The idea of curriculum is hardly new - but the way we understand
and theorize it has altered over the years - and there remain
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AND ACADEMIC STANDARDSA LECTURE DELVERED
BY PROFESSOR OLUSESAN OMIDIJI AT A WORKSHOP OF ACADEMIC PLANNERS IN
NIGERIAN UNIVERSITIES (CODAPNU) AT NUC H/Q, ABUJA ON 13TH JULY,
2011)Protocol:
I sincerely thank the organizers of this workshop for giving me
the opportunity to be part of this discussion on curriculum and
academic standard through CODAPNU. My interest in academic
standards evolved from an over 30 years lecturing experience in our
University system where I have noticed tremendous growth in student
population, number of curricular, emergence of state and private
Universities, all happening in the midst of stress to quality
delivery and standard sustenance. I have observed resistance to the
introduction of other ways of assessing quality because academics
are basically conservative. I have made my view known regarding the
issue of academic standard, quality delivery and career in some
fora and can therefore only thank the organizers of this workshop
for providing me with another opportunity to make a contribution. I
am constrained to approach the concept of curriculum and academic
standards as if they are two issues because in separate terms they
are big topics. But in real terms they are twin issues in academic
delivery. There is no standard without a curriculum and no useful
curriculum can there be without clear standards.CURRICULUM AND ITS
DEVELOPEMENTAlmostalluniversities taught the so-called seven
liberal arts. The most important of these were the first three,
called the trivium: grammar (what would now be called reading and
writing), rhetoric (literature and more complicated kinds of
writing), and logic. While learning these, students might also
study some or all of the other four, called the quadrivium. These
were mathematical and scientific subjects: arithmetic (what would
now be called number theory), geometry (number relations), music
(proportions and harmonies), and astronomy. Some students also
studied theology, which was considered the highest and most
profound subject, since it was the study of God and his works. When
they had successfully completed their studies, students became
masters. Mostclassesinmedieval schools were taught as lectures in
which the teacher read a text aloud and commented on its important
or difficult passages, while the students followed along, often
with a copy of the text. Other classes were organized as
discussions in which both masters and students asked questions and
prodded one another to provide and support their answers. These
were often very lively meetings, and students greatly enjoyed the
engaging atmosphere of the classroom. Education and literacy rhymed
and philosophers emerged through thinking.Curriculum Theory And
PracticeThe organization of schooling and further education has
long been associated with the idea of a curriculum. But what
actually is curriculum, and how might it be conceptualized? We will
hereby explore curriculum theory and practice and its relation to
informal education.The idea of curriculum is hardly new - but the
way we understand and theorize it has altered over the years - and
there remains considerable dispute as to its meaning. It has its
origins in the running/chariot tracks of Greece. It was, literally,
a course. In Latin curriculum was a racing chariot; currere was to
run. A useful starting point for us here might be the definition
offered by John Kerr and taken up by Vic Kelly in his standard work
on the subject.Kerr (1983, 1999) defined curriculum as, 'All the
learning which is planned and guided by the school, whether it is
carried on in groups or individually, inside or outside the school.
This gives us some basis to move on - and for the moment all we
need to do is highlight two of the key features:Learning is planned
and guided. We have to specify in advance what we are seeking to
achieve and how we are to go about it.The definition refers to
schooling. We should recognize that our current appreciation of
curriculum theory and practice emerged in the school and in
relation to other schooling ideas such as subject and lesson.In
what follows we will look at the four ways of approaching
curriculum theory and practice:1. Curriculum as a body of knowledge
to be transmitted; lecture delivery, avenue of communication,
interaction and feed back, scheme coverage and syllabus
adherence.2. Curriculum as an attempt to achieve certain ends in
students product- professional attainment, knowledge demonstration,
confidence in information attainment, eligibility to practice,
parent-teacher acceptability3. Curriculum as
process-teaching/learning facilities, quality control; market
acceptability. 4. Curriculum as praxis. Assessment of performance
or application of skill: the practical side and application of
curriculum process such as a professional skill, not its theory.The
overall demonstrable ability to confirm the value of curriculum
through practice.In view of the modern approach to educational
delivery the above descriptions challenge the organized delivery
approach (AS PRACTICED IN THE UNIT COURSE SYSTEM) without
necessarily conflicting with it for as long as the values of
curriculum are not compromised. It is helpful to consider these
ways of approaching curriculum theory and practice in the light of
influential categorization of knowledge into three disciplines: the
theoretical, the productive and the practical.THE 3 DISCIPLINES OF
KNOWLEDGE; CURRICULUM THEORY
THE PRODUCTIVETHE PRACTICALTHE THEORETICAL
PRODUCTSYLLABUSPROCESS
Here the links become clear - the theoretical body of knowledge
to be transmitted in the first is that classically valued as 'the
canon'; the process and praxis models come close to practical
deliberation; and the technical concerns of the outcome or product
model mirror elements of Aristotle's characterization of the
productive.PRAXIS
Is curriculum synonymous with the syllabus? No.The
theoretical.Syllabus, basically means a concise statement or table
of the heads of a discourse, the contents of a treatise, the
subjects of a series of lectures. In the form that many of us will
have been familiar with, it is connected with courses leading to
examinations. Teachers talk of the syllabus associated with, say,
the WAEC/SSCE exam. What we can see in such documents is a series
of headings with some additional notes which set out the areas that
may be examined.But that is not the limit of a curriculumA syllabus
will not generally indicate the relative importance of its topics
or the order in which they are to be studied. In some cases, those
who compile a syllabus tend to follow the traditional textbook
approach of an 'order of contents', or a pattern prescribed by a
'logical' approach to the subject, or - consciously or
unconsciously - the shape of a university course in which they may
have participated. Thus, an approach to curriculum theory and
practice which focuses on syllabus is only really concerned with
content. Curriculum is a body of knowledge-content and/or subjects.
