Long traditions have always permeated teacher involvement in the design of school curriculums. Although this is the case, and inasmuch as it fosters the enactment of curriculum reforms, teachers go through various problems in the design process, especially, in the conditions set for proper design implementation. Moreover, teachers also lack the skills and knowledge required to establish collaborative design teams that are crucial to the overall process. In the development of curriculums, support provision that enhances expertise in teachers is indispensable since teachers lack the necessary design experience to implement noteworthy design structures. Research and different findings indicate that there are three innate gaps in the design expertise of teachers. These gaps are the knowledge of pedagogical content, expertise in curricular design, and expertise in curricular consistency (Huizinga, Handelzalts, Nieveen & Voogt, 2013). Further, outcomes of divergent studies indicate the significance of augmenting the design ability in teachers during the design process and the focus on their design expertise. Therefore, through the offering of custom-made and target specific support to teachers, the overall process of design and material quality typically improves. This paper discusses teacher involvement in the curricular design process, extrapolating the need for expertise in design
Various studies show and highlight the role teachers’ play in augmenting personal beliefs concerning curricular content in relation to its implementation (Coenders, Terlouw & Dijkstra, 2008). Moreover, the implementation of curriculum materials within institutions normally follows their beliefs; largely, teachers seldom implement a curriculum that contradicts their ideas on content and its delivery and implementation. In most cases, materials are typically employed when they match the perspective of the teacher and are discarded if they do not (Coenders, Terlouw & Dijkstra, 2008). The development of efficient belief structures entails four characteristic beliefs, which are the role of the teacher; the student learning methods; student abilities; and the relative significance of subject contents. While this is the case, most teachers continue to adapt novel curriculum during enactment, which reflects their own beliefs and contexts. This is the case to the point whereby initial subscription to reforms developed by others results in non-guarantees for the implementation and sustenance processes. In a study report, a community of teachers commenced and later abandoned the reformation process because their beliefs concerning teaching and learning did not coincide with their beliefs concerning their students (Coenders, Terlouw & Dijkstra, 2008). In this scenario, teachers often argued that their student’s inability to cope with the curriculum change made them revert to their old system (Coenders, Terlouw & Dijkstra, 2008). However, they did not consider their own beliefs, which were the initial cause of misunderstanding and curriculum rejection by the students.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In Australia, a phenomenological study described the emergence of four divergent categories of the meaning, when various academics were questioned concerning the comprehension of the innate essence of the curriculum (Olateru-Olagbegi, 2016). Following this inquiry, researchers concluded that the influence of various conceptions thought of by practicing academics mostly came from philosophical and epistemological dogmas of every individual. Further, research by Ziegenfuss and Lawler (2008) based on their study to know the duties of an instructor in the design and development process of an academic course, further concluded that the learning and teaching belief system in a teacher influences the success of a curriculum design. This goes to show that if a particular instructor feels that they are being limited by institutional, departmental, and accreditation standards and guidelines, they most likely will not fully embrace the change process and will rethink the entire teaching and learning process (Ziegenfuss & Lawler, 2008)
More studies explored the intrinsic beliefs of three teachers of geography teaching contentious issues in the secondary schools of the United Kingdom, who had a disposition that they should refrain from influencing the attitudes of children (Olateru-Olagbegi, 2016). In the study, the researcher concluded that curriculum developers should always take into account the beliefs of teachers in coming up with new materials for the curriculum. Moreover, that failure to include the beliefs of teachers in their teaching experiences would result in a non-functional implementation of the curriculum, and would as a supplement, result in unintended formats and greater margins of error. Overall, teachers are more likely to strategize and implement various run-throughs that show their beliefs concerning learning and teaching (Olateru-Olagbegi, 2016). Not only do beliefs affect the design of curricular, but they also have implications that stretch to points whereby they even affect the implementation of crucial technological infrastructures that facilitate the implementation and running of essential curricular structures. As such, teachers’ beliefs strongly reflect their implications on the implementation of not only technologies within the classrooms, but also the entire curricular design.
