Blog Series
Creating New Learning
Practice Areas
Innovative teaching and learning
Tags
Promoting innovative teaching and learning
Lifelong learning

A new research on Curriculum and key competences has started as part of the ETF initiative Creating New Learning (CNL). The research will aim to identify different types of contemporary VET curricula and how they respond to social, economic and technological changes locally and globally. We will try to link how different key competences are reflected and developed in these curricula and which structural and instructional approaches today proved to be most successful. We are eager to find out what major change has happened in curricula based on the latest knowledge in education and cross-related fields such as psychology, neuroscience, ICT.

As a result of the initial steps of the research we identified that contemporary curricula could be grouped into 6 major domains such as: 1) cross-disciplinary (a-disciplinary curricula); 2) collaborative and co-created curricula; 3) experiential (authentic) curricula; 4) discipline-driven curricula; 5) self-regulated curricula; 6) hybrid curricula.

A big group of curricula is focused on interdisciplinarity and cross-disciplinarity. This type of curricula put as the primary goal to structure and design learning around key concepts and phenomena. One of the latest examples is evident in Finland, however, cross-displinarity and interdisciplnarity has been evident in integrated and STEAM oriented curricula.

We also come across another group of curricula which build the strength on collaborative and co-creative approach. This type of curricula reflects a growing role of stakeholders such as employers, parents, community, in curriculum design and curriculum implementation.

The third group, currently presenting the highest variety, is based on “experience”, which happens in authentic, virtual, simulated or even imaginary environment. Here we find a long list of curricula to mention a few: problem-oriented curricula, inquiry-based curricula, project-based curricula, simulative curricula, game-based curricula, place-based (outdoor) curricula, entrepreneurship-oriented curricula and etc.

Focus on the learner, his/her autonomy and leadership development influenced a spring of personalised, self-regulated curricula with a new and emerging heutagogy idea behind it. It is the curricula which is highly learner-led and is typically, yet not necessarily, supported by online learning.

The fourth group presents an interesting hybrid type of curricula which bridge two, traditionally, perceived opposite things such as physical and virtual, theory and practice, school and work place.

We cannot forget that discipline driven curricula are still dominating. Thus, we have these as the last important group. However, the question is how this subject, discipline-oriented, curriculum is transforming to become a contemporary, competence-based curriculum and what is the future for it.

This variety of curricula reflects that curricula should be open systems capable to absorb fast changing knowledge and also be focused on the development of key competences which allow learners to adapt to changing complex social, technological, economic systems.

We are eager to learn what new type of curricula you know or have experience with. Country specific examples would be very interesting! How different type of curricula manage to respond to the needs of society and learners?

 

 

Comments (8)

Jolien van Uden
Open Space Member • 5 years ago

Dear Lina, thanks for sharing the different types of curricula you defined based on initial results at the start of our research project. I am wondering, do we have curriculum experts here at Open Space? If so, what do you think of this first grouping? Do we miss any developments, would you suggest to group them differently? We would like to hear your ideas!

Lynne Taylerson
Open Space Member • 5 years ago

Your blog has given me insightful new ways of thinking about curricula, Lina, thank you!
I think that for me as a researcher into digital and online aspects of learning, a particular area of fascination is the rise of rhizomatic (after Deleuze) communities or 'constellations' which come together around the heutagogy-based principles that you have outlined on a learning needs basis.
We can see this particularly in social media-based dialogues in informal communities for teachers, childcare and nursing professionals. I love Dave Cormier's idea of 'community as curriculum' as it describes these spaces so well: http://davecormier.com/edblog/2008/06/03/rhizomatic-education-community…
We might say that this is exactly what we are doing here?

Lina Kaminskienė
Open Space Member • 5 years ago

Yes, Lynne, exactly. We try to understand how fluidity in/of learning we see today is reflected in variety of curricula and find interesting examples which would work as evidences.

A. Besim Durgun
Open Space Member • 5 years ago

Thanks Lina for curriculum domains you have explored. My take on this is that the approach and perspectives you have taken needs to be more ‘refined’ or more ‘defined’. I have difficulty following the domains based on them being ‘exclusive’ and ‘exhaustive‘. Almost all domains you have suggested have overlaps.
When we speak about domains we tend to imply “taxonomy”, where we name, define and classify groups of entities on the basis of shared characteristics, and remain within the abstractions. In the first domain you suggest disciplinarity which more I interpret as discipline(s); in the second collaborative or co-creative process ie. learning approach. The third domain points out a learning approach as well. The fourth resonates with the first domain, namely disciplinarity, where first domain focuses unions of or intersections between disciplines , the fourth focus on single disciplines. The fifth domain is again a learning approach, which rings with the second domain, only on the one end of the spectrum, if we consider an array of teacher-led, collaborative or group-led, and learner led approaches to learning. The last domain is hybrid, intending to bring together a variety of approaches.
My suggestion is to regroup them considering exclusivity and exhaustiveness of each domain in mind.

Lina Kaminskienė
Open Space Member • 5 years ago

Thank you, Ahmed for your feedback and suggestions. The main principle while defining the domains was based on the focus of these different curricula. And definitely, there are overlaps. This is also evident in other typlogies, which are constructed on teacher-led, student-led, demand-driven and similar criteria. We will think about the idea of regrouping and what we might get of that.

A. Besim Durgun
Open Space Member • 5 years ago

When we speak about a curriculum, we focus on 6w’s: learning outcomes, content, methodology, learning environments, length and duration, and the learner/teacher. I suggest in categorizing domains, one could use these aspects as axes, and place them along those axes; and consequently identify commonalities and state the general name for the domain.

Jolien van Uden
Open Space Member • 5 years ago

I also like the approach of the curricular spiderweb which reflects the 6 points you mentioned, but defines the methodology part a bit more. The curricular spiderweb represents the interdependent nature of the 10 different core components of a curriculum: rationale, aims and objectives, content, learning activities, teacher role(s), materials and resources, grouping, location, time and assessment.

Please log in or sign up to comment.