Education in this sense, is the process by which these are
transmitted or 'delivered' to students by the most effective
methods that can be devised (Blenkin et al., 1992).Wherever
curriculum is equated with a syllabus they are likely to limit
their planning to a consideration of the content or the body of
knowledge that they wish to transmit. 'It is also because this view
of curriculum has been adopted that many teachers in primary
schools may regard issues of curriculum as of no concern to them,
since they have not regarded their task as being to transmit bodies
of knowledge in this manner. The productivity content of curriculum
takes its meaning far above that of a simple syllabus. Productivity
is the source of curriculum development while content alone and not
even order defines a course syllabus.Curriculum theory as product
The dominant modes of describing and managing education are today
couched in the productive form. Education is most often seen as a
technical exercise. Objectives are set, a plan drawn up, then
applied, and the outcomes (products) measured. It is a way of
thinking about education that has grown in influence in the United
Kingdom since the late 1970s with the rise of vocationalism and the
concern with competencies. Thus, in the late 1980s and the 1990s
many of the debates about the National Curriculum for schools did
not so much concern how the curriculum was thought about as to what
its objectives and content might be.In The Curriculum Bobbitt
(1928) wrote: The central theory of curriculum is simple. Human
life, however varied, consists in the performance of specific
activities. Education that prepares for life is one that prepares
definitely and adequately for these specific activities. However
numerous and diverse they may be for any social class they can be
discovered. This requires only that one go out into the world of
affairs and discover the particulars of which their affairs
consist. These will show the abilities, attitudes, habits,
appreciations and forms of knowledge that men need. These will be
the objectives of the curriculum. They will be numerous, definite
and particularized. The curriculum will then be that series of
experiences which children and youth must have by way of obtaining
those objectives Thus the objectives of a curriculum should be:a.
to establish abilityb. to alter attitudesc. to form habitsd. to
create appreciationse. provide knowledgeTyler (1949) in particular,
shared Bobbitt's emphasis on rationality and relative simplicity of
the approach to curriculum. His theory was based on four
fundamental questions:1. What educational purposes should the
school seek to attain?2. What educational experiences can be
provided that are likely to attain these purposes?3. How can these
educational experiences be effectively organized?4. How can we
determine whether these purposes are being attained? Like Bobbitt,
Tyler also placed an emphasis on the formulation of behavioural
objectives and reasoned thatsince the real purpose of education is
not to have the instructor perform certain activities but to bring
about significant changes in the students' pattern of behaviour, it
becomes important to recognize that any statements of objectives of
the school should be a statement of changes to take place in the
students (Tyler 1949)We can see how these concerns translate into a
nicely-ordered procedure: one that is very similar to the technical
or productive thinking set out below.The curriculum contentStep 1:
Diagnosis of needStep 2: Formulation of objectivesStep 3: Selection
of contentStep 4: Organization of contentStep 5: Selection of
learning experiencesStep 6: Organization of learning
experiencesStep 7: Determination of what to evaluate and of the
ways and means of doing it. The attraction of this way of
approaching curriculum theory and practice is that it is systematic
and has considerable organizing power. Central to the approach is
the formulation of behavioural objectives - providing a clear
notion of outcome so that content and method may be organized and
the results evaluated.Issues in curriculum theory and practice.1.
