Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment and the KDB

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.