 |
The curriculum (and therefore also the syllabus for the courses) is
central to the teaching and learning process. Some writers (for
example Miller, Turner and Innis, 1986) have advocated “curriculum-
led” institutional development as a vehicle for change. The
degree of autonomy of teachers and even institutions in the development
of curricula is very variable. In some training institutions,
teachers and lecturers are able to make quite wide-ranging decisions
on the development of the curriculum, subject to approval from the
institution. In many education institutions, however, overall development
of the curriculum often remains the responsibility of a few,
an elite group located at the top of a hierarchy. Discussions about
curriculum development tend to involve a small number of persons
in senior academic and, in some cases, government positions, and
usually centre around the content of teaching.
There are two serious problems associated with this hierarchical
approach:
-
! Firstly, the assumption is made that a small, privileged group is
aware of the reality of the external environment, and that their
own theoretical understanding and experience is sufficient to
enable them to develop curricula, which will bring about effective
learning.
- Secondly, as discussed earlier, it is believed that learning will
take place through transmission of knowledge, and that the
subject-related expertise of teaching staff is sufficient to convey
knowledge to the learners. Curricula developed using this
approach rarely provide guidance to teachers and learners on
how the learning process may be facilitated. Teachers are left to
fend for themselves, amidst all the constraints, which are present
in training institutions or universities (Taylor, 1998b).
Even in those training institutions where teachers have a greater
degree of autonomy in the curriculum development process, there is
rarely any mechanism or agreed-upon principle for increasing the
involvement of other stakeholders. The lecturer is still considered as
the expert, and the assumption is made that he or she will deliver the
goods as a result of expertise garnered through professional
activities such as academic study and research, or through personal
linkages with the relevant “industry” in which graduates will be
employed. Authority over what will be taught to the majority is
vested in the minority.
|
top | 