The first is that the plan or programme assumes great
importance.The plan defines the objectives. So we may define
curriculum as: A programme of activities (by teachers and pupils)
designed so that pupils will attain so far as possible certain
educational and other schooling ends or objectives (Grundy 1987:
11). The challenge to the concept:Such programmes inevitably exist
prior to and outside the learning experiences. This takes much away
from learners. They can end up with little or no voice. They are
told what they must learn and how they will do it. The success or
failure of both the programme and the individual learners is judged
on the basis of whether pre-specified changes occur in the
behaviour and person of the learner (the meeting of behavioural
objectives). If the plan is tightly adhered to, there can only be
limited opportunity for educators to make use of the interactions
that occur. It also can deskill educators in another way. It has
the capacity to turn educators into technicians.2. Second, there
are questions around the nature of objectives. This model is hot on
measurability. It implies that behaviour can be objectively,
mechanistically measured.The challenge to the conceptThere are
always some uncertainties about what is being measured. We only
have to reflect on questions of success in our work. It is often
very difficult to judge what the impact of particular experiences
has been. Sometimes it is years after the event that we come to
appreciate something of what has happened. For example, most
informal educators who have been around a few years will have had
the experience of an ex-participant telling them in great detail
about how some forgotten event (forgotten to the worker that is)
brought about some fundamental change. In order to measure, things
have to be broken down into smaller and smaller units. This can
lead to a focus in this approach to curriculum theory and practice
on the parts rather than the whole; on the trivial, rather than the
significant. It can lead to an approach to education and assessment
which resembles a shopping list. When all the items are ticked, the
person has passed the course or has learnt something. The role of
overall judgment is somehow sidelined. 3. Third, What do educators
actually do in the classroom. Much of the research concerning
teacher thinking and classroom interaction, and curriculum
innovation has pointed to the lack of impact on actual pedagogic
practice of objectives. The challenge to this concept The teachers
simply get it wrong - they ought to work with objectives. The
difficulties that educators experience with objectives in the
classroom may point to something inherently wrong with the approach
- that it is not grounded in the study of educational exchanges. It
is a model of curriculum theory and practice largely imported from
technological and industrial settings.4. Fourth, there is the
problem of unanticipated results. The focus on pre-specified goals
may lead both educators and learners to overlook learning that is
occurring as a result of their interactions, but which is not
listed as an objective.The value of the issue .This is a simple and
rational approach to curriculum theory and practice, and the way in
which it mimics industrial management have been powerful factors in
its success. A further appeal has been the ability of academics to
use the model to attack teachers.There is a tendency, recurrent
enough to suggest that it may be endemic in the approach, for
academics in education to use the objectives model as a stick with
which to beat teachers. 'What are your objectives?' is more often
asked in a tone of challenge than one of interested and helpful
inquiry. The demand for objectives is a demand for justification
rather than a description of ends... It is not about curriculum
design, but rather an expression of irritation in the problems of
accountability in education (Stenhouse 1974)So how do we move
forward?Curriculum as processWe have seen that the curriculum as
product model is heavily dependent on the setting of behavioural
objectives. The curriculum, essentially, is a set of documents for
implementation. Another way of looking at curriculum theory and
practice is via process. In this sense curriculum is not a physical
thing, but rather the interaction of teachers, students and
knowledge. In other words, curriculum is what actually happens in
the classroom and what people do to prepare and evaluate. What we
have in this model is a number of elements in constant interaction.
It is an active process and links with the practical form of
reasoning set out by Aristotle.Teachers enter particular schooling
and situations withan ability to think critically, -in-action, an
understanding of their role and the expectations others have of
them, and a proposal for action which sets out essential principles
and features of the educational encounter.Guided by these, they
encourage conversations between, and with, people in the situation
out of which may come thinking and action. They continually
evaluate the process and what they can see of outcomes.Two things
that set our thinking apart from the model for informal education
are:1. The context in which the process occurs ('particular
schooling situations'); 2. The fact that teachers enter the
classroom or any other formal educational setting with a more fully
worked-through idea of what is about to happen.These expressions
and understandings have formed the basis of conceptualization of
curriculum theory and practice as proposed by Stenhouse (1975) who
defined curriculum as;an attempt to communicate the essential
principles and features of an educational proposal in such a form
that it is open to critical scrutiny and capable of effective
translation into practice'. Like a recipe in cookery. A curriculum,
like the recipe for a dish, is first imagined as a possibility,
then the subject of experiment. The recipe offered publicly is in a
sense a report on the experiment. Similarly, a curriculum should be
grounded in practice. It is an attempt to describe the work
observed in classrooms that it is adequately communicated to
teachers and others. Finally, within limits, a recipe can varied
according to taste. So can a curriculum. (Stenhouse 1975). But what
about the manner in which the dish is served?.This perhaps is why
we are here to explore ways of assessing our recipe and if
necessary, vary it according to taste and ask that we be well
served.We also need to reflect on why curriculum theory and
practice came into use by educators (as against policy-makers).It
was essentially as a way of helping them to think about their work
before, during and after interventions; as a means of enabling
educators to make judgments about the direction their work was
taking. So what are the essential components/foci of a
curriculum.The three broad areas/components and their composite
parts as proposed by Stenhouse (1975) are provided below. This is
based on a process model.In PlanningIn Emperical StudyIn Relation
to justification
1Principle for the selection of content - what is to be learned
and taughtPrinciples on which to study and evaluate the progress of
studentsFormulation of the intention or aim of the curriculum which
is accessible to critical scrutiny.
2. Principles for the development of a teaching strategy - how
it is to be learned and taught. Principles on which to study and
evaluate the progress of teachers.
3Principles for the making of decisions about sequenceGuidance
as to the feasibility of implementing the curriculum in varying
school contexts, pupil contexts, environments and peer-group
situations.
4. Principles on which to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses
of individual students and differentiate the general principles 1,
2 and 3 above, to meet individual cases.. Information about the
variability of effects in differing contexts and on different
pupils and an understanding of the causes of the variation
Stenhouse, 1975.It is inferable from the process model above
that1. A curriculum is a particular form of specification about the
practice of teaching. It is not a package of materials or a
syllabus of ground to be covered. It is a way of translating any
educational idea into a hypothesis stable in practice. It invites
critical testing rather than acceptance
2. Any proposal, even at school level, needs to be tested, and
verified by each teacher in his/herclassroom. It is not like a
curriculum package which is designed to be delivered almost
anywhere.3. Outcomes are no longer the central and defining
feature. Rather than tightly specifying behavioural objectives and
methods in advance, what happens in this model of curriculum theory
and practice is that content and means develop as teachers and
students work together.4. The learners in this model are not
objects to be acted upon. They have a clear voice in the way that
the sessions evolve. The focus is on interactions. This can mean
that attention shifts from teaching to learning. A process approach
to curriculum theory and practice, tends towards making the process
of learning the central concern of the teacher. This is because
this way of thinking emphasizes interpretation and meaning-making.
