Advertisement

The Transformative Dimensions of Professional Curriculum Quality Enhancement

  • Sara HammerEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This concluding chapter critically examines the phenomenon of professional curriculum quality enhancement in higher education through the lens of curriculum renewal as transformation. Its central argument is that the highly complex, transformational nature of curriculum design and development creates particular challenges and tensions for professional degrees. These challenges stem from the role played by academic teacher conception and beliefs in curriculum transformation, as well as their response to calls for significant changes in thinking and practice arising from this transformation. It argues that universities can be sites of resistance to external calls for change by stakeholders, such as government and professional organisations. Yet it acknowledges that the reverse can also be true, with university profession-based disciplines themselves instigating change in response to wider socio-political demands, including future industry needs. This chapter looks back over the international case studies presented by authors in this volume and examines each through the lens of curriculum renewal as transformation. The chapter uses this framework to counter typical curriculum quality narratives, which are often relatively straightforward, incomplete, procedural accounts of positive change. The lens of curriculum as transformation is used as a way of properly acknowledging the context of the case illustrations of quality practices explored in this second volume. This chapter concludes that given the inherent challenges of delivering professional degrees the efforts and achievements of teachers and curriculum teams examined by chapter authors within this book are all the more remarkable.

Keywords

Curriculum Complexity Higher education Professions Transformation 

References

  1. Australian Government Department of Education & Training. (2015). Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards). Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015L0163
  2. Barrie, S. C. (2006). Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates. Higher Education, 51(2), 215–241.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6384-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bath, D., Smith, C., Stein, S., & Swann, R. (2004). Beyond mapping and embedding graduate attributes: Bringing together quality assurance and action learning to create a validated and living curriculum. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carvalho, F., & Kotrashetti, A. (2016). Planning of a microwave engineering course guided by graduate attributes. In 2016 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Technology for Education (T4E 2016) (pp. 260–261). Mumbai, India, Institute of the Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc, 2–4 December.Google Scholar
  5. Desha, C., & Hargroves, K. (2010). Surveying the state of higher education in energy efficiency, in Australian engineering curriculum. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(7), 652–658.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.07.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Desha, C., Robinson, D., & Sproul, A. (2015). Working in partnership to develop engineering capability in energy efficiency. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106(C), 283–291.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edström, K., & Kolmos, A. (2014). PBL and CDIO: Complementary models for engineering education development. European Journal of Engineering Education, 39(5), 539–555.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2014.895703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Engineers Australia. (2013). Guide to assessment of eligibility for membership (stage 1 competency). Retrieved from http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/shado/Membership/Stage%201%20Assessment/ea_stage_1_guide-rev02_2013.pdf
  9. ENQA. (2009). ENQA report on standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European higher education area. Helsinki, Finland: European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education.Google Scholar
  10. Finkel, A. (2013). Innovative approaches to engineering education: The Australian experience. Paper presented at the CAETS/HAE Symposium 2013, Budapest. Retrieved from http://www.caets.org/cms/7124/8123.aspx
  11. Gibbs, G. (2010). Dimensions of quality. Retrieved from Heslington, York, UK: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/dimensions_of_quality.pdf
  12. Hurlimann, A., March, A., & Robins, J. (2013). University curriculum development—Stuck in a process and how to break free. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 35(6), 639–651.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2013.844665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jordan, J. T. (2008). Student ratings in a consumerist academy: Leveraging pedagogical control and authority. Sociological Perspectives, 51(2), 397–422.  https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2008.51.2.397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. King, S. (2006). Emotional dimensions of major educational change: A study of higher education PBL curriculum reform. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference: ‘Engaging pedagogies’, Adelaide, South Australia. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2006/kin06834.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-35,792
  15. Kolmos, A., Hadgraft, R. G., & Holgaard, J. E. (2016). Response strategies for curriculum change in engineering. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(3), 391–411.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9319-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Michelsen, S., Vabø, A., Kvilhaugsvik, H., & Kvam, E. (2017). Higher education learning outcomes and their ambiguous relationship to disciplines and professions. European Journal of Education, 52(1), 56–67.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. O’Meara, J., & MacDonald, D. (2004). Power, prestige and pedagogic identity: A tale of two programs recontextualizing teacher standards. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 32(2), 111–127.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866042000234214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rienties, B., & Toetenel, L. (2016). The impact of learning design on student behaviour, satisfaction and performance: A cross-institutional comparison across 151 modules. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 333–341.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rose, G., Ryan, K., & Desha, C. (2015). Implementing a holistic process for embedding sustainability: A case study in first year engineering, Monash University, Australia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 229–238.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. TEQSA. (2015). TEQSA and quality-assurance. Retrieved from http://www.teqsa.gov.au/regulatory-approach/teqsa-and-quality-assurance
  21. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in university science teachers’ approaches to teaching. Higher Education, 32(1), 77–87.  https://doi.org/10.1007/Bf00139219CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southern QueenslandToowoombaAustralia

Personalised recommendations