2.3 Conclusion

The ultimate purpose of curriculum evaluation is to benefit stakeholders; the most important of these, we would argue, are the learners. The clearest insight of the quality of the curriculum will stem from moving beyond “listening to students” to recognising and incorporating the contributions of learners “as partners and co-collaborators throughout the design cycle” (Smith et al., 2013).

Getting learners involved begins with having conversations with them. McKay (2009) proposed that designers adopt the perspective of “curriculum development and review as a conversation – with all those groups that have an interest in your course or program – colleagues, administrators, students, graduates, employers, and professional partners – and with your discipline or field” .

For example, the eight-stage curriculum design model developed by Smith et al. (2013) has a culture of responsiveness to change incorporated in it as part of the conditions for curriculum design. Despite the clear indications from the literature and the ground with regards to the benefits of a responsive curriculum, the speed and extent of curriculum review and evaluation varies widely across training organisations in Singapore. Many organisations in Singapore are facing a manpower crunch due to the tightening labour pool and, thus, they tend to restrict their major curriculum reviews to once every 2 to 3 years, just prior to the curriculum improvement and review audit conducted by WDA. The other oft-cited reason for infrequent review and evaluation is that training organisations avoid modifying curricula that have been approved and accredited by WDA to avoid the need to send the curricula for re-accreditation and review. Especially in cases where classroom training is misaligned with job requirements, curriculum updates can be frustratingly slow and tedious (Bound & Lin, 2011).

In conclusion, the IDeA Model is not concerned with details of the practicalities of training needs analyses, funding models, courseware design processes and approvals, pedagogical practices, assessment strategies, evaluation protocols and so on. These can be considered through the curriculum design models currently available in the existing literature. Rather, it emphasises the thought processes and assumptions that both precede and inform these strategies. It should be noted that many of the stated ideas and assumptions found in the IDeA Model are often made unconsciously by individual curriculum-makers. It is the aim of the Model and heuristic to enable curriculum designers and developers to be conscious of and reflect upon their assumptions, with a view to either applying or challenging them when designing or reviewing curriculum. Therefore, it is the express purpose of this research study to determine if the IDeA Model can be used as a tool or framework for curriculum designers to have their own professional conversations to inform practice as well as have those dialogues with other CET professionals to improve the curriculum design process.