As we have seen each classroom and each exchange is different and
has to be made sense of (Grundy, 1987).It is also possible for some
problems to arise from process approach to curriculum development.
First, for those who want some greater degree of uniformity in what
is taught, this approach to the theory of curriculum, because it
places meaning-making and thinking at its core and treats learners
as subjects rather than objects, can lead to very different means
being employed in classrooms and a high degree of variety in
content because the process model is essentially a critical model,
not a marking model. Secondly, it cannot be directed towards an
examination as an objective without loss of quality, since the
standards of the examination then override the standards imitated
in the subject. This does not mean that students taught on the
process model cannot be examined, but it does mean that the
examinations must be taken in their stride as they pursue other
aspirations. And if the examination is a by-product there is an
implication that the quality the student shows in it must be an
under-estimate of his real quality. It is hence rather difficult to
get the weak student through an examination using a process model.
Crammers cannot use it, since it depends upon a commitment to
educational aims. (Stenhouse 1975: 95).Here we come to the basis of
evolution of continuous assessment in curriculum
implementation.Third, there is the 'problem' of teachers. The major
weakness and, indeed, strength of the process model is that it
rests upon the quality of teachers. If they are not up to much then
there is no safety net in the form of prescribed curriculum
materials. The approach is dependent upon the cultivation of wisdom
and meaning-making in the classroom. If the teacher is not up to
this, then there will be severe limitations on what can happen
educationally. Fourth, we need to look back at our process model of
curriculum theory and practice and what we have subsequently
discussed, and return to Aristotle and to Freire. The model we have
looked at here does not fully reflect the process explored earlier.
In particular, it does not make explicit the commitments associated
with phronesis. And it is to that we will now turn.Curriculum as
praxis (Curriculum in practice).Curriculum as praxis is, in many
respects, a development of the process model. While the process
model is driven by general principles and places an emphasis on
judgment and meaning making, it does not make explicit statements
about the interests it serves. The praxis model of curriculum
theory and practice brings to the centre the process which makes an
explicit commitment to emancipation and freedom of thought.. Thus
action is not simply informed, it is also committed. It is praxis.
Praxis In ProcessCurriculum as praxisTeachers enter particular
schooling and situations with a personal, but shared idea of the
good and a commitment to human emancipation, an ability to think
critically, -in-action an understanding of their role and the
expectations others have of them, and a proposal for action which
sets out essential principles and features of the educational
encounter. Guided by these, they encourage conversations between,
and with, people in the situation out of which may come informed
and committed action. They continually evaluate the process and
what they can see of outcomes.
In this approach the curriculum itself develops through the
dynamic interaction of action and reflection. 'That is, the
curriculum is not simply a set of plans to be implemented, but
rather is constituted through an active process in which planning,
acting and evaluating are all reciprocally related and integrated
into the process; at its centre is praxis which is - informed,
committed action.How might we recognize this?First, we should look
for practice which does not focus exclusively on individuals, but
pays careful attention to collective understandings and practices
and to structural questions. For example, in sessions which seek to
explore the experiences of different cultural and racial groups in
society, we could be looking to see whether the direction of the
work took people beyond a focus on individual attitudes. Second, we
could be looking for a commitment expressed in action to the
exploration of educators' values and their practice. Are they, for
example, able to say in a coherent way what they think makes for
human well-being and link this with their practice? We could also
be looking for certain values - especially an emphasis on human
emancipation.Third, we could expect practitioners committed to
praxis to be exploring their practice with their
peers-interactions. They would be able to say how their actions
with respect to particular interventions reflected their ideas
about what makes for the good, and to say what theories were
involved.Curriculum as the boundary between formal and informal
educationJeffs and Smith (1990; 1999) have argued that the notion
of curriculum provides a central dividing line between formal and
informal education. They contend that curriculum theory and
practice was formed within the schooling context and that there are
major problems when it is introduced into informal forms of
pedagogy.However, process and praxis models of curriculum also
present problems in the context of informal education. If we look
back at our models of process and compare them with the model of
informal education presented above then it is clear that we can
have a similar problem with pre-specification. One of the key
feature that differentiates the two is that the curriculum model
has the teacher entering the situation with a proposal for action
which sets out the essential principles and features of the
educational encounter. Informal educators do not have, and do not
need, this element. They do not enter with a clear proposal for
action. Rather, they have an idea of what makes for human
well-being, and an appreciation of their overall role and strategy
(strategy here being some idea about target group and broad method
e.g. detached work). The other key difference is context. Even if
we were to go the whole hog and define curriculum as process there
remain substantive problems. As Cornbleth (1990), and Jeffs and
Smith (1990, 1999) have argued, curriculum cannot be taken out of
context, and the context in which it was formed was the school.
Curriculum theory and practice only makes sense when considered
alongside notions like class, teacher, course, lesson and so on.
