriculum development approaches. Yet, literature on curriculum development falls short in terms of recognising how to react rapidly and adequately to these new developments. This study focuses on curriculum development initiatives at the school level in a Dutch university of applied sciences. Open interviews were held with 29 curriculum developers to explore how they define and give substance to developing curricula for new, changing or unpredictable professions. These 29 participants were involved in seven curriculum development trajectories. Four themes were detected: (1) curriculum developers are in favour of open, flexible and authentic curricula; (2) the context in which the curriculum development takes place and the different roles and responsibilities of curriculum developers are challenging; (3) curriculum developers feel insufficiently equipped to carry out their tasks; and (4) involving stakeholders is necessary but results in a “viscous” social–political process. Responsive curriculum development requires a great deal of flexibility and adaptability from curriculum developers. Yet, in our study, “institutional concrete” is found to severely hinder responsive curriculum development processes. To be responsive, such processes need to be supported and institutional barriers need to be removed.
DOCUMENT
Due to fast and unpredictable developments, professional education is challenged with being responsive, which demands a rethinking of conventional curriculum development approaches. Yet, literature on curriculum development falls short in terms of recognising how to react rapidly and adequately to these new developments. This study focuses on curriculum development initiatives at the school level in a Dutch university of applied sciences. Open interviews were held with 29 curriculum developers to explore how they define and give substance to developing curricula for new, changing or unpredictable professions. These 29 participants were involved in seven curriculum development trajectories. Four themes were detected: (1) curriculum developers are in favour of open, flexible and authentic curricula; (2) the context in which the curriculum development takes place and the different roles and responsibilities of curriculum developers are challenging; (3) curriculum developers feel insufficiently equipped to carry out their tasks; and (4) involving stakeholders is necessary but results in a “viscous” social–political process. Responsive curriculum development requires a great deal of flexibility and adaptability from curriculum developers. Yet, in our study, “institutional concrete” is found to severely hinder responsive curriculum development processes. To be responsive, such processes need to be supported and institutional barriers need to be removed.
LINK
Economic, social and environmental changes place high demands on teachers and teacher education. Consequently, teacher education is challenged to design curricula that respond to and anticipate changes. Curricula are value-driven and even though part of these values might be constant, the relative importance of values and the values themselves may also be subject to change since society is changing rapidly. In vocational education, responsive curriculum development refers to balancing the needs of students, workplaces and society. Vocational education qualifies students for coping with unpredictable situations and complex problems in occupational practice. As in vocational education, teacher education also prepares students for unpredictability and complexity and thus, we adopt the concept of responsiveness from vocational education to explore teacher education. This study explores the concept of a responsive curriculum for teacher education using a qualitative approach. Interviews were conducted with the key actors, namely students and teacher educators, in the context of Dutch teacher education. An initial framework, consisting of three responsive dimensions and five designable elements, was used to guide the interviews and analyse the data. The data revealed 14 relevant themes to identify how a teacher education curriculum can be responsive to changes in society, to a variety of schools and to student diversity. The developed framework can serve as a conceptual frame to study the enactment of responsive curriculum designs. Also, it can support practitioners when designing responsive curricula.
LINK
Little has been published regarding the training of academic developers themselves to support internationalization of the curriculum (IoC) initiatives. However, higher education institutions around the globe are responding to strategic demands for IoC which prepare students as ‘world-ready’ graduates. We employed qualitative research synthesis to identify recent journal articles which consider current trends in academic development to support IoC. Despite their diversity, we found common themes in the five selected studies. Our discussion and recommendations weave these themes with Betty Leask’s five-stage model of the process of IoC and Cynthia Joseph’s call for a pedagogy of social justice. “This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal for Academic Development on 19/11/15, available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2019.1691559.
