INTERVIEW AND ANALYSIS1

Interview and Scholarly Paper

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

EDU 705 – Theory and Practice in Curriculum Development

Professor Dr. Joseph Mior

XXXXXXXXXXX

Summary of Interview

On September 14th2012, I sat down to interview a faculty in the Child and Youth Work Program at Centennial College. This facultyhas recently developed a course for students in their third year of the Child and Youth Work Program. The specific course is called Evidence Based Practice. The faculty describes the course as one that is designed to help students make informed choices about adopting the “best” programs for developing the core social, emotional and life- long learning skills children and adolescents need to become productive and contributing members of society. Emphasis in this course is placed on providing students with the tools and resources needed to locate and select a research-based program or combination of programs that will be effective in a particular setting with a specific population. This course teaches students to identify a need and through well constructed research to find evidence based treatment interventions (Faculty, personal communication, September 14, 2012).

Rationale for developing this course is identified by this faculty as occurring for two reasons. Most importantly, trends in the field of Child and Youth Work indicated that students no longer need to be able to create programs as had been the case in previous years and in an earlier version of this course, but now must be able to examine the existing literature on mental health issues and implement treatment that is shown to be beneficial to clients. The second reason identified by this faculty was the natural timing of the Child and Youth Work programs scheduled curriculum review. The curriculum review provided the opportunity to remove a course that no longer met the needs of the students and to develop one that did (Faculty, personal communication, September 14, 2012).

When asked to recall the stops taken and decisions made from the beginning of the course design to the actual implementation, this faculty recalls several key elements. First this faculty consulted with the faculty team currently delivering the Child and Youth Work program and gathered data from the program advisory committee to better understand the need for the students and the field of Child and Youth Work. This faculty followed these consultations with a review of the literature to determine what recommendations and practices were currently being used in the field of Children’s Mental Health treatment. This faculty then consulted with several other Child and Youth Work Programs (at other Colleges) to compare program expectations and course offerings. Following this, this faculty created a summary of the specific needs identified and developed a draft course description. This faculty then established the course objectives, learning outcomes and methods of assessment. This faculty consulted the team one additional time for feedback. Once this faculty had a clear understanding of the learning objectives and outcomes,this faculty began to plan the course content and develop specific lesson plans. This faculty describes this process as having a clear big picture first and only then can you move to the specific details (Faculty, personal communication, September 14, 2012).

During our discussion, this faculty identified several major decisions that were critical to the process of developing this course. First this faculty had to decide what the needs of the employers were followed by the needs of the students. This decision allowed this faculty to develop a course with clear, well-defined learning outcomes and objectives. This faculty then had to decide how best to deliver the course. Drawing on experience with student-centred learning, this faculty was able to create a course that allowed students to engage in the process of learning as opposed to being delivered specific content. This faculty also integrated Bloom’s taxonomy into the decision making by ensuring that both cognitive and affective domains were integrated into the course design. This faculty describes the major project as an example of student centred learning that incorporates key elements of Blooms theory. The major project consists of students identifying a problem, conducting a needs assessment, researching an evidence based program and then implementing that program in their field placement (Faculty, personal communication, September 14, 2012).

This faculty has now delivered this course twice since she developed it. One significant factor that this faculty has begun to plan for is the challenge for students who have not been exposed to a student-centred learning style that does not follow a traditional lecture style format. This faculty identified that many of her colleagues use a traditional lecture style format and that students in this revised course take some time to adjust to the new approach. They are initially pleased with the model of no tests but struggle with a more self-directed learning style. To adjust for this, this faculty has begun to work with faculty to discuss ways to integrate student-centred learning earlier in the program. Overall, student feedback at the end of the course has been extremely positive and students report confidence in their ability to integrate research and trends within the field of Child and Youth Work into their practice in the field.

