Chapter 3: Locating the PDMM within the HE curriculum context 3.1. Introduction
3.2 In search of a framework for understanding educational practice
It seems natural to embed a discussion of the role of participative assessment in enhancing student learning within a theory of curriculum within which such practice is located.
However, as both Luckett and Webstock (1999: 2) and Barnett and Coate (2005: 15) suggest, even the term ‘curriculum’ is contested. No common definition is universally accepted and in the absence of a single understanding, I have located my discussion within a conceptual framework provided by Habermas’ (1971, 1972, 1974) theory of knowledge-constitutive interests. This theory, which has been used fruitfully by educational theorists such as Grundy (1987, 1993), Brew (1995a), Kemmis (1998) and Luckett and Webstock (1999), provides a valuable heuristic for reflecting on the value of participative assessment (see Reynolds &
Trehan, 2000: 272) in contributing to students developing the skills and dispositions required by autonomous learners and critical professionals. In doing so I am conscious that the theory, as applied by educational theorists, has been critiqued for neglecting the impact of the educational milieu, with critics suggesting that insufficient attention is paid to the broader educational environment and the ‘hidden curriculum’10. The critique does not suggest a rejection of the theory, but rather that the curriculum thinking should go beyond the boundaries of the classroom and involve a conscious engagement with how wider structural influences, student subcultures and other relationships influence learning (ibid.).
Habermas, according to Grundy (1987: 8) sees interests as relating to the basic orientation of the human species towards pleasure derived from the creation of conditions enabling it to reproduce itself. The “creation of these conditions is rooted and grounded in rationality”
(ibid.: 9) expressed in three knowledge-constitutive interests which “do not merely represent an orientation towards knowledge, but rather constitute knowledge itself” (ibid.: 9-10). These interests – the technical, practical and emancipatory – relate respectively to categories of knowledge-generative sciences, including the empirical-analytical, historical-hermeneutic and critical. They are not, however, purely cognitive, but also involve action interacting with knowledge in the development of human welfare (ibid.). Grundy (1987: 5) argues that within education each of these interests relates to “ways of organising a set of human educational experience”, i.e. the cultural construct of curriculum, expressed as the curriculum-as-product
10 Kelly (1988: 8, in Smith, 2000: 14) describes the hidden curriculum as the things students learn “because of the way in which
the work of the school is planned and organized, but which are not overtly included in the planning or even in the consciousness of those responsible for school arrangements”.
30
(the technical interest), curriculum-as-process (the practical interest) and curriculum-as- praxis (the emancipatory interest). Each of these interests is summarised below with particular reference to their relevance for curriculum theorising.
The technical interest
Dominated by an interest in controlling and managing the environment, the technical knowledge-constitutive interest is congruent with a positivist ontology in which knowledge is applied in seeking causal explanations of natural and social phenomena. Technical knowledge aims to facilitate the control and exploitation of both the natural and social environment. This interest gives rise to instrumental action and control derived from
“technical rules based on empirical knowledge” (Grundy, 1987: 13). Drawing on Grundy (1987), Smith (2000: 3) suggests the curriculum-as-product represents a structuring of curriculum through a process of setting objectives, formulating plans, applying these and measuring products. The curriculum-as-product is both reproductive – limiting the teacher’s role to reproducing in students the knowledge, skills and attributes contained in the curriculum – and deterministic – the curriculum dictates what occurs in the learning situation (Grundy, 1987: 25, 28). Scant regard is given to a guiding social vision. Interests are perceived to be instrumental and often intended to preserve and legitimate existing power relationships (Grundy, 1987: 26). The technical interest thus seeks “control of the environment; action according to proven rules of behaviour [and a] product-oriented curriculum” (Smyth, 2004: np). The technical orientation assumes an objective truth, external to the learning environment, and consequently fails to acknowledge the manner in which a student’s previous experience and prior knowledge and understanding of a subject may influence learning.
