In her article "More complex than skills: Rethinking the relationship between competencies and curriculum content," Rosemary Hipkins outlines the 2007 overhaul of the New Zealand Curriculum (NZC). The previous NZC of the 1990s was a detailed-oriented curriculum with prescribed outcomes for each subject and grade. With a desire to move away from skill based learning, the curriculum was transformed to focus on five "key competencies" including (1) managing self, (2) relating to others, (3) participating and contributing, (4) thinking, and (5) using language, symbols, and texts. These key competencies act as a framework for individual schools and teachers to build a more detailed curriculum of their own. Hipkins presents an argument for why this transformed curriculum could be beneficial to the modern student, emphasizing that learning should not be the passive acquisition of skills and facts, but should be active, engaging, and participatory. Finally, Hipkins presents an example of how the curriculum is transformed when a key competency is added. She argues that such a change emphasizes the "big picture" and that learning becomes the process of meaning-making for students, rather than acquiring knowledge from the teacher.
The new NZC certainly means well. The intent of building lifelong learners is a novel goal, but I am somewhat worried about the lack of empirical evidence supporting that this sort of change would be beneficial to students. In theory, the new curriculum appears as though there could only be benefits to students' learning. Unfortunately, it seems to be assumed that we live in a world where all teachers and schools are willing and highly capable of engaging with content, students, life-experiences, and the "big picture." How can one assume that all teachers will be able to engage with content at such a deep level? The new NZC puts a great deal of responsibility on individual schools and teachers, and although the author recognizes that schools and teachers should not be expected to work out what is meant by "key competencies" themselves, she does not provide any examples of pathways for schools to do so. Teachers who have been in the classroom for 20+ years may claim that what they have been doing works, and might be unwilling to make such an overhaul. Similarly, new teachers, who have the additional weight of being in a unfamiliar environment, might be overwhelmed with trying to juggle the new experience of working with a classroom full of kids, trying to understand the content they need to teach, as well as how to include these key competencies. Furthermore, if national testing and assessment still aligns with the old, skills-based curriculum, how are schools, teachers, parents, and students supposed to believe that this is actually beneficial to student learning? We've come full circle to the issue of empirical evidence. The goal of the new curriculum foster lifelong learners is of immense value, and is a goal that educators should be striving for in their classrooms. But, it should be noted that transforming theory into practice (particularly at a large scale) does not always turn out the way we hope it might.
Thanks for the summary Vanessa. It seems that the NZC is quite similar to what the new BC Curriculum is trying to achieve. Instead of "key competencies" we have "core competencies". Instead of the "big picture" we have "big ideas". I support this style of curriculum under the condition that the necessary support resources are provided. Based on my communications with other teachers in BC, many of us feel overwhelmed by the new curriculum. I did appreciate how there was a great deal of consultation when designing it and the ministry of education is providing some extra days for teachers to collaborate, and share their ideas.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that those teachers who have been teaching 20+ years very well may refuse to change their ways. Based on what I've heard this is inevitable with any change. While it may prove to be a barrier for some of the veteran teachers, new teachers may find it no different at all. They have to create unit plans for all of their teaching either way. Where all teachers will come across stumbling blocks is again, resources. Unless governments are willing to support and provide resources to effectively implement these new curricula, what's the point in creating them in the first place? In the end, teachers will do what they're comfortable with, be that a lot of change, some change, or no change at all.
A while ago, some years back when I was still just in math, I randomly sat next to a woman on a plane who was involved in this. I wish I remembered more, but mostly I was left with the distinct impression that NZ was on to something...
ReplyDeleteYou raise some excellent concerns. The one that resonates the most with me is the misalignment of assessment and classroom practice. This bothers me greatly in a couple of the more progressive courses at SFU: students have rich, collaborative, curious learning experiences. Then we test them on their computational skills in isolation. It is so dramatically out of sorts that it can lead the unconvinced student (or instructor) to outright reject the unconventional methods. Indeed, if we are going to succeed in implementing something new, we must figure out a way to deal with assessment as well. Perhaps we will never convince the veteran teacher, but change *can* come slowly - if support is provided across the board.