Studies conducted by Khoza- (2015d) and Nkohla (2017) in the 21st century concur with studies conducted by Eisner (1979) in the 19th century regarding the concept that curriculum-as-produced is driven by an artistic approach to curriculum development. The studies revealed that, in most cases, teaching and learning is successfully done by lecturers who do not have a much clearer comprehension than others of curriculum goals, but who do bring in a sense of creativity in all
117
activities during teaching and learning. Eisner (2002) further avers that these kinds of lecturers become more cognisant of bringing in their personal creativity from their personal reflection in order to master some concepts of the curriculum-as-produced which may include: goals (aims objectives and learning outcomes), module content, learning environment (location), teaching methods (learner or teacher-centred), assessment, and others. In other words, artistic approach enhances the creativity after a personal reflection of the developer (lecturer) to choose whether to implement the curriculum, to enact the curriculum, or to use both in order to produce the new curriculum which will address the personal need, since no one is innocent among the two (Mpungose*, 2016; Van den Akker- et al., 2012). Moreover, in the context of this study, the produced-curriculum are as a result of the produced creativity after personal reflection on curriculum concepts stated above. This then gives powers to this study to declare that the curriculum-as-produced is informed by produced reflection rather than personal reflection, refer to Figure 3.5 above.
In addition to the above, produced reflection informs curriculum-as-produced, which is guided by the pragmatic approach, because of this assertion, development of lesson activities in curriculum- as-produced is guided by lecturers’ personal viewpoint, expertise, and perception, which are subjective (Eisner, 1979; Schön, 1983). As a result, Van den Akker* et al. (2009) emphasise that the pragmatic approach towards the development of curriculum-as-produced enhances the lecturer to meet their personal need after undergoing the produced reflection. Thus, no goal-orientated or prescribed sequence or permanent set of procedures are to be followed by lecturers; only the lecturers creativity and bringing in of personal experience is required to drive the process of teaching and learning. This then suggests that curriculum-as-produced gives powers and freedom to lecturers to possess relevant skills and abilities to select what is educationally relevant in teaching and learning activities of the module content in a particular context (Singh & Singh, 2012;
Van Manen, 1991). Moving further, according to various studies, produced reflections play a huge role in enhancing lecturers to have trust in themselves and imagine possible creativity in executing module content or activities successfully (Dewey*, 1938; Heleta, 2016; Schön, 1983; Zeichner- &
Liston, 1996). Studies further reveal that the constant and daily reflection of lecturers on their practise on the produced curriculum will improve their teaching skills. This may assist them to
118
have different ways to overcome obstacles during teaching and learning, and to increase their awareness and adaptability on pros and cons of both curriculum-as-implemented and curriculum- as-enacted. Thus, the produced curriculum seems to create a connecting curriculum between the two other curricular as depicted below in Figure 3.6.
Figure 3.6: Curriculum-as-produced, curriculum-as-enacted and curriculum-as-implemented with reflections
3.6.1 Pragmatic approach in the development of curriculum-as-produced
Berkvens et al. (2014), Khoza (2015), and Nkohla (2017), refer to pragmatic approach as a type of curriculum development approach that meets user’s needs by embracing practical consequences or usability of curriculum, and this includes aspect of accepting realities from real life experiences in order to bring truth during teaching and learning. In other words, pragmatic approach is influenced by the produced reflection in order to bring practical observation and experiences into the curriculum which addresses the personal needs of lecturers, and this may promote links between curriculum-as-implemented and curriculum-as-enacted because pragmatic approach strives for personal development and personal consciousness in order to meet personal needs (Khoza, 2015; Mpungose-, 2016a; Myers, 2016).
119
Moreover, as the study conducted by Bovill, Cook‐Sather, and Felten (2011) at a University of Glasgow in UK shows, the importance of a pragmatic approach in curriculum development can be useful. The aim of the study was to understand university students’ reflections on the involvement in using the pragmatic approach in curriculum development. The study revealed that, curriculum developers must create typical structures and relationships where all stakeholders, like students, may freely voice out their inputs towards teaching and learning activities, student become active if they are valued, and encouraged to participate in all academic activities. The study therefore concluded that, involving students in the development of their own educational experiences can enhance students’ ownership of their own personal learning. This is in line with what various studies indicate (Berkvens et al., 2014; Hax, 1996; Van den Akker- et al., 2012; Viterbi, Wolf, Zehavi, & Padovani, 1989). Specifically, pragmatic approach is significant in curriculum-as- produced because it is clear from the findings that lecturers (academic staff) must always use creativity to provide the room to include student to the development of any activity of a module so that students will feel as part and parcel during teaching and learning process. As a result, the produced reflection may then play a major role as lecturers can easily decide which role (instructor or interpreter) they will play that will suite their own personal needs during teaching and learning (Biggs-, 2014; Boud et al., 2013). This then indicates that curriculum-as-produced is also influenced by Freire (1985) critical pedagogy in education and curriculum.
Moreover, studies by Van den Berg, Bakker, and Ten Cate (2013), as well as Freire (2000) assert that critical pedagogy is influenced by produced reflection in order to meet the personal need. This is because it is outlined that producing the curriculum from either implemented or enacted seeks both student and lecturers to become the change agents in order to address their own personal needs. Thus, students and lecturers have to “problematise and challenge the oppressive experience in their direct environment” (Le Grange* & Reddy, 2017, p. 103). This then suggests that all activities in the produced curriculum must be committed to emancipation and empowerment of both lecturers’ and students’ own personal needs (Dewey*, 1938). Moving further, Freire (2000) and Jansen (2013), aver that critical pedagogy requires lecturers to produce activities and teach them irrespective of class difference and racial classification or inequalities. For instance, teaching
120
and learning activities of the Physical Science module should not be demarcated according to whether students are black, white, coloured, etc. As a result, produced reflection has to cater for the different personal background experiences of each participant (lecturers and students) during teaching and learning (Karseth, 2006; Pedro, 2005).
In addition to the above, Freire (2000), Fraser (2006), and Le Grange* and Reddy (2017), assert that curriculum-as-produced should avoid the banking notion of teaching and learning, where students are taken as empty containers to be filled with knowledge. Instead, they should engage in the knowledge and meaning-making process via produced reflection and action. That is why Sherborne (2014), and Gosper and Ifenthaler (2014), assert that the meaning-making process is entrusted in social interaction with others (social constructivism) grounded on the personal needs.
This then suggests that it is vital for lecturers to rely on their produced reflection in order to master the discourse in different presentation of curriculum developments, and to curb the tension between curriculum-as-implemented and curriculum-as-enacted by reflecting on the curriculum- as-produced. This then guides and leads lecturers to understand Technological, Pedagogical and Content knowledge signals (TPACK) as depicted in Table 3.1 in Section 3.7 below.