This faculty was asked by this interviewer to consider if asked to use a metaphor to describe them self as a developer what would that be? After considerable reflection, this faculty felt they could best be described as a compass and that the role was to know where students and employers (the field) were and to be able to point the students in the right direction with the support necessary to get where they needed to go. This faculty credits their understanding of course development to several sources including having taken a Foundations in Teaching course, regularly reviewing research on student learning, consultations and dialogue with other faculty and input from the program Chair.

Scholarly Paper

Curriculum is a term that is often used in a variety of ways. Curriculum can be understood as the course material, the experiences encountered at school, the relatedgoals and objectives or as a series of program activities that achieve desired outcomes (Wiles, 2009). When designing curriculum one must consider how instructional design (ID) factors into the process. Baturay (2008) suggests that instructional design is “the systematic method for analyzing, designing, developing, evaluating and managing the instructional process efficiently; based on the knowledge and experiences of learning and instructional theories so that it will improve the quality of instruction and ensure effective and retentive learning”. Both definitions assist us in understanding that most often we see curriculum as the set of experiences that lead us to a desired outcome.

Wiles (2009) suggests that curriculum is a development process that is based on set goals that result in successful learning for students. Wiles points out that once you have identified what you want the student to experience (curriculum) you can then take these broad expectations and focus them down to the very specific. This means that curriculum can include the overarching principles of an entire program right down to the very specific details of a lesson plan (Wiles, 2009). This paper will examine various models of instructional design as they relate to curriculum development and will examine the interview conducted with a faculty who has recently designed a course and compare their process against existing models.

A variety of models for instructional design and curriculum development exist. Most models have followed several steps that have remained prevalent within curriculum design. The steps include analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation also known as ADDIE (Baturay, 2008). Regardless of the specific model used, the intent of design models is to provide a guiding framework that allows the designer to manage the process (Kelting-Gibson, 2005).

The first model to be examined is developed by Morrison, Ross and Kemp. This modelmoves away from a step by step (linear) approach and uses a circular framework to address several key elements (Morrison, Ross, Kalman & Kemp, 2011). These elements include identify the instructional problem; understand learner characteristics, identify course content and conduct a task analysis; identify instructional objectives; organize content for logical learning; design instructional strategies; decide how to evaluate and select resources. This model allows the designer to move into the design process at any starting point and encourages an ongoing process of assessment and planning reflected in the circular framework (Morrison et al., 2011). This model provides specific and clear directions on how to examine each of the elements as part of a framework for instructional design.

The next model to be examined is a systems approach model developed by Dick and Carey. Baturay (2008) summarized Dick and Carey’s work into several steps. These steps include, identify the instructional goal; analyze the goal; analyze the learners; develop objectives; develop assessment instruments; develop instructional strategies; develop and select instruction methods and materials; design formative evaluation; revise instruction and establish summative evaluation. In this model, Baturay (2008) notes that designers can use this model from any starting point with the only highly prescriptive component being in the design of instructional objectives which must be preceded by conducting a prior needs assessment.

The third model to be examined is Smith and Ragan’s model of instructional design. Smith and Ragan’s model has three main steps that include (1) Analysis “where are we going?” (2) Strategy “how will we get there?” and (3) Evaluation “how will we know we are there?” (Baturay, 2008). Analysis refers to analyzing the learning that must take place, analyzing the learner and analyzing the learning tasks that must be achieved. The strategies step refers to how decisions are made related to how the learning will be organized, implemented and managed. The last step is evaluation which includes both formative and summative evaluation. In this step the designer uses formative assessment to go back to the strategy step and make revisions while using summative assessment to determine whether the process was effective (Baturay, 2008). This model provides a clear somewhat linear progression to follow in the process of instructional design.

The last model to be examined is often referred to in the literature as backward planning (Bay Area School Reform, 1999; Jones, Vermette & Jones, 2009). Backward planning refers to a process of design that starts with identifying specifically what learners must know at the end of the instructional process. The designer must then develop how this learning will be assessed and only then can the designer begin to develop the instructional strategies(Jones, Vermette & Jones, 2009). This model proposes that curriculum design must not be seen as a series of content to be delivered and evaluated. It is only when we know the final destination that we can work backwards to create well planned instructional strategies that will take the learner to that destination.

