101
as well as assessment and evaluation so that it can be easily implemented by lecturers during the use of Moodle.
102
3.4.1 Instrumental approach (vertical curriculum) in the development of Curriculum-as-implemented
In addition to the above, Hoadley and Jansen (2009), and Bernstein (1999), outline that when curriculum-as-implemented is influenced by ideology of vertical, performance, or collection curriculum, the formal reflections will be driven or influenced by the following key aspects namely: students, lecturers, teaching methods, knowledge, assessment, and the learning environment. These aspects are interrogated in the study conducted by Ensor (2004) on higher education curriculum restructuring discourse. The study revealed two contesting discourses on curriculum implementation policies in reshaping higher education curricular, namely: disciplinary discourse (mode 1) and credit exchange accumulation discourse (mode 2). It is revealed from the study that mode 1 is advocating for vertical curriculum attributes because the valued knowledge is from a direct discipline (module need), the content body of knowledge is also taken from research work, the world view on implementation is driven by traditional, vertical or sequential teaching and learning, perspectives of teaching and learning is guided by teacher-centred. On the contrary mode 2 (horizontal curriculum) discourse is opposing mode 1 discourse. The findings from this study suggests that lecturers should formally reflect of these aspects (students, lecturers, teaching methods, knowledge, assessment, and the learning environment) when implementing the curriculum in order to ensure the module need is met.
Furthermore, studies outline that in the implementation vertical curriculum, a lecturer has control over the selection of the module content to be taught as according to the module outline (planned curriculum) (Bernstein, 1999; Ensor, 2001; Khoza*, 2016b; Schubert, 1996; Van den Akker- et al., 2012). Studies aver that the lecturer decides which content to be taught in a particular module, and the lecturer only does the direct teaching or lecturing by transmitting knowledge from the module outline as it is to the students. These studies further highlights that the pedagogy, or teaching and learning methodology, in curriculum-as-implemented puts more focus on the module to be taught, that is the main concern or focus during curriculum implementation, which is on sequential implementation of the module content to be covered. For instance, when implementing the content on electricity in the Physical Science module, the main focus might be to cover the concepts on parallel and series connection as well as it calculations. As a result, a lecturer may feel
103
satisfied or that they have done justice in class if all concepts highlighted in a physical module outline are covered or taught as is, irrespective of whether learners have understood it or not.
Moving further, it is outlined from the studies done by Ensor (2004) and Bernstein (1999) that university modules follow the mode 1 type of curriculum implementation where modules are demarcated from each other according to their own disciplines. For example, modules such as Professional Studies module, Educational Studies module, and others, offered in the curriculum studies discipline may address the discipline (curriculum studies), and modules like History, Geography, and others offered in Social Sciences discipline may address the discipline. Moreover, Bernstein (1999) and Schubert (1996) studies further emphasise that curriculum-as-implemented advocates for a school knowledge of each discipline. Studies further assert that school knowledge is embedded into a particular module in a discipline vertically, formally, and sequentially, in order to constitute researched facts and relevant language of the module offered, such as Physical Science, Mathematics, Geography, and others (Hoadley & Jansen, 2013; Laurillard, 2013). School knowledge is implemented systematically, sequentially, and hierarchically following the prescribed content which address the module need, and school knowledge is written down in black and white which enhances vertical continuity from one module to another (Bernstein, 1999; Le Grange* & Reddy, 2017). This suggests that curriculum-as-implemented is influenced by formal reflection based on written facts of each module offered in a discipline. In other words, knowledge in each discipline is based on evidence taken from research of each discipline (Kelly, 2009). Thus, curriculum-as-implemented depends on the set or planned university curriculum stating all content that is to be taught or learned (Le Grange', 2014; Noblit & Pink, 2016).
In addition to the above, the aspect of assessment in curriculum-as-implemented is outlined in various studies which outline that assessment in the curriculum-as-implemented is informed by formal reflection because it has to form a constructive alignment that should be transpired in all levels of module implementation at a university, namely, teaching activities, intended curriculum as well as assessment tasks (Biggs', 2011; Boud et al., 2013; Cornish & Jenkins, 2012; Hunkins &
Ornstein, 1998). These studies further aver that intended or planned content leads to the teaching activities and assessment task that will be administered during the implementation process. This
104
then suggests that all formal assessment which takes place during the implantation period takes the formal written content prescribed in the module outline or course pack. For instance, assessment tasks given to students, might be in line with what is taught and stipulated in the module outline and be aligned with all other previously done teaching and learning activities in order to ensure constructive alignment (content, activities and assessment).
