3 minute read
3.6 Summary
from “Whose IDeA is this?” Facilitating Professional Reflection and Communication Through The IAL Design
learners struggle to make sense of the learning and the requirements of the curriculum. A case in point concerned students schooled in the sciences, who often found it a challenge when they had to take on humanities subjects, and vice versa. The members of the reference group posited that the underpinning reason could be a change in curriculum philosophy and approach, which resulted in students requiring a change in their approach to learning and assessment when tackling these subjects. It was further mentioned that, with the profiles of these modules on the IDeA continuum, it would inform policy-makers, training managers, curriculum designers and instructors on their roles in translating the intended curriculum to what is enacted in the classroom.
These examples not only highlight expected differences in different disciplinary fields, but also beg the question: to what extent are these differences truly reflective of different types of reasoning across different disciplines and types of skills? Are there approaches that can be used to develop technical capacity that are more holistic? Certainly there is considerable research literature that suggests it is indeed possible to do this (see, for example, Lee, 2015; Stack, 2007).
Using the profiles as snapshots of the perceptions of the participants at the point of the interview, these findings illustrate how the use of the IDeA Model can be used to profile curriculum within different systems to compare the similarities and differences. Given the policy direction for lifelong learning, including the intent for adult learners to move between systems seamlessly, it would appear that the dialogue that has to take place between the various stakeholders across national bodies and agencies and training providers needs to go much deeper, touching on curriculum philosophy, approach and the balance between competency-based training and capability learning to achieve the national outcomes for future-proofing of our workforce.
After interviewing 30 curriculum designers, training managers, industry regulators and quality specialists, the overall feedback given was positive, with some enthusiastic requests to “get it out quickly” because it was very much needed in the industry. Roland, one of the participants, wanted to start using it already:
I can see myself using it. In fact if you would allow me to, I wouldn’t mind doing a bit more, taking this model and applying it a couple of times to different modules or different curriculum that I’ve developed and send you the results.
Specifically, the unequivocal response has been to use the IDeA Model as a communication and reflection tool, with the underlying motivation to enrich conversations and discussions, whether internally with oneself or externally with others. According to the reference group members, the power of the model lies in its potential to provide a ‘common language’ for stakeholders to ‘discourse, moderate or calibrate’, thereby making conversations more productive and meaningful. The use of the IDeA Model on sectoral and national platforms to enhance communication with key industry stakeholders is not a far-fetched one, given that training and education remain key drivers for national growth and terminologies need to be refreshed and deepened to reflect the complex CET environments that government agencies and industry bodies operate in currently.
Some of these applications point towards use by the practitioner for professional growth and development, while other applications refer to how curriculum is treated and aligned for a better learning experience. In general, the above findings resonated with the reference group.
Though the IDeA Model, being a reflection tool, is not a quality instrument, using the model for quality review to check constructive alignment between intended and enacted curriculum could be an interesting application of the IDeA Model. Finally, the IDeA Model would fit very well with a researchoriented focus in CET. For example, findings from research studies on how curriculum types based on the interpretive–instrumental continuum vary across sectors could influence and inform future designs and policies. Understanding the pedagogical beliefs of adult educators on the different types of curriculum on the continuum could also prove to be interesting.
