Curriculum Development:
Exploring Principles & Processes
ILR Plenary: 21 September 2018
Masako Boureston
Director, Curriculum Support
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Overview
• Curriculum facts & challenges
• Curriculum design models
• Principles of curriculum improvement
• Recent curriculum changes at DLIFLC
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Roles of Curriculum
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Curriculum Facts
Road map & Guide
Safety net
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Curriculum Facts
• Useful framework
• Planned and responsive process: Organized
flexibility
• Not a series of materials
• Does not dictate what students actually learn
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Curriculum Challenge
Faster!
Better!
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Common Challenges
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Curriculum Design
Output
ProcessInput
Language ContentMethodology
Desirable Outcomes
(Richards, 2013; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005)
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Curriculum Design
Forward Design
• Starts with language input
Central Design
• Starts with learning process
Backward Design
• Starts with desired outcomes
(Richards, 2013; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005)
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
ADDIE
Analyze
Design
DevelopImplement
Evaluate
Sufficient?
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Curriculum Framework
?
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Three Principles of
Curriculum Improvement
1. Learning Principle
2. Agile Principle
3. Organizing Principle
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
1. Learning Principle
• Approaches to learning
• Approaches to mastery
• Integrating rigor through quality of
instruction
• Enabling learners: Content and process
Less is More?
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
1. Learning Principles (cont.)
• Adult learning principles
• Fostering passion and perseverance (Grit)
• Working with digital natives
Curriculum Improvement: Bridging the gap
Learner
(Duckworth, 2016)
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
2. Agile Principle
• Agility = Value, Not a set mechanism
• Response to the needs of stakeholders
• Evolutionary
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Agile Development
More valued
Individuals and interactionsFrequent delivery of working products
Customer collaboration
Less valued
Process and tools
Comprehensive documentation
Contact negotiation
Responding to change Following a plan
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
3. Organizing Principle
• Organizing curriculum change =
Institutional process
– Balancing inclusion and efficiency
– Monitoring buy-in and ownership
– Maintenance and sustainment
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Curriculum Improvement:
Institutional Change Process
Mobilization
Implementation
Institutionalization
(Gessler & Mocek, 2018)
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Institutional Curricular Change: Additional Considerations
• Include individuals who will be functionally
impacted by changes
• Include process gatekeepers
• Incorporate IT department
• Implement changes in a series of phases
• Transparency
• Find opportunities to orient community
(Gessler & Mocek, 2018, p.7)
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Change Process
(Kotter, 2012)
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Curriculum Improvement through Shared Leadership
External Coaching Fairness of Rewards
Hierarchical LeadersAccountability
Structures
Conditions to Enable Shared Leadership
(Kezer & Holcombe, 2017)
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Curriculum Improvement
Context
Process
Learning Principle
Organizing Principle
Agile Principle
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Recent initiatives at DLIFLC
• Curriculum Review Board
• Gap analysis criteria:
Curriculum Standards
• Curriculum review by
cross-functional teams
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Curriculum Standards:
Key Components
Structure
Content Methodology
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Structure
Clear and systematic organization
Gradual progression (ILR, AT materials)
Balanced (appropriate scaling of levels)
Clear objectives
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Methodology
Application of Sound pedagogical principles
Facilitate student-focused activities
Consideration of student profiles
Reinforce learning strategies
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Content
Vocabulary (selection, presentation, practice, application)
Linguistic features (in context, application, recycle)
Quality of audio, textual and video content
Integration of Final Learning Objectives
Effective use of technology
Integration of culture
Assessment
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Expected Outcomes
• Gaps in curriculum
• Recommendations from cross-functional
teams
• Improved and validated Curriculum
Review Criteria
• Increased awareness among faculty
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Final Thoughts
• How do we make positive impact on
students’ learning processes? (attitudes,
strategies, ownership, etc.)
• How do we make the resource useful and
relevant to the users?
• What is the optimal balance of
“prescriptiveness” and “openness”?
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Thank you!
Questions?
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
References
Acedo, C., & Hughes, C. (2014). Principles for learning and competencies in the 21st century curriculum.
Prospects, 44 (4), 503-525. Doi:10.1007/s11125-014-9330-1
Dirkx, J. M., Mezirow, J., & Cranton, P. (2006). Musings and reflections on the meaning, context, and
process of transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 4(2), 123-139.
Doi: 10.1177/1541344606287503
Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher Training, Development, Decision Making: A Model for Teaching and
Related Strategies for Language Teacher Education. TESOL Quarterly, 23(1), 27-45
Gessler, E. C., & Mocek, E. (2018). Disrupting poor curricular processes: A three-prong model approach with
reflections and suggestions for institutional change. Planning for Higher Education Journal,
46(4), 1-9.
Kezer, A. J., & Holcombe, E. M. (2017). Shared leadership in higher education: Important lessons from
research and practice. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Kotter, J. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Rahimpour, M. (2010). Current trends on syllabus design in foreign language instruction. Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 1660-1664.
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CENTER
Richards, J. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and backward
design. REIC Journal, 44(1), 5-33. doi: 10.1177/0033688212473293
Willink, K. G., & Jacobs, J. M. (2011). Teaching for change: Articulating, profiling, and assessing
transformative learning through communicative capabilities. Journal of Transformative
Education, 9(3), 143-164.
Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Top Related