You only have to look at the language that has been used by our
main proponents: Tyler, Stenhouse, Cornbleth and Grundy, to see
this. It is not a concept that stands on its own. It developed in
relation to teaching and within particular organizational
relationships and expectations. Alter the context and the nature of
the process alters . We then need different ways of describing what
is going on. Thus, it is no surprise that when curriculum theory
and practice are introduced into what are essentially informal
forms of working such as youth work and community work, their main
impact is to formalize significant aspects of the work. What is
being suggested here is that when informal educators take on the
language of curriculum they are crossing the boundary between their
chosen specialty and the domain of formal education. This is not
undesirable. There will be formal interludes in their work,
appropriate times for them to mount courses and to discuss content
and method in curriculum terms. But we should not fall into the
trap of thinking that to be educators we have to adopt curriculum
theory and practice. The fact that so many have been misled into
believing this demonstrates just how powerful the ideas of
schooling are. Education is something more than
schooling.Curriculum implementationA curriculum, however well
designed, must be implemented if it is to have any impact on
students. Although this is obvious, there are thousands of
curriculum documents now gathering dust on storeroom shelves
because they were never implemented or because they were
implemented unintelligently. The obvious importance of curriculum
implementation has not necessarily led to widespread understanding
of what it entails or of what is problematic about it.
Implementation can be assisted by identification of framework.A
'curriculum framework' can be defined as a group of related
subjects or themes, which fit together according to a predetermined
set of criteria to appropriately cover an area of study. Each
curriculum framework has the potential to provide a structure for
designing subjects and a rationale and policy context for
subsequent curriculum development of these subjects. Examples of
school-oriented curriculum frameworks include 'science' (including,
for example, biology, chemistry, physics, geology) and 'commerce'
(including, for example, accounting, office studies, economics,
computing, mathematics, history etc). The teacher who works at
developing a varied combination of instructional modes of teaching
is moving strongly to becoming a flexible teacher, and most likely
to becoming a very effective one. We tend to prefer particular
teaching and learning modes for a variety of reasons. It is less
than professional to remain in a state of inertia with regard to a
few modes when there are a number of exciting options available.
Just some of the possibilities are listed below.Overview of
eighteen alternative teaching and learning modes/tools in
curriculum implementation. Constructivist learning
Debates
Demonstrations
Direct instruction
Discussion
Field work
Independent study
Inquiry
Cooperative learning
Learning centres
Lectures and presentations
Mastery learning
Oral reports
Practice drills
Project learning
Small group brainstorming
Questioning
Simulations and role plays
ConclusionWe have explored four different approaches to
curriculum theory and practice:Curriculum as a body of knowledge to
be transmitted. Curriculum as an attempt to achieve certain ends in
students - product. Curriculum as process. Curriculum as praxis.
For a conclusion and in inclusion. Who are we to be here?1. The
liberal educators.2. The scientific curriculum makers3. The
developmentalists4. The social meliorates (the menders)
ACADEMIC STANDARDSAcademic standards are public, written
statements of expectations. Good teachers have always had standards
for their students but only they knew what they were. Parents and
administrators did not have any way of knowing what was required of
students or whether standards were applied differently to different
groups of children or even to different individuals within a
class.In standards-based learning, academic standards are written
in published documents. Parents, students, and teachers can ask
whether their school is helping students reach the agreed-upon
benchmarks: Does the school offer algebra in grade 8? Can students
achieve the science standards with the lab equipment in the school?
Do students write enough in their classes to achieve the writing
standards?Another difference with the use of written standards is
that they apply to all students -- from the college-bound
valedictorian to the special education student. Supporters of
standards claim that without them, schools become a selection and
sorting system: 20% of students always do well, and the rest can
find manual labor that doesn't require much educational
achievement.Supporters of standards, however, seek to help 100% of
students operate in a world in which different kinds of jobs are
created all the time. Twenty years ago, most people didn't know
that the Web existed, let alone that in 2011, there would be
thousands of jobs for "Web masters."Because we don't have
"standard" students, it will take some students longer than others
to achieve the required proficiency. Standards supporters believe
that given the right opportunities, every child has the ability to
learn. It is not the case that some kids will succeed while others
are doomed despite the efforts of educators. Those who use
standards want to move from a system that believes the inputs are
fixed (i.e., kids either can do it, or they can't) and the outcomes
vary as a result (those who can, make it and the others drop out),
to one where the inputs vary (some need more time and different
teaching) and the outputs are fixed (everyone meets the
standard).In the nine months of a school year, students are
generally expected to learn a fixed amount -- if they don't, then
they missed it. In a standards-based system, however, the standards
are fixed, but students can take a longer or shorter time to learn
what they need to reach them. They can't go past the benchmark
points without demonstrating the knowledge and skills written in
the standards documents. Academic standards need not be uniform all
over he country as regions, states, local government and even
cities and localities can evolve and enforce their own standards.