MULTIFILE
Engineering students have to learn to create robust solutions in professional contexts where new technologies emerge constantly and sometimes disrupt entire industries. The question rises if universities design curricula that enable engineering students to acquire these cognitive skills. The Cynefin Framework (Kurtz & Snowden, 2003; Snowden & Boone, 2007) can be used to typify four complexity contexts a system or organisation can be found in: chaos, complex, complicated and obvious.The Cynefin framework made it possible to create the research question for a case-study: To what extend does the Business Engineering curriculum enable bachelors to find business solutions in the complexity contexts of the Cynefin framework? The results show that 80% of the methods are suitable for complicated contexts and no distinction is made between contexts. This means students are taught to approach most contexts in the same way and are not made aware of differences between the contexts. Making sense of the methods in the curriculum with the Cynefin framework was insightful and suggestions for improvement and further research could be substantiated
DOCUMENT
Industrial Design Engineering [Open] Innovation (IDE) is a 3-year, English taught, VWO entry-level, undergraduate programme at The Hague University of Applied Sciences (THUAS). The IDE curriculum focuses on the fuzzy front end of (open) innovation, sustainable development, and impact in the implementation phase of product-service design. The work field of Industrial Design Engineering and Open Innovation, like many other domains, is growing increasingly more complex (Bogers, Zobel, Afuah, Almirall, Brunswicker, Dahlander, Frederiksen, Gawer, & Gruber, 2017). Not only have the roles of designers changed considerably in the last decades, they continue to do so at increasing speed. Therefore, industrial design engineering students need different and perhaps more competencies as young professionals in order to deal with this new complexity. Moreover, in our transitional society, lifelong learning takes a central position (Reekers, 2017). Students need to give their learning path direction autonomously, in accordance with their talents and interests. IDE’s Quality & Curriculum Committee (QCC) realized in 2015 there is too much new knowledge to address in a 3-year programme. Instead, IDE students need to learn how to become temporary experts in an array of topics, depending on the characteristics of each new project they do (see Textbox 1). The QCC also concluded that more than just incremental changes to the current curriculum were needed; thus, the idea for a flexible, choice-based semester approach in the curriculum was born: ‘Curriculum M’ (Modular). A co-creational approach was applied, in which teaching staff, students, alumni, prospective students, industry (including the (international) social profit sector), and educational advisors collaborated to develop a curriculum that would allow students to become not just T-shaped (wide basis, one expertise) professionals, but U- or W-shaped professionals, with strong links to other disciplines.
DOCUMENT
This short paper describes the first prototyping of a self-evaluation process of Curriculum Agility at a Faculty of Technology in Sweden. The process comprises guided, semi-structured, individual interviews at different organisational levels within the faculty, a joint narrative based on those interviews, prioritizing development strategies per level, and jointly mapping them on importance and implementation time. The self-evaluation is part of and based on the research on the principles of Curriculum Agility. The results show the interplay in timely curriculum change for futureproof engineering education between the teaching staff, the systems and the people who control the systems. The self-evaluation brings together the different perspectives and perceptions within the faculty and gives insight in how those affect he willingness towards and occurrence of curriculum development. This work in progress indicates how doing such a qualitative self-evaluation paves the road for transparent strategic dialogues on a holistic level about what to give attention and organize differently.
DOCUMENT
In the midst of continuous health professions curriculum reforms, critical questions arise about the extent to which conceptual ideas are actually put into practice. Curricula are often not implemented as intended. An under-explored aspect that might play a role is governance. In light of major curriculum changes, we explored educators' perspectives of the role of governance in the process of translating curriculum goals and concepts into institutionalized curriculum change at micro-level (teacher-student). In three Dutch medical schools, 19 educators with a dual role (teacher and coordinator) were interviewed between March and May 2018, using the rich pictures method. We employed qualitative content analysis with inductive coding. Data collection occurred concurrently with data analysis. Different governance processes were mentioned, each with its own effects on the curriculum and organizational responses. In Institute 1, participants described an unclear governance structure, resulting in implementation chaos in which an abstract educational concept could not be fully realized. In Institute 2, participants described a top-down and strict governance structure contributing to relatively successful implementation of the educational concept. However it also led to demotivation of educators, who started rebelling to recover their perceived loss of freedom. In Institute 3, participants described a relatively fragmentized process granting a lot of freedom, which contributed to contentment and motivation but did not fully produce the intended changes. Our paper empirically illustrates the importance of governance in curriculum change. To advance curriculum change processes and improve their desired outcomes it seems important to define and explicate both hard and soft governance processes.
LINK
This curriculum on social mentoring is the result of a collaboration of a diverse group of academics, practitioners and students from around the world and was developed and facilitated as part of the Erasmus Plus Project “Mentoring for Social Inclusion in Europe: Sharing Knowledge and Building Capacity” (Ment4EU). It was implemented for the first time in Europe as a cross-organisational effort with a transdisciplinary approach as a blended intensive program with 30 participants from the partner countries joined by a further 220 students, practitioners and academics from NHL Stenden and the Netherlands for plenary sessions. The intended group of learners for this course are students, lecturers, researchers, academics and practitioners (mentors and program managers/coordinators of mentoring programs) interested in learning about mentoring for social inclusion and who are active in the fields of social work, youth work, sociology, health care, community work, management and organization, and related fields of practice and study programs. The weight of the program is 5 ECTS. This curriculum was developed as part of the Erasmus Plus Cooperation Partnership in Higher Educatoin “Mentoring for Social Inclusion in Europe: Sharing Knowledge and Building Capacity” (Ment4EU), as part of WP3_A2 Training Capacity in higher education institutions, project number 2023-1-AT01-KA220-HED-000158214
DOCUMENT
