Advertisement

Pathways and Praxis: Designing Curriculum for Aspirational Programs

  • Lucinda McKnight
  • Emma Charlton
Chapter

Abstract

As lecturer/researchers, we use documents mapping the design process, and our own reflections as the basis of a case study of curriculum design for the Associate Degrees of Arts and Education, pathways programs at Deakin University in Australia. In this way, we view curriculum as both personal and political, rather than as a package to be delivered. In this chapter, we share our inspirations, practices and constraints, so that other lecturers and researchers may use our insights in further thinking, teaching and learning in this area. We believe that reflexive attention to the curriculum design process, especially in neoliberal contexts in which a delivery model is foregrounded, highlights institutional challenges that complicate achieving the rhetoric of success for pathways students. We argue that these complexities need to be acknowledged, so that barriers to innovative curriculum design and enhanced student participation can be more fully understood before they can be tackled.

Keywords

Curriculum design Pathways Discourse Transition pedagogy Associate degrees 

References

  1. Allie, S., Armien, M. N., Burgoyne, N., Case, J. M., Collier-Reed, B. I., Craig, T., Deacon, A., Fraser, D. M., Geyer, Z., Jacobs, C., Jawitz, J., Kloot, B., Kotta, L., Langdon, G., le Roux, K., Marshall, D., Mogashana, D., Shaw, C., Sheridan, G. & Wolmarans., N. (2009). Learning as acquiring a discursive identity through participation in a community: Improving student learning in engineering education. European Journal of Research in Engineering Education, 34(4), 359–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Qualifications Framework Council. (2013). Australian qualifications framework. In A. Q. F. Council (Ed.) (2nd ed.). Canberra: Australian Qualifications Framework Council.Google Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, S. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauman, Z. (2007). Consuming life. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bowman, K. (2010). Background paper for the AQF Council on generic skills. In A. Q. F. Council (Ed.). Canberra: South Australian Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  8. CAST. (2016). CAST. Retrieved 14 March, 2016, from http://www.cast.org/
  9. Churchill, R., Godhinyo, S., Johnson, N. F., Keddie, A., Letts, W., Lowe, K., et al. (2016). Teaching: Making a difference (2nd ed.). Milton: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Connell, R. (2013). The neoliberal cascade and education: an essay on the market agenda and its consequences. Critical Studies in Education, 54(2), 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Devlin, M., Kift, S., Nelson, K., Smith, L., & McKay, J. (2012). Effective teaching and support of students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds: Practical advice for teaching staff. Sydney: Office for Learning and Teaching.Google Scholar
  12. Edmiston, B. (2014). Transforming teaching and learning through active dramatic approaches. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  14. Gale, T. (2010). Putting social inclusion in its place: Three principles for pedagogic work. Pathways 10 conference: Creating space for people with disabilities in tertiary education (pp. 1–15). Southbank Institute of Technology, Brisbane, QLD.Google Scholar
  15. Gale, T., & Tranter, D. (2011). Social justice in Australian higher education policy: An historical and conceptual account of student participation. Critical Studies in Education, 52(1), 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gale, T., Hodge, S., Parker, S., Rawolle, S., Charlton, E., Rodd, P., Skourdoumbis, A. & Molla, T. (2013). VET providers, associate and bachelor degrees, and disadvantaged learners: Report to the National VET Equity Advisory Council (NVEAC). Australia: Strategic Centre for Research in Educational Futures and Innovation (CREFI), Deakin University, Australia. Retrieved February 2 2016, http://www.deakin.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/365198/disadvantaged-learners.pdf
  17. Gearon, M., Kostogriz, A., & Miller, J. (2009). Culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms: New dilemmas for teachers. Bristol/Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  18. Gilardi, S., & Guglielmetti, C. (2011). University life of non-traditional students: Engagement styles and impact on attrition. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(1), 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haggis, T. (2006). Pedagogies for diversity: Retaining critical challenge amidst fears of “dumbing down”. Studies in Higher Education, 31(5), 521–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hardy, I., & Woodcock, S. (2015). Inclusive education policies: Discourses of difference, diversity and deficit. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(2), 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hughes, K. (2015). The social inclusion meme in higher education: Are Universities doing enough? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(3), 303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kift, S. (2009). Articulating a transition pedagogy to scaffold and to enhance the first year student learning experience in Australian higher education: Final report for ALTC Senior Fellowship Program.Google Scholar
  23. Kift, S. (2010). First year experience and curriculum design: Transition pedagogy as 3rd generation FYE. In Charles Sturt University student engagement forum (pp. 1–64). Brisbane City: Charles Sturt University.Google Scholar
  24. Kloot, B., Case, J. M., & Marshall, D. (2008). A critical review of the educational philosophies underpinning Science and Engineering foundation programmes. South African Journal of Higher Education, 22(4), 799–816.Google Scholar
  25. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Loo, R., & Thorpe, K. (2002). Using reflective team journals to improve individual and team performance. Team Performance Management, 8(5/6), 134–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marshall, D., & Case, J. M. (2010). Rethinking ‘disadvantage’ in higher education: A paradigmatic case study using narrative analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 35(5), 491–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: the discipline of noticing. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Meuleman, A.-M., Garrett, R., Wrench, A., & King, S. (2015). ‘Some people might say I’m thriving but…’: Non-traditional students’ experiences of university. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(5), 503–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nelson, K., Creagh, T., Kift, S., & Clarke, J. (2014). Transition pedagogy handbook: A good practice guide for policy and practice in the first year experience at QUT (2nd ed.). Brisbane: QUT.Google Scholar
  32. Penn-Edwards, S., & Donnison, S. (2014). A fourth generation approach to transition in the first year in higher education: First Year in Higher Education Community of Practice (FYHECoP). The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 5(1), 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pinar, W. F. (2011). What is curriculum theory? New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Radnor, H. (2002). Researching your professional practice: Doing interpretive research. Buckingham/Philadephia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Richardson, L., & St Pierre, E. A. (2008). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 473–499). Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
  36. Slee, R. (2013). How do we make inclusion happen when exclusion is a political disposition? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(8), 895–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith, D. (1987). The everyday world as problematic. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Smith, D. (2005). Institutional ethnography: A sociology for people. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, D. (2011, February 18). Institutional ethnography. Seminar presented at Deakin University, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  40. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies, 2(4), 419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Wheelan, S. B., Davidson, B., & Tilin, F. (2003). Group development across time: Reality or illusion? Small Group Research, 34(2), 223–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education, Faculty of Arts and EducationDeakin UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations