Before I begin, I must offer my
sincere thanks to Dr Mark Priestley for giving me the opportunity to invest in
reading some, but not all of his inspirational research literature. Specifically, Mark has
allowed me to challenge the perception of my own teaching practice as well as
the practice that I have witnessed working within the further education sector.
I have reflected on many initiatives, both historical and current that, when I
was first introduced to them, I thought of them as ‘quite sound’ ideas.
Additionally, my dissection of
the Curriculum for Excellence has also allowed me to attempt a re-framing of my
professional practice. I have spent literally hours reading reams of
explanatory literature attempting to get to grips not with the essence of, but
rather the practical application of what the curriculum translates to in
pedagogical terms. Furthermore, I have listened to other practitioners give
their valuable and valued opinions on what it means to them. Thanks must also
go to www.pedagoo.org
Mark and Walter Hume’s paper entitled,
The
Development of Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence: amnesia and déjà vu’
(Oxford Review of Education, 36[3], 345-361.) gave me an interesting dilemma. Was
this new curriculum model one which I should put my faith in? The paper raised
a substantial query-could it be ‘that
curricular content runs the risk of becoming divorced from curricular purposes?’
The suggestion of a ‘process curriculum’ seems to me to be a sensible one
but not without significant challenges.
Within the further education
sector I have, and still do, work with prescriptive unit descriptors that
provide the lecturer with a map for what he or she must do to satisfy the
requirements of the awarding body (and not necessarily the learner). Content is
thus referred to under the heading ‘knowledge
and/or skill’s, process is covered by (minimal) guidance on delivery, and
lastly outcomes are dealt with by evidence
requirements which, of course, must be met to the letter. These evidence
requirements will always pull on elements of the cognitive domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
I should clarify, that as a business studies lecturer, there has been little or
no attempt to capture the affective domain in any meaningful way-it’s easier
not to! We have been afforded less
prescriptive assessment requirements in a recent SQA review, so with a little
work and imagination, change may be demanding but not impossible
Support initiatives have always
presented in the form of notes and these have been gratefully accepted by the
profession, indeed many will get anxious if there are no notes to distribute!
Assessment exemplification is provided by the awarding body and again there will
be unease if none are available. The alternative to both specification and
exemplification would be to commit to, and have the time for engagement that is
more valuable and meaningful. We as teachers or lecturers (I tend not to make
the distinction) have had to comply with structural and institutional norms but
I am not suggesting that we are complacent, nor am I advocating that we are unwilling or unable to change our practice. This is where the importance of leadership,
reflection and debate are of paramount importance.
Mark goes on to pose a question
that I think gives us the prospect of a real professional dialogue- Is knowledge acquired, or is it constructed?
The answer is, of course, that it is acquired through a purposeful process
and if we are to address the needs of our learners and their future prospects,
we must first challenge ourselves. I will end on a positive note by confirming
that I and some, if not all of my colleagues, have made a pledge to do exactly
that in the next academic session.