The practical interest
Rather than being control-orientated, the practical interest seeks to understand the natural and social environment in order to interact with it. The ‘What can I do?’ of the technical interest is replaced with a ‘What ought I to do?’, implying a moral sphere requiring an understanding of unique situations (Grundy, 1987: 13). Meaning is determined through the interpretation of texts and the re-coding of actions as texts to enable interpretation and enhance understanding that both acknowledges and values subjectivity and the inter-subjective nature of knowledge.
The “practical interest is a fundamental interest in understanding the environment through interaction based upon consensual interpretation of meaning” (ibid.: 14). At a cognitive level
31
the interpreter applies new understandings to him or herself through a process in which knowledge is mediated through a pre-understanding of situations (Grundy, 1987: 15).
Knowledge is appreciated as socially constructed and curricula reside in the interactions between teachers, students and knowledge (Smith, 2000: 8-23) “used to build mutual understanding and wise action within a framework of values” (Luckett and Webstock, 1999:
5). Meaning is constructed through teacher-learner interaction: the teacher’s professional judgment and the learners’ understanding. Curricula are viewed as means of “translating an educational idea into a hypothesis testable in practice” (Stenhouse, 1975: 142 in Grundy, 1987: 71). It invites a “critical testing rather than acceptance” (ibid.)
The emancipatory interest
The emancipatory knowledge-constitutive interest “extends the [practical interest] to include critical reflection on the social and historical shaping of ideas, actions and institutions (ideology critique) with a view to emancipating ourselves from past irrationality and injustice” (Luckett and Webstock, 1999: 5). It is orientated towards individual autonomy and responsibility and committed to freedom and social improvement (Habermas, 1972: 250, in Grundy, 1987: 16 and Smyth, 2004: np). Individual freedom is inextricably linked to the freedom of others and relates directly to notions of justice and equality. It gives rise to autonomous, responsible action while recognising that mutual understanding, as pursued in the curriculum-as-practice, may still be susceptible to hegemonic determination serving the interest of domination, not liberation (Grundy, 1993: 166). The curriculum-as-praxis integrates critical reflection (aided by critical theory) and social action in the achievement of authentic insight (Luckett and Webstock, 1999: 5, Smyth, 2004: np).
In relating these knowledge-constitutive interests to my study three other pertinent aspects of Grundy’s (1987) use of Habermas’s theory inform my argument. Firstly, from the perspective of advancing human welfare, interests are viewed hierarchically. The technical view is regarded as the least beneficial, while pursuit of the emancipatory interest is regarded as the ideal, albeit never fully-realisable, goal (Grundy, 1987: 99). Secondly, while the curriculum- as-practice and the curriculum-as-praxis are understood to be compatible, with praxis being a possible, but not guaranteed extension of practice, they are incompatible with the curriculum- as-product (ibid.). The third point – that one interest is unlikely to dominate a teacher’s actions all the time (ibid.) – appears to contradict the previous statement in suggesting that technical interests may co-exist besides the practical and emancipatory interests. Grundy
32
(1987: 100) addresses this inconsistency by arguing that there is generally “one interest [that]
characterises a teacher’s consciousness” and which will “be the predominant determinant of the way in which they teacher constructs his/her professional knowledge” (ibid.). Other forms of knowledge are thus not entirely excluded.
These arguments have important implications for this study, because, as I argued in my teaching portfolio (see Du Toit, 2007: 76-81), the PDMM exhibits evidence of all three interests. As a professionally-orientated qualification, the programme is responsive to some of the instrumental interests of the industry students are preparing to enter. However, it is primarily dominated by teachers working within a consciousness of the curriculum-as- practice and the curriculum-as-praxis. Grundy contends that the curriculum-as-praxis “goes beyond situating the learning experience within the experience of the learner: it is a process which takes the experiences of both the learner and the teacher and, through dialogue and negotiation, recognises both as problematic” (1987: 103). This understanding is broadly representative of the consciousness underpinning how the PDMM course is designed and taught – where the content of the programme, the manner of delivery and the traditional hierarchical teacher-student relationship is continuously renegotiated (see Du Toit, 2007).
Having developed a conceptual framework against which the remainder of the arguments in this chapter and the next can be considered, I now move to a discussion on the factors that have influenced changes in higher education in recent years and their impact on higher education (HE) in post-apartheid South Africa.