Furthermore, to the above, studies conducted by Bloom (1956), Hoadley and Jansen (2013), as well as Anderson-, Krathwohl, and Bloom (2001), on assessment in the implementation of the curriculum, outline that there are stipulated criteria in place to determine the failure or the pass of a particular assessment. For instance in the South African university context, if an assessment mark is below 50%, the criteria reflects the fail; 50%-59% is a third class pass, 60%-69% is second- class pass in lower division, 70%-74% it is second class pass in upper division, 75%-100% it is first class pass. This then suggests that assessment criteria follows certain vertical and formal steps in order to achieve the higher criteria, and in curriculum-as-implemented lecturers’ may only judge whether students have failed or passed an assessment task. As a result, lecturers’ are then expected to be driven by a formal reflection in teaching the content of curriculum-as-implemented before they administer assessment tasks in order enhance stipulated assessment criteria (Reddy & le Grange, 2017). In other words, lecturers are implementing the module content in order to attain the assessment criteria, and this indicates that lecturers are teaching the content while their focus is on assessment. This why Bloom (1956) introduced different classifications that should be ensured when conducting assessment during teaching and learning
Moreover, Anderson- et al. (2001), Bloom (1956), Kennedy, Hyland, and Ryan (2006), as well as Hoadley and Jansen (2013), further aver that teaching and learning in curriculum-as-implemented is addressed by a formal reflection that is guided by an instrumental development approach because implementation of curriculum is systematic and hierarchical following certain prescribed content in order to address the module need. These studies further articulate that curriculum-as- implemented gives great privilege to the cognitive domain (knowing component of learning), affective domain (emotional component of learning), and psycho-motor domain (skills component of learning). Note that curriculum-as-implemented focuses more on cognitive domain as depicted
105
in Figure 3.3 below which will be discussed further in Section 3.8 of this chapter (Bloom, 1956;
Kennedy et al., 2006). Be that as it may, note that assessment in curriculum-as-implemented are made up of sequential steps which are influenced by formal reflection, ranging from lower order to higher order level of thinking namely: 1. Remembering (knowledge); 2. Understanding (comprehension); 3. Applying (application); 4. Analysing (analysis); 5. Evaluating (evaluation);
and 6. Creating (synthesis) (Anderson- et al., 2001; Bloom, 1956)
Figure 3.3: Classification of levels in curriculum-as-implemented. Source: Anderson- et al. (2001, p. 81)
Moreover, Policies in higher education also provide some formal reflection of assessment in higher education. Take for instance in the South African context, there are policies which provide assessment criteria of each qualification offered at a HEIs (Education, 2002). These policies provide formal level descriptors as according the National Qualification Framework (NQF) levels, namely: 1. NQF level 1: General knowledge; 2. NQF level 2: Basic operational knowledge; 3.
NQF level 3: Basic understanding of key concepts; 4. NQF level 4: Demonstrate fundamental knowledge; 5. NQF level 5: Demonstrate an informed understanding; 6. NQF level 6: Demonstrate the main knowledge areas; 7. NQF level 7: Demonstrate integrated knowledge; 8. NQF level 8:
Demonstrate knowledge of and engagement; 9. NQF level 9: Demonstrate special knowledge; and 10. NQF level 10: Demonstrate expertise and critical knowledge. The meaning of these levels is therefore (Education, 2002) outlined in NQF policy, which indicates that each qualification offered is assessed according to each NQF level. For instance, there is Higher Certificate (NQF level 5), advanced certificate and Diploma (NQF level 6), advanced certificate (NQF level 5), Bachelor’s
106
Degree certificate (NQF level 7), Bachelor Honours Degree certificate and Postgraduate Diploma (NQF level 8), Master’s Degree (NQF level 9) and Doctoral Degree (NQF level 10). This then suggests a formal reflection of qualification attained by students after assessment has been administered in curriculum-as-implemented and this shows a step-by-step process of achieving a qualification which is influenced by a formal and vertical curriculum. Note that the last aspect to be considered in curriculum-as-implemented is the teaching and learning environment (Earl &
Giles, 2011; Hoadley & Jansen, 2013).
Furthermore, the teaching and learning process only occurs in a clearly marked environment such as the classroom, lecturer hall, laboratory, an online platform (Hoadley & Jansen, 2013). Note the case study of twenty-two postgraduate university students who specialised in Curriculum Studies conducted by (Khoza*, 2016b). The main purpose of the study was to explore students’ reflection on the teaching and learning environment. The study revealed that student teachers were confused as to where teaching and learning should occur because their policy document (intended curriculum) was silent on that note. This then suggests that if an intended curriculum does not specify venues where teaching and learning may occur, it is the duty of teachers and lecturers to select venues or learning environments for themselves were the curriculum may be implemented.
As a result, according to Boud et al. (2013), formal reflection on curriculum-as-implemented may assist lecturers to identify the relevant learning environment in order to implement the formal curriculum. For instance, lecturers may decide to go to the laboratory when the lecture is about Physical Science experiments or they may decide to use the local area network (LAN), if a lecture requires computers. This is done in order to address the module need via formal reflection which is a pillar in curriculum-as-implemented (Boud* et al., 1985; Schiro, 2013). This then suggests that curriculum-as-implemented constitutes the formal layer of the curriculum which goes hand- in-hand with the process approach to curriculum development as articulated by teachers in the field of curriculum (Ayers, 2011; Van den Akker- et al., 2012)
Moreover, a study conducted by Hoadley and Jansen (2013) concurs with the views by Stenhouse (1975) on curriculum-as-implemented because these studies outline that lecturer’s reflections are influenced by the process approach which is sometimes referred to as the critical, contextualised,
107
or action-reflection approach. These studies further point out that curriculum is not about the design of curriculum (intended curriculum) by experts who select the content of the module, but it is about the development (curriculum-as-implemented) of curriculum where lecturers or teachers are taken not only as transmitters of the content but also taken as mediators in implementing the curriculum, and as participants in curriculum development. In other words, lecturers’ reflection in curriculum-as-implemented may advocate for formal teaching and learning through mediating between what is planned and what is implemented in class (Kolb, 2014; Le Grange* & Reddy, 2017). This then suggests that curriculum-as-implemented is a guide (implemented) not a prescription (planned) to lecturers about what is supposed to be taught in class according to different contextual issues (lack of resources, environment, and others), and this gives lecturers a chance to try and see what works and what does not work for them during curriculum implementation (Ensor, 2016). For this reason, Hoadley and Jansen (2013) outline that a good curriculum should include both the content and the processes of implementing that particular content. This suggests that curriculum-as-implemented focuses on how student should learn the formal curriculum and be understood in order to enhance formal reflection. This then leads to understanding of the enacted curriculum (Govender & Khoza, 2017; Laurillard, 2013).