Although teacher beliefs are crucial in the development of noteworthy curriculums, having design expertise is the fundamental basis of coming up with the right design, befitting to both the teachers and students. Prior to the identification of improvement strategies in teacher design expertise, the elaboration of the meaning of teacher design expertise is imperative. Various scholars describe the required expertise in curriculum enactment (Huizinga, Handelzalts, Nieveen & Voogt, 2013). While these researchers use dissimilar labels in an adequate description of the same concept, such as instructional design competencies, design expertise, and curriculum design competencies, the underlying principles remain relatively similar (Huizinga, Handelzalts, Nieveen & Voogt, 2013). Design expertise entails having the right skills and knowledge that enacts the process of design. Design expertise prescribes the development, design, analysis, evaluation skills, and implementation of the curriculum. Conversely, not only are teachers expected to implement the design process, but they are also obliged to possess immense insights and knowledge into the teachers, the learners, and the context. As such, there are two types of distinguished design expertise, which are the specific design expertise and the generic design and process expertise. While generic design refers to the skills and knowledge needed for the enactment of design processes, specific design entails the skills and knowledge required for the initial development of curricula.
The augmentation of teacher design expertise takes on various forms. First is through the development of the knowledge and skills needed to enact curriculum design, known as, the curriculum design expertise. As mentioned above, curriculum design entails activities exemplified in analysis, development, design, implementation and evaluation activities, operationalized in precise tactics. Here, teachers are able to increase their design expertise using six knowledge types and skills, based on actions within occurring instructional and curriculum design replica. The application of these models typically forms the basis for enacting design processes among teachers (Huizinga, Handelzalts, Nieveen & Voogt, 2013). These knowledge types include the ability to generate ideas; the evaluation skills that border on being formative and summative; the implementation of management skills; unilateral decision-making skills; curriculum design that is systemic; and the skills and knowledge needed to formulate problem statements. Another way in which teacher design expertise is improved is through the application of subject matter knowledge. Since the expectation of curriculum materials requires accuracy, relevance, and instantaneous insights of various subject matters, knowledge of the subject matter augments the design expertise in teachers. In relation to the subject matter, two knowledge types are imperative. These are; the skills and knowledge of updating the subject matter and the skills and knowledge of gaining proper insight to the subject matter of learners and their difficulties.
Pedagogy entails specific methods of teaching practices, particularly, the understanding of theoretical concepts and academic subject matters. As such, pedagogical content knowledge is imperative in assuring the strengthening of teacher design expertise. While teachers continue to include an update and make accurate subject matter knowledge, this is not sufficient in fostering a noteworthy process of learning. Therefore, teachers need to understand and resolve divergent processes of teaching and learning that promote their materials. In essence, pedagogical knowledge goes beyond the knowledge of subject matter and graces the dimensions of subject matter intended for specific skill sets in teaching (Huizinga, Handelzalts, Nieveen & Voogt, 2013). Under pedagogy, three knowledge types and skills appear which are the information communication and technology skills, the material selection skills, and finally the pedagogical repertoire. Finally, developing consistency in curriculum expertise normally leads to the augmentation of teacher design expertise. During the design process, teachers require dependable design materials that are consistent. In curricular development, two types of consistency are imperative; these are the external and internal consistencies. These types when infused with proper knowledge and skills create consistent curricula. While internal curriculum consistency describes coherence and balance of elements in the curricula, external curriculum consistency is majorly concerned with the coherence and perceptions of the concerned stakeholders such as the teachers and parents.
Ultimately, to increase the involvement of curriculum design, teacher design teams (TDT) are highly significant in the overall process of designing externally and internally consistent materials of a curriculum (Huizinga, Handelzalts, Nieveen & Voogt, 2013). In order to achieve this, support of TDTs is required using intrinsic guidelines that are pertinent to the development of TDTs. First, through quality enhancement of the design process, designer teams are able to access integrated systems thus increasing their design involvement. Second, this support needs to focus on the development of teacher’s curriculum design expertise. Study results indicate that most teachers have trouble in this domain and as such when enhanced, it brings about ample involvement in the design process.
References
Coenders, F., Terlouw, C., & Dijkstra, S. (2008). Assessing Teachers’ Beliefs to Facilitate the Transition to a New Chemistry Curriculum: What Do the Teachers Want?. Journal of Science Teacher Education , 19 (4), 317-335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9096-5
Huizinga, T., Handelzalts, A., Nieveen, N., & Voogt, J. (2013). Teacher involvement in curriculum design: need for support to enhance teachers’ design expertise. Journal of Curriculum Studies , 46 (1), 33-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.834077
Olateru-Olagbegi, A. (2016). Teacher Involvement in Curricula Design in Higher Education. SFU Ed Review , 1-12.
Ziegenfuss, D., & Lawler, P. (2008). Collaborative course design: changing the process, acknowledging the context, and implications for academic development. International Journal for Academic Development , 13 (3), 151-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13601440802242309