For as long as the other standards do not abuse the rights of the
locations or erode the national values, communities can set their
own academic statements of standards for their schools. What are
these statements? What do they mean? Standards describe the goals
of schooling, the destinations at which students should arrive at
the end of the unit or term or semester. For example, most
standards expect students graduating from college to be able to
write for different audiences in different formats -- things such
as reports, instructions, literary criticism, and persuasive and
reflective essays -- and to demonstrate a command of standard
written English. Note that the standard doesn't prescribe how to
get the students to this destination -- that is determined by the
curriculum. Standards do not prescribe any particular curriculum:
National standards don't mean that local ability to choose teaching
materials and methods are compromised. Standards indicate what
students should know and should be able to do at specific levels or
grades. The teacher can choose whatever curriculum he or she finds
appropriate to help the students meet the standards.Standards are
the WHAT of education while curriculum and instruction are the
HOW.Two kinds of standards are identified -- content standards and
performance standards. 1.Content standards indicate what students
should know and should be able to do. For example, students should
be able to write and speak for a variety of purposes and for
diverse audiences, using conventional grammar, usage, sentence
structure, punctuation, and spelling.2.A performance standard
measures how well a student's work meets the content standard. A
performance standard has levels (4, 3, 2, and 1; or advanced,
proficient, novice, and basic) and frequently examples of student
work are provided for each level. Performance standards are
essentially the same as rubrics. Rubrics describe what student work
must consist of to get a certain score. Rubrics or performance
standards list one of the characteristics of student work -- for
example, problem-solving in mathematics or persuasive writing in
English/language arts. All examples of problem-solving or
persuasive writing, no matter what the topic, should contain these
characteristics. Other frequently-asked questions What do standards
have to do with my classroom? How have standards developed since
they began in the early 1990s? Any other perspective? What are the
benefits of academic standards? How can standards help students to
learn better? What do critics of standards have to say? How do we
standardize passage through college?What do standards have to do
with my classroom?Standards guide what is taught in your classroom.
In the core subjects -- English/language arts, mathematics,
science, and social sciences -- any classroom activity should be
aligned to standards. This applies to every level, not only the
benchmark grades where students are tested for promotion. Making
expectations clear is important, especially for average- to
lower-functioning students who may not always take the initiative
regarding their work or know how to aim for those goals without any
guidance.Standards make the most difference in which activities you
choose for your students. Students need tasks, assignments -- work
-- that gets them to the standards, not activities that they find
easy. Most students say they prefer work that challenges them --
work that makes them stretch, rather than "slide by" and
potentially be bored.A visitor to a standards-based classroom
should see a lot of high-level activity -- questioning, reflecting,
analyzing, doing experiments, discussing, writing -- and one
important addition: a scoring guide 1 on the wall for any major
assignment. This scoring guide will have been written by the
teacher and students together and posted before the students begin
the assignment. It will set out for the students exactly what work
that gains the highest score consists of (6, or 4, or "advanced")
and what low-scoring work would be.How have standards developed
since they began in the early 1990s?The first standards to be
developed (in the USA) were mathematics standards, written by
members of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)
(All math teachers can become members of the NCTM.) To write the
standards, the NCTM formed committees of teachers and university
professors of mathematics and math education. They then circulated
drafts of the standards to any member of the NCTM who wished to
read and comment on them. The process of writing, circulating,
rewriting, and recirculating took eight years, until the NCTM
standards were published in 1989. The NCTM recently revised their
standards in "Standards 2000."Other academic disciplines followed
the same model as the NCTM, but they were aided by federal funding.
At the 1989 educational summit, Congress adopted eight educational
goals and provided funding for the development of standards in
major academic disciplines. Professional associations submitted
proposals to write standards in history, geography, science and the
arts. Other academic disciplines, including English/language arts,
used their own association funds to develop standards. All of the
documents went through rigorous public review, and at least one of
them -- the history standards -- was severely criticized by public
leaders.Because the United States is a country where education
policy is set mostly by states and local schools rather than by the
federal government, most states also embarked on their own
standards-setting processes. In most cases, there isn't much
variation from the national standards, although in mathematics,
Virginia, California, and Arizona rejected the NCTM standards and
wrote "traditional" standards, meaning an emphasis on skills and
mathematical procedures rather than on problem-solving and the
ability to understand mathematical theory.Standards are currently
the staple of educational conversation. Textbook and test
publishers claim that their products are aligned with national and
state standards. States are trying to align curriculum frameworks
and assessments to their standards, sometimes without much success:
it is impossible for a norm-referenced test to align with
standards. Norm-referenced tests tell you how well students achieve
compared to each other, but standards mean that student progress
must be compared to the standard, not to how well or poorly others
do. Difference Between Standards-Based and Norm-Referenced
Systems
Believe some students are naturally smarter than others.Believe
virtually all students can "get smart" through effort.
Content subject matter varies with different groups of
students.Content subject matter is the same for all groups of
students.
Assessments compare what students know to what other students
know.Assessments compare what students know to standards and
benchmarks.
No objective criteria to deploy resources students who need the
most often get the least.Resources are deployed as needed for all
students to meet standards -- students who need more get more.
Professional development episodic -- one-time
workshops.Professional development focuses on improving instruction
so all students meet standards.
