Research Article

Developing Curricula in a Distance Learning Environment: Attending to the Different ‘Voices’

Khetsiwe Eunice Mthethwa-Kunene
University of Eswatini, Swaziland
Patience Dlamini
University of Eswatini, Swaziland
Talent Rugube
University of Eswatini, Swaziland
* Corresponding author
Cosmas Maphosa
University of Eswatini, Swaziland
DOI icon 10.24018/ejedu.2022.3.3.346

Read Counter
555

Downloads
572

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2022-04-25
Published 2022-06-02

Read counter = 555 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

The offering of curricula that are relevant and responsive to the needs of society is the ultimate goal of any higher education institution. However, there is a need to engage in a curriculum development process that attends to the different ‘voices’ by addressing the needs of the different stakeholders. Stakeholders’ voices and needs can be ascertained and addressed through a curriculum development process that involves both internal and external stakeholders from the initial stages of developing curricula, throughout the various stages. Such a process may not be linear but interactive, iterative, and collaborative. This paper unpacks the curriculum development process focusing on the key stages of needs assessment, stating curriculum/programme goals, selecting curriculum content and teaching and learning activities, designing learning materials as well as evaluating. It unpacks the importance of attending to the different voices in coming up with relevant and market-driven curricula.

Keywords: Assessment, Curriculum, Development , Distance

References

  1. Al-Jubran, K. M. (2020). A stakeholders approach for curriculum development of master’s degree in molecular diagnostics. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 11, 683691. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S261628.
     Google Scholar
  2. Aliyeva, E. (2016). An Overview of the National Curriculum Development Process for Azerbaijan. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 6(1),13 - 26.
     Google Scholar
  3. Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L., & Moore-Cherry, N. (2016). Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: Overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student–staff partnerships. Higher Education, 71(2), 195-208.
     Google Scholar
  4. Bron, J., & Veugelers, W. (2014). Why we need to involve our students in curriculum design: Five arguments for student voice. Curriculum and teaching dialogue, 16(1/2), 125.
     Google Scholar
  5. Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in higher education, 47(1), 1 - 32.
     Google Scholar
  6. Chaudhary, S. V. S., & Reddy, M. V. (2018). Unit-7 Design and Preparation of Self-Instructional Materials. IGNOU.HYPERLINK http://www.egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/47145/1/Unit-7.pdf”
     Google Scholar
  7. Deeley, S. J., & Bovill, C. (2017). Staff student partnership in assessment: enhancing assessment literacy through democratic practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 463-477.
     Google Scholar
  8. Deschaine, M. (2018). Supporting students with disabilities in k-12 online and blended learning. Lansing, MI: Michigan Virtual University. Retrieved from https://mvlri.org/research/publications/supporting-students-with-disabilities-in-k-12-online-and-blended-learning.
     Google Scholar
  9. Dodd, B. J. (2020). Curriculum Design Processes. In J. K. McDonald & R. E. West, Design for Learning: Principles, Processes, and Praxis. EdTech Books. Retrieved from https://edtechbooks.org/id/curriculum_design_process
     Google Scholar
  10. Dykes, G., Furdyk, M., Hassan, S., & Corriero, J. (2013). Promethean thinking deeper. From learner voice to emerging leaders, 6. Retrieved June, 20, 2013.
     Google Scholar
  11. Erjavec, J. (2021). Stakeholders in curriculum development – case of Supply Chain and Logistics programme. 7th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’21) Universitat Polit`ecnica de Val`encia, Val`encia, 2021 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/HEAd21.2021.12875.
     Google Scholar
  12. Gravett, K., Kinchin, I. M., & Winstone, N. E. (2020). ‘More than customers’: conceptions of students as partners held by students, staff, and institutional leaders. Studies in Higher Education, 45(12), 2574-2587.
     Google Scholar
  13. Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or praxis?. London: The Falmer Press.
     Google Scholar
  14. Gürel, E. & İşcan C. D. 2020. Reviewing the 9th Grade English Curriculum with Stake’s Responsive Evaluation Model According to Teachers Opinions. Qukurova Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 49(1), 501 - 554.
     Google Scholar
  15. Gul, R. & Khilji, G. (2021). Exploring the need for a responsive school curriculum to cope with the Covid‑19 pandemic in Pakistan. Prospects, 51(1), 503 - 522.
     Google Scholar
  16. Herring H. C. & Williams, J. R. (2000). The role of objectives in curriculum development. Journal of Accounting Education, 18(1), 1 - 14.
     Google Scholar
  17. Hoyt-Oukada, K. (2003). Considering Students' Needs and Interests in Curriculum Construction. The French Review, 76(4), 721-737.
     Google Scholar
  18. Human, N.E. (2017). The Role of a Responsive Curriculum In Optimising Learning In Higher Education. Unpublished Doctor of Education Thesis. Pretoria: University of South Africa.
     Google Scholar
  19. Hussein, M. J., Yusuf, J., Deb, A. S., Fong, L., & Naidu, S. (2020). An evaluation of online proctoring tools. Open Praxis, 12(4), 509 - 525.
     Google Scholar
