Designing the Classroom Curriculum Designing the Classroom Curriculum | Page 41

Lynch, Smith, Howarth
Chapter 4: The Learning (Management)
Design Process
In preceding chapters we explored the concept of curriculum and outlined three traditional curriculum
development models. Our central argument is that while each captures the intent of curriculum theory and
development, these existing models tend to create a weakness in teaching--- that are reflected in sub-optimal
learning outcomes in students--- by not requiring specific pedagogic detail. In more simple terms these
models take it for granted that once the fundamentals of ‘curriculum development’ have been detailed into
a classroom curriculum, that the teacher knows what the required teaching steps are—the required and
specific pedagogy. This failure to deal with ‘pedagogy’ in a systematic and explicit way compared to
‘curriculum’ is a fundamental weakness in the culture of teaching.
Curriculum can be defined as a course of study, while pedagogy the method and practice of
teaching. Pedagogy can thus be understood as being what the teacher does to achieve the intent of their
classroom curriculum. In a practical sense pedagogy is enacted by a set of teaching steps which are informed
by an ‘evidenced based pedagogic framework’. 14
Our point in such discussions is that research evidence indicates that what the teacher does while
teaching is the most powerful influence in learning (Hattie, 2009) and thus making explicit the pedagogy--
- the teaching steps--- is a key inclusion in any curriculum development model.
Hattie’s (2009) omnibus examination, in Visible Learning of evidence about what works in
teaching is probably the most influential educational book of modern times. According to Hattie, it is what
the teacher does that makes the fundamental difference for students and at the heart of such findings he
identifies a range of pedagogic moves that, when tested for effects on student academic achievement, make
or do not make a difference to student progress.
In our view, this conclusion about traditional curriculum models has special significance in today’s schools.
On the one hand, educational institutions, teachers and systems are under increasing pressure to meet the
expectation that children will finish school at a level which has currency for the next stage of education at
university or in training (Lynch, et al., 2015; Lynch, 2012). Such an outcome is not just an economic
imperative but has both personal and social repercussions. On the other hand, there is a keen awareness
amongst younger generations and their parents that in a globalised, cross-cultural and multi-cultural world,
competition for jobs and livelihoods is much tougher than it used to be in previous generations. It is apparent
14
Dimensions of Learning is an example of a pedagogic framework. See http://files.hbe.com.au/samplepages/197133.pdf
41