What are the benefits of academic standards?Standards provide a
focus for reform efforts -- all students must reach them. And
teachers can see how well they are doing by looking at their
progress towards standards. Focus is one of the greatest benefits
of standards; publication is another. Everyone can see what the
schools are aiming to teach and what students must learn. What must
be learned isn't a secret, kept for a small portion of the student
population and hidden from the rest. Done well, standards can be an
important tool for equity: if all kids are required to meet the
standards, all schools must work to make students reach them, not
just schools which have a majority of middle class students.Because
standards provide a focus, they provide a yardstick for evaluating
all aspects of schooling. Is this a good textbook? It is if it
provides opportunities to meet the standards. Is this a worthwhile
staff development workshop? It is if teachers learn techniques for
getting students to standards. And so on. All resources, materials,
schedules, personnel assignments, should be judged by this
criterion: if we do this, will our students achieve the
standards?How can standards help students to learn better?Ideally,
students learn better in a standards-based environment because
everybody's working towards the same goal. Teachers know what the
standards are and choose classroom activities that enable students
to achieve the standards. Students know the standards, too, and can
see scoring guides that embody them. The students can use them to
complete their work. Parents know them and can help students by
seeing that their homework aligns with the standards.Administrators
know what is necessary to attain the standards and apportion
resources and buy materials to ensure that students are able to
reach the prescribed standards. Schools communicate the standards
to parents via newsletters, etc. What do critics of standards have
to say?Critics of standards tend to fall into three major camps:
One group worries that standards will force teachers to "teach to
tests" and focus on rote learning rather than on more creative and
individualized education. Another group is concerned about where
standards are set: too high, and low achievers (particularly in
disadvantaged communities) will become discouraged and drop out;
too low, and high achievers will not be challenged properly. The
third group has no objection to standards per se, but believes that
they should be set by local school boards, not by federal or state
authorities.This section provides the framework for operational
course systems aligned with standards as has been adapted variously
for Nigerian Universities. The focus of academic standard
application while observing strong affiliation with curriculum
practice must observe the rules set to minimize under/over
-utilisation of content. It is in this regard that the structure
which determines the manner of passage through the curriculum (the
college/school) must be asserted and sustained. Quality may de
defined in quantity terms, while content is observed in process.
Thus, the evolution of the Unit Course system in higher education
despite its many opponents has stood the test of time because of
its flexibility to time and type. Its application as a tool in
standard sustenance agrees with the concept of pace, ability
flexibility and content. Its broad operations will be given
below:The Unit Course System This is a series of course
requirements focused towards the award of a university degree and
which satisfy the need to expose students to a broad base training
so that the student is widely exposed to many subject areas. It is
a curriculum-based concept. The course system breaks courses into
units of defined quality which reflect the depth and volume of the
lecture content. The system allows students to progress at their
own pace with wide flexibility.
The unit course system: The essentials. Minimum number of
prescribed units to be carried is specified. Sessional academic
loads that describe students status are provided. Maximum number of
units to be carried are specified Period of degree is flexible but
limits are provided. Optimum number of units required to graduate
is specified Specification of compulsory university courses
Specification of faculty compulsory courses Specification of
departmental compulsory courses. Non compulsory courses broaden
scope & enhance quality. Useful Terms A COURSE UNIT: a series
of approximately 15 -16 one-hour lectures, or tutorials or 15/16 x
3-hour laboratory or field practical classes, or an equivalent
amount of assigned study, or a combination of the above. COMPULSORY
COURSE: a course which must be registered for & passed before
degree is awarded. It could be departmental, faculty or university.
ELECTIVE COURSE: a course which must be registered for &
examined but may not be passed as degree requirement. OPTIONAL
COURSE: a course which may be taken to make up minimum requirement.
PREREQUISITE COURSE: a course which must be taken before a higher
level course. A MAJOR: a subject area in which the student intends
to obtain a single honours degree UNIVERSITY COURSE: a course that
must be registered for & passed before degree is awarded but is
not counted towards degree classification (gst courses) AUDITED
COURSE: a course attended by a student with permission of lecturer
or HOD but is not examined in.University Compulsory Courses; Arts
-Based StudentsCourse CodeCourse DescriptionNo. Of Units
GST 201General African Studies I2
GST 202General African Studies II2
GST 214 (or FSC 103)Basic computer concepts2
GST 105Use of English I2
GST 307Entrepreneurial skill2
Total10
University Compulsory Courses; Science-Based Students.Course
CodeCourse DescriptionNo. Of Units
GST 201General African Studies I2
GST 202General African Studies II2
GST 102Philosophy and Logic2
GST 105Use of English I2
GST 307Entrepreneurial Skill2
Total10
University Examination Grading SystemMarks (%)Letter GradeGrade
Points
70 100A5.00
60 69B4.00
50 59C3.00
45 49D2.00
40 44E1.00
0 - 39F0.00
Degree Classification SchemeCLASSCGPA
1First Class4.50 - 5.00
22nd CLASS UPPER3.50 - 4.49
32nd Class Lower2.40 - 3.49
4Third Class1.50 - 2.39
5Pass1.00 - 1.49
Some Examples Of Courses And Their Expected Unit LoadsFaculty/
College CourseMode Of Entry/Number Of Years For Course
5 YRS (UME)4 YRS (UME)3 YRS (A/L)
Faculty Of Arts; All Courses12896
Faculty Of Education; All Courses12896
Faculty Of Law194159
Faculty Of Science; All Courses12896
Industrial Chemistry16012896
Faculty Of Social Sciences; All Courses141-144106-108
Business Administration Mode Of Entry/Number Of Years For
Course
5 years4 YEARS3 YEARS
Accounting147111
International relations & personnel management 142106
Finance138102
Faculty Of Social Sciences; All Courses141 144106 - 108
Faculty Of Environmental Sciences
Urban & regional planning176144104
Building16212690
Quantity Surveying17213698
Architecture16812884
Estate Management182139-
Determination of academic standing. GOOD STANDING: A student is
in good standing as long as his cumulative GPA) and semester GPA)
are not below 1.00. WARNING: A student shall be given a warning if
his GPA is below 1.00 for the 1st time. A student whose CGPA is
below 1.0 but whose GPA is at least 1.00 will be placed on warning.
