Managing curriculum change and ‘ontological uncertainty’ in tertiary education

Abstract

Curriculum reform at institutional level is a challenging endeavour. Those charged with leading this process will encounter both enthusiasm and multiple obstacles to teacher engagement including the particularly complex issue of confronting existing teacher identities. At Unitec Institute of Technology (Unitec), the 'Living Curriculum' initiative focused on whole-of-institution curriculum renewal and, in the process, acknowledged and addressed teacher beliefs and practices that variously supported and contested both the initiative itself and the professional development offerings that accompanied it. The related research project identified factors and processes that unsettle teachers, rendering them 'insecure', and strategies that have proven effective in supporting teachers through significant change in conceptions of curriculum, teaching and learning.

Enhancing higher education curricula: A case study from the University of Waikato, New Zealand

“…We agree with Keesing-Styles et al (2014: 3) who comment that curriculum can be defined 'not as merely the information content of the programme, but rather as the wider programme of learning experience'. As those charged with leading the change at the University of Waikato, we were of the view that students need to be involved in the co-production of curriculum knowledge rather than simply being consumers of it.…”

When innovation in education works: stimulating teachers' innovative work behaviour

“…It follows that it is advisable to invest in a supportive and innovative climate, where teachers feel, autonomous, competent and involved in the innovation processes (Messmann et al ., 2017). Managers should communicate with their teaching teams about the innovative idea in a clear, consistent and continuous manner, thereby establishing and maintaining strong relationships with teachers (Keesing‐Styles et al ., 2014). As a result, teachers will feel more involved with innovations and will recognize innovations more quickly in their environment, thereby increasing their exposure to innovation.…”

Primary determinants of a large-scale curriculum reform

“…Educational policy, legislation (Cheung and Wong, 2012;Desimone, 2002;Leithwood et al, 2002;Reezigt and Cheemers, 2005) Resources (financial, human resources, time) (Germeten, 2011;Keesing-Styles et al, 2014;Reezigt and Cheemers, 2005) Leadership (e.g. Germeten, 2011;Hauge et al, 2014;Kurland et al, 2010;Priestley, 2011;Salfi, 2010;Thoonen et al, 2012) Involvement of teachers (Breiting, 2008;Desimone, 2002) Collegial support, collaboration (Coyle, 2008;Ketelaar et al, 2012;Könings et al, 2007;Pyhältö et al, 2011;Ramberg, 2014;Scott and Bagaka's, 2004) Competences, expertise, understanding (e.g.…”

“…Germeten, 2011;Hauge et al, 2014;Kurland et al, 2010;Priestley, 2011;Salfi, 2010;Thoonen et al, 2012) Involvement of teachers (Breiting, 2008;Desimone, 2002) Collegial support, collaboration (Coyle, 2008;Ketelaar et al, 2012;Könings et al, 2007;Pyhältö et al, 2011;Ramberg, 2014;Scott and Bagaka's, 2004) Competences, expertise, understanding (e.g. Coburn, 2005;Day et al, 2016;Ketelaar et al, 2012;Könings et al, 2007;Salonen-Hakomäki et al, 2016) Opportunities to learn (Guhn, 2009;Keesing-Styles et al, 2014;Mendenhall et al, 2013;Salfi, 2010) Attitudes (e.g. Binkhorst et al, 2015;Geijsel et al, 2001;Herscovitch and Mayer, 2002) National level reform determinants such as resources and political structures ranging from legislation to funding are shown to have an impact on the curriculum reform implementation (e.g.…”