  20. Jayaram, K., & Dorababu, K. K. (2015). Self-learning materials in the distance education system. International Journal of Current Research, 7(10), 21929 - 21934.
     Google Scholar
  21. Jagersma, J. (2010). Empowering Students as Active Participants in Curriculum Design and Implementation. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED514196.pdf
     Google Scholar
  22. Jeyaraj, J. J. (2020). Possibilities for critical pedagogy engagement in higher education: exploring students’ openness and acceptance. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21(1), 27 - 38
     Google Scholar
  23. Kettunen, J. (2015). Stakeholder relationships in higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 21, 56 - 65.
     Google Scholar
  24. Kilic, H. (2015). Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions About Teacher Knowledge. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1838 -1842.
     Google Scholar
  25. Kliebard, H. (2000). Metaphorical roots of curriculum design. In William F. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum Studies: The Reconceptualization (84-85). Troy, NY: Educator’s International Press.
     Google Scholar
  26. Lac, V. T., & Cumings M. K. (2018). What do students have to do with educational leadership? Making a case for centering student voices. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 13(1), 38 - 58.
     Google Scholar
  27. Iqbal, J., Mahmood, E., & Idrees, M. (2019). Effectiveness of Self Instructional Material of Distance Education. Pakistan Journal of Distance and Online Learning, 5(1), 71 - 90.
     Google Scholar
  28. Manurung, K. (2017). Implementing interest based instructional materials to minimize EFL learners' speaking skills de-motivating factors. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(5), 356.
     Google Scholar
  29. Maphosa, C., Bhebhe, S., & Rugube, T. (2019). Interrogating the Art of Developing Self-Learning Material for Open and Distance Learning (ODL) Students. International Journal of Innovative Research and Development, 8(6), 191-199.
     Google Scholar
  30. Michigan Department of Education. (2018). Michigan administrative rules for special education (MARSE) with related IDEA federal regulations. Lansing, MI:.Retrieved from https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/MARSE_Supplemented_with_IDEA_Regs_379598_7.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  31. Mohanasundaram, K. (2018). Curriculum design and development. Journal of applied and advanced research, 3(1), 4 - 6.
     Google Scholar
  32. Mukaro, J. P. & Stears, M. (2017). Exploring the alignment of the intended and implemented curriculum through teachers’ interpretation: A case study of A-Level Biology practical work. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(3), 723-740.
     Google Scholar
  33. Nthontho, M. (2017). Children as stakeholders in education: Does their voice matter?. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 7(1), 1 - 7.
     Google Scholar
  34. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD Education Working Papers.
     Google Scholar
  35. Ornstein, A., & Hunkins, F. (2008). Curriculum foundations, principles, and issues (5th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
     Google Scholar
  36. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Liao, J. Y. C., Sadik, O., & Ertmer, P. (2018). Evolution of teachers’ technology integration knowledge, beliefs, and practices: How can we support beginning teachers' use of technology?. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50(4), 282 - 304.
     Google Scholar
  37. Pak, K., Polikoff, M. S., Desimone, L. M., & Saldívar García, E. (2020). The Adaptive Challenges of Curriculum Implementation: Insights for Educational Leaders Driving Standards-Based Reform. AERA Open, 6(2), 2332858420932828.
     Google Scholar
  38. Phillips, J. (2007). Curriculum Development. 2nd Ed. Selangor: Open University Malaysia
     Google Scholar
  39. Rasilla, C. M. & Juárez, R. L. A. (2017). Multidisciplinary approach for curriculum design of professional master’s program with focusing on solidary economy in Oaxaca, Mex. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(14), 1317 – 1323.
     Google Scholar
  40. Ryan, A. & Tilbury, D. (2013). Uncharted Waters: Voyages for Education for Sustainable Development in the Higher Education Curriculum. Curriculum Journal, 24(2), 272 - 294.
     Google Scholar
  41. Saidi, R. M., Sharip, A. A., Abd Rahim, N. Z., Zulkifli, Z. A., & Zain, S. M. M. (2021). Evaluating Students' Preferences of Open and Distance Learning (ODL) Tools. Procedia Computer Science, 179, 955 - 961.
     Google Scholar
  42. Taguma, M., Gabriel, F., Meow Hwee, L. I. M., & Expert, O. E. C. D. (2020). Future of Education and Skills 2030: Curriculum Analysis. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
     Google Scholar
  43. Tuhkala, A., Ekonoja, A., & Hämäläinen, R. (2021). Tensions of student voice in higher education: Involving students in degree programme curricula design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(4), 451-461.
     Google Scholar
  44. Tyler, R. W. (1975). Specific approaches to curriculum development. Strategies for curriculum development, 1, 17 - 33.
     Google Scholar
  45. Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
     Google Scholar
  46. Yek, T. M. & Penney, D. (2006). Curriculum as praxis: Ensuring quality technical education in Singapore for the 21st century. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(26), 1 - 29. Retrieved on 8 February 2022 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v14n26/.
     Google Scholar


Most read articles by the same author(s)