PROBATION: A student shall be placed on probation if his sem. GPA
is below 1.00 for 2 consecutive semesters. A student whose CGPA is
below 1.00 for 2 consecutive semesters but whose GPA is at least
1.00 will be placed on probation. A student whose CGPA and GPA are
below 1.00 at any time is placed on probation. WITHDRAWAL. A
student who has had 2 previous probations on account of sem. GPA
being at least 1.00 despite CGPA being below 1.00, but whose CGPA
is below 1.00 for the 3rd time will be asked to withdraw.. A
student who has been on probation on account of both sem. &
CGPA being below 1.00 and whose sem. GPA is again below 1.00 will
be asked to withdraw.Calculation Of Grade Point Average. (Use a
worksheet)Students name(s) ..Matriculation numberFirst semester
Course CodeUnitsGradeGrade Point
FSC 1013C9
FSC 1023B12
FSC 1032E2
FSC 1043D6
FSC 1053A15
GST 1022P
SUMTUT = 14TUP=1444
SEM. GPA = 44/14 = 3.14; ACADEMIC STANDING; Good Standing
Second Semester
Course CodeUnitsGradeGrade Point
CHM 1014E4
CHM 1023F0
PHS 1013E3
PHS 1032F0
CSC 1023F0
MAT 1013E
GST 1052P
SUMTUT = 18TUP=77
SEM. GPA = 7/18 = 0.39; Semester Academic Standing:
Probation
CUT = 32; CUP 21; CGP = 51
CGPA = 51/32 = 1.59: Sessional Academic Standing: Probation
First SemesterSecond Semester
Course CodeUnitsGradeGrade PointCourse CodeUnitsGradeGrade
Point
FSC 1013C9CHM 1014E4
FSC 1023B12CHM 1023F0
FSC 1032E2PHS 1013E3
FSC 1043D6PHS 1032F0
FSC 1053A15CSC 1023F0
GST 1022PMAT 1013E
SUMTUT = 14TUP=1444GST 1052P
SEM. GPA = 44/14 = 3.14GSDSUMTUT = 18TUP=77
SEM. GPA = 7/18 = 0.39PBN
CUT = 32; CUP 21; CGP = 51
CGPA = 51/32 = 1.59: STATUS = PBN
Maximum Duration For ProgrammesProgramme DurationMinimum No. Of
Units ReqdMaximum No. Of SemestersMaximum No. Of Sessions
13 YEARS96105
24 YEARS128126
35 YEARS160147
46 YEARS192189
Like all standards, every aspect of above specifications are
subject to adjustment and modifications by each academic estab of
duration, number of units, conditions for academic establishment.
The specifications required number of units, duration, conditions
for academic standing may vary, but the calculation of grade point
average is sacrosanct. Conditions for academic withdrawal,
readmission, transfer from one programme to another, study leave
etc will be established by each establishment. But they must be
well advertised to the students and must not be far from the
optimum.THANK YOU ALL AND GOD BLESS
REFERENCES Ahearn, E. M. (2008). Standards-based IEPs: An
introduction. Retrieved January 4, 2010 from
http://www.uscharterschools.org/specialedprimers/download/ieps_ahearn.pdf
Blenkin, G. M. et al (1992) Change and the Curriculu,, London: Paul
Chapman.Ns to suit the circumstance of each educational
establishment.Bobbitt, F. (1928) How to Make a Curriculum, Boston:
Houghton MifflinCarr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical.
Education, knowledge and action research, Lewes: Falmer
PressCornbleth, C. (1990) Curriculum in Context, Basingstoke:
Falmer Press.Curzon, L. B. (1985) Teaching in Further Education. An
outline of principles and practice 3e, London: Cassell.Dewey, J.
(1902) The Child and the Curriculum, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education, New York:
Macmillan.Eisner, E. W. (1985) The Art of Educational Evaluation,
Lewes: Falmer Press.Foreman, A. (1990) 'Personality and curriculum'
in T. Jeffs. & M. Smith (eds.) (1990) Using Informal Education.
An alternative to casework, teaching and control? Milton Keynes:
Open University Press. Also in the archives.Freire, P. (1972)
Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Harmondsworth: Penguin.Grundy, S. (1987)
Curriculum: product or praxis? Lewes: Falmer Press.Holbrook, M. D.
(2007). A Seven-Step Process to Creating Standards-Based IEPs.
Retrieved January 4, 2010 from
http://www.projectforum.org/docs/SevenStepProcesstoCreatingStandards-basedIEPs.pdf
Kelly, A. V. (1983; 1999) The Curriculum. Theory and practice 4e,
London: Paul Chapman.Stenhouse, L. (1975) An introduction to
Curriculum Research and Development, London: Heineman.Tyler, R. W.
(1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. Walsh, J. M. (May-June 2001). Getting
the "big picture" of IEP goals and state standards. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 33, 18-26. 1