2.2 Dimensions of the IDeA Model 2.2.1 Curriculum philosophy The differences between interpretive and instrumental curricula are reflected in the philosophical perspectives and beliefs that designers adopt. Different underpinning assumptions of any curricula contain intended and unintended messages to teachers and learners; for example, an instructional, non-flexible curriculum assumes learners learn Interpretive and instrumental through acquisition. An interpretive curriculum The idea of curriculum as assumes learning happens through engagement, “transformative” [interpretive] dialogue and questioning (Doll, 1993). Thus, what is signifies an outcome for learners that emphasises fundamental shifts in life learnt and how it is learnt are interconnected; an and workplace orientations. This interpretive curriculum develops metacognitive could mean, for example, challenging skills, ‘how to know’; an instructional curriculum assumptions about the nature of the produces workers with skills, often separating theory workplace and one’s place within it, the nature of the individual and his or from practice, and rarely develops metacognitive, her capacity to influence or shape ‘knowing’ skills. In these ways, curriculum change, adopting new ways to view documentation conveys and reproduces a dominant the nature of learning, and so on. In discourse. What is selected to be taught, how and many ways a transformative curriculum underpins the broader where it is taught, why it is taught, and how and philosophy of lifelong learning. when it is assessed embody sets of values, ideas about how to make sense of the world and ethical The idea of curriculum as and moral frameworks. As a result, a curriculum “technocratic and instrumental” privileges some groups and not others. signifies an outcome for curriculum shaped by the immediate requirements of the economy and workforce skilling. While this is an understandable and justifiable priority for securing a nation’s future, there is little within it to offer the learner apart from up-skilling and increased employment opportunities.
This dualistic model was also highlighted by Sharif and Cho (2015, p. 80), who stated that “instructional designers have taken to focus on either training for the job vs the real-world situation”. This discrepancy lies in the way instructional design is taught and is actually practised in real-world situations, with a tendency to focus on designing programmes to meet Bound et al. (2013, p. 83) competency requirements of a job. Competency requirements do not take into consideration the real-world demands that go beyond performing the job tasks (Larson & Lockee, 2009). Possessing adaptability, resilience, creativity and innovation, among other characteristics, is as much a job requirement as the skillsets and knowledge associated with the job within dynamic workplaces and organisational cultures.
21