All of the models presented here share several common characteristics with some models providing more detail with regards to steps and some being more prescriptive in the format that must be followed. Overall there are some key elements that emerge to form the foundation of curriculum design. These elements include:

  1. Determine what learners need to know. Whether we call this developing an instructional goal or identifying the instructional problem, designers must know what is expected at the end of the learning process.
  2. Know your learners. Many models suggest that you must examine the learning styles and needs of learners to be able to develop learning strategies to support the learning.
  3. Determine how learners will get to the final destination. This may include writing clear objectives, establishing learning strategies and activities. This step often requires developers to determine exactly what knowledge, skills and thinking needs to be achieved and how best to accomplish this.
  4. Decide how learning will be evaluated. This step often requires both formative and summative assessment that allows designers to modify learning strategies and to determine whether the desired learning has occurred.

Although considerable variation and detail exists within various models as to how to accomplish these steps, most models appear to agree that knowing where you are going, who you are designing for, how they will get to the final destination and how you will know they are there are key elements to effective design.

This paper will now examine a snapshot of what is currently taking place in curriculum design. To do this, we will examine the outcome of an interview conducted with a faculty who recently undertook a curriculum design project and compare how their process contrasts to models proposed in the literature on curriculum development. As identified earlier there appear to be four key elements found in curriculum design including, determine what learners need to know, know your learners, determine how learners will get what they need to know and decide how learning will be evaluated.

The faculty interviewed identified several key steps they followed to develop the curriculum for one specific course. The faculty first conducted a needs assessment by gathering data from the other faculty delivering the program, conducting a literature review, consulting the program advisory committee and other college programs. The faculty then analyzed the data collected and created a summary of needs. This suggests that this faculty achieved the first step in effective curriculum design. By gathering data from a variety of stakeholders, they were able to determine what the learners needed to know.

Next the faculty took the list of identified needs and developed the learning objectives and outcomes and established the methods of assessment. During the interview, the faculty did not elaborate on how they matched these specific learning objectives and assessment methods to the needs or on the specific skills, attitudes and knowledge that were required. The process used by the faculty suggests that they considered learning needs and matched them to objectives and assessment achieving another step in effective curriculum design.

The next step identified by this faculty was to develop the specific course content and lesson plans that would be used to achieve the desired learning. This faculty considered this the final step in their curriculum design process. Through further discussion, this faculty highlighted the importance of integrating elements of cognitive and affective learning domains into the course content and the use of methodology based on student centred learning. It appears that this design process meets another recommended element of curriculum design that is to determine how learners will get to their final destination.

One element that was mentioned only briefly during this interview was evaluation. The faculty noted that evaluation methods were developed early on but did not specify what type of evaluation (summative or formative) was developed and how it was used. The faculty did describe one major project which asks students to apply all of the skills learned in the form of a major research project. Although it is difficult to know for sure, this suggests that this faculty has integrated summative assessment into this curriculum design but not formative.

Overall it is clear that this faculty has incorporated most if not all of the suggested elements of curriculum design proposed within the literature. This faculty has clearly bought into student-centred learning as a principle and clearly strives to stay current on effective pedagogical practices. From a design perspective this faculty clearly strives to provide the most useful (to all stakeholders) learning experience into their practice.

In conclusion as with most fields of study there are many models and theoretical perspectives available for consideration. Most models found in curriculum design share several common characteristics including knowing where your learner is going, know your learners, know how they will get to their final destination and decide how you will know when they get there. It is also clear that the interview conducted with one faculty demonstrates that at least in this situation faculty are generally using the principles of effective curriculum design. The faculty interviewed shows that by staying current in effective pedagogy it is possible to create successful curriculum that engages students and promotes learning. Faculty wishing to embark on the journey of curriculum design will be well positioned for the journey if they do their homework. This means that faculty must examine the literature on effective design, establish a plan and regularly examine their practices in light of best practice within the field of education.