In this week’s class, we
discussed the relationship between curriculum, instruction, assessment and the
Know, Do, Be (KDB) and were asked to draw a diagram. I initially had a very
simplistic diagram where all aspects were interrelated, however I found that I
could not completely explain the reasoning behind my choices. I have since
created a newer version, and have decided to discuss it for this week’s blog
post.
 |
| Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment and The Know, Do and Be (created by Lisa Karaki, 2015) |
The diagram begins with
curriculum. Curriculum is a widely contested term in education that can be
defined in a variety of ways, all of which have implications for learning
experiences (Brady & Kennedy, 2007). Blaise and Nuttall (2011) explain how
the term “curriculum” has many components:
·
The intended
curriculum (the official curriculum students are intended to experience);
·
The enacted
curriculum (the curriculum they actually experience);
·
The hidden
curriculum (what students learn unintentionally);
·
The null
curriculum (what educators avoid teaching) and;
·
The lived
curriculum (everything the learner experiences in an educational setting)
For the purpose of this
diagram, the “curriculum” component is a curriculum document. Curriculum documents are the product of dominant groups (Ewing, 2013),
and can be viewed as representing the knowledge valued in
that culture (Bourdieu, as cited in Thompson, 2002). This means that many
stakeholders, such as the government, society, teachers, school, parents and
students, influence the KDB presented in curriculum documents.
The next part of the
diagram is instruction. Blaise & Nuttall (2011) highlight the difference
between the enacted curriculum (teacher instruction) and the intended
curriculum, as educators must interpret curriculum documents in order to bring
them to life in the classroom. Curriculum informs instruction, but instruction
is affected by many factors other than curriculum. I believe educators’ beliefs
about the KDB of their classroom, which are again informed by societal,
governmental and school values, influence the way that they enact the intended
curriculum.
The final component of the
diagram is assessment. There is a double arrow between assessment and
instruction, as formative assessment can be used to monitor student learning
and inform instruction, and summative assessment to assess the success of the instruction
(SCSA, 2013). Assessment can also be used as a method of instruction in the
‘assessment as learning’ approach (SCSA, 2013). I believe assessment methods
are also influenced by the KDB of educational stakeholders, particularly of the
school and educators; I believe it is inevitable that their values and beliefs
about how, when and why learning should be assessed would influence their
assessment methods.
As explained, the Know, Do
and Be are influenced by stakeholders in education, and influence all
components in the diagram. I believe it is essential that educators are
conscious of this so they are able to make
their own informed decisions about whether or not these are appropriate for
their classrooms. I believe creating
and explaining this diagram was really beneficial in understanding how I
perceive curriculum, assessment and instruction, and I hope that this assists
me in deciding what kind of teacher I become.
References
Blaise, M & Nuttall, J. (2011). Learning to teach in the early years classroom. Melbourne, VIC:
Oxford University Press
Brady, L. & Kennedy, K. (2007). Curriculum construction. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia
Ewing, R. (2013). Inequity of educational opportunity:
Never ending story. Curriculum and
assessment. Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press
Thompson, P.
(2002). Schooling the rustbelt kids:
Making the difference in changing times. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen &
Unwin.
