Theorising conceptualisations: curriculum and professional identity
3.6 Curriculum in the context of Higher Education
103
the dynamic social process encapsulated within the notion of curriculum is Grundy’s idea of
“curriculum as praxis”, which is characterised as a “personalised and reflective” approach, rather than a contextualised orientation (1987). In the next section, the specific meanings attached to curriculum in higher education will be reviewed. Perhaps the following description captures the essence of curriculum most accurately:
[curriculum is] more than a textbook, more than a classroom, and more than teachers and students. It is all the social influences, populist crises, military campaigns and historical moments that shape our lives – when we are in school [university] and in our lives beyond the classroom (Carey, 2006, p. 4).
In the next section, a specific focus on the ways in which curriculum has been theorised in higher education will be addressed.
104
and Coate expose the conundrum of curriculum: it is not obvious as an object of perception, but it does supply “boundaries and demarcation lines”, “affirming or denying the social capital of those subject to it”. Documents provide the visible or tangible evidence of curricula, but these are seldom operationalised in the way that was intended by the curriculum planners. In addition, different “epistemic communities” in a variety of disciplines across the academy tend to interpret curriculum demands differently according to their own discipline understandings. Engaging academics in thoughtful curricular activities thus presents a risk to their professional identity in requiring them to reveal their educational values (Barnett & Coate, 2005, p. 158).
In the field of higher education, we are thus left with a broad range of tacit notions of curriculum, some of which overlap each other. There is an inextricable link between these notions of curriculum and the social and historical context in which they are held (Cornbleth, 1990).
Curriculum as outcome reflects a popular current focus on quality assurance and bureaucratic bench-marking, as part of the SAQA and NQF discourse. The process of developing and registering module templates sharpened this focus for many academics working in higher education, requiring them to adopt the terminology and forms appropriate for outcomes-based education.
Curriculum as “special” reflects an understanding of curriculum that is underpinned by notions of academic freedom and autonomy which imply that “discipline experts know best”. No attempt at prescription of curriculum content has ever been made as yet, but certainly in the recent Ministerial Report on Transformation there are clear indications that the higher education sector will be expected to address concerns about the transformation of its curricula:
at the centre of epistemological transformation is curriculum reform - a reorientation away from the apartheid knowledge system, in which curriculum was used as a tool of exclusion, to a democratic curriculum that is inclusive of all human thought…curriculum is inextricably intertwined with the institutional culture and, given that the latter remains white and Eurocentric in the historically white institutions, the institutional environment is not conducive to curriculum reform (2008, Section 6.2).
105
Curriculum as culture emerges from the existence of disciplinary specialisations within the university, shaped by disciplinary values, norms and rules of communication that only “deep immersion” in these bounded disciplinary communities through enculturation and initiation of members will develop (Becher et al., 1994; Oakeshott, 1989). This view underlies many of the tensions between legal academics and the law professions. A particular feature of the power of knowledge fields in expert disciplines is the strong hold they appear to have on curriculum change, resisting attempts at outside interference, as evidenced in the ongoing disaccord between the Law Deans and the Law Society of South Africa.
Curriculum as social reproduction operates mainly by means of the pervasive “hidden”
curriculum”, through which the powerful, non-explicit rules of the game function that students must master. This aspect of curriculum is critical in negotiating the classifications and framing that surround every pedagogical transaction (Bernstein, 1971, 1990).
Bourdieu’s (1990) identification of cultural capital as a necessary asset, required by students for them to interpret the hidden rules that lead to success, reinforces this “gate-keeping”
aspect of curriculum as reproductive of social classes.
Curriculum as transformation is informed by political theories of empowerment in which the university is a potential site where students’ lives may be transformed, although it is argued that this approach is founded more on pedagogical strategies than on curriculum.
Mezirow’s (1997) work on transformative leaning, based on Habermas’s critical theory and Freire’s (1970) writings on conscientisation is concerned with altering frames of reference through critical reflection of both habits of mind and points of view (Moore, 2005, p. 82).
Cranton (1997) emphasised the role of self-reflection by students for them to experience transformative education, but Taylor et al. (2002) take issue with the predominance of theory underlying this discourse in the absence of practical teaching guidance. This creates an idealistic goal of transformative learning for empowerment, without adequate understandings of where the process will lead (Moore, 2005, p. 83). However, a new turn in this discourse can be discerned, associated with a different set of values that reflect more current concerns (Harvey & Knight, 1996, p. 8). The transformative potential of the educational experience can also be seen as enhancing the knowledge, ability and skills of graduates: an education can “add value to students’ lives”. The strong links between this
106
view and the “outcomes and employability agenda” (enshrined in the National Qualifications Framework), aimed at the production of “flexibly-skilled” graduates, directly contradicts the emancipatory imperative that South African politicians originally had in mind in the 1990s.
Curriculum as consumption is a perception that responds to the commodification of higher education. Governments have increasingly reduced funding subsidies and applied pressure to institutions to generate revenue and be responsive to their student-consumers, the market place, employers and consumers of research, by developing niche areas and specialisations that address these demands. Modularisation, semesterisation, and the offering of combinations of career-focussed programmes reflect the emphasis on the functionality of curriculum in a global market.
The liberal curriculum is a conceptualisation of curriculum that runs counter to most of the above-mentioned understandings, in its questioning of the role of curricula in higher education. The Alverno College example55 aims to “redefine education in terms of abilities needed for effectiveness in the worlds of work, family and civic community”. Notions of expanding students’ intellectual horizons to offset the narrowness of a vocational focus, provide a balanced, general education and educate citizens for their roles in a broader society are foundational to this view (Barnett & Coate, 2005). James (2004b, p. 6) characterises the liberal approach to teaching law in Australia as one that “recognises alternative disciplines, multiple theoretical frameworks and other cultures”, and is characterised by “a worldview of liberal rationality” Yet its objective – incorporating theory, context, interdisciplinarity and cross-cultural perspectives through the ideals of individuality, responsibility and rationality – is often resisted by lecturers, students, employers and university managers.
The possibilities outlined here for curriculum exist as broad theoretical positions but they do not identify the domains that constitute the curriculum nor do they explore the
55 http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/milwaukee-wi/alverno-college- 3832
107
interrelationships between the component parts of the curriculum; these are questions to be elaborated upon in the next section.