Curriculum Change and Changing the Curriculum

This Chapter is primarily concerned with the factors that enhance and impede curriculum change. Curricula are the product of the culture and values of the society in which they are embedded. For this reason there are differences in approaches to engineering education across the world. In spite of the generality of engineering it is found that the transplantation of curriculum ideas from one country to another is difficult. Nevertheless, there are principles that provide a generalized understanding of the factors that impede and enhance change.

This Chapter begins with a brief discussion of the distinguishing features of the formal, informal and hidden curricula. The discussion of change is constructed around three paradigms. They are termed ?>received,?> ?>reflexive,?> and ?>restructuring?> after Eggleston (1977).

The received paradigm describes a curriculum organization designed to meet the belief that there is a received body of understanding which is ?>given,?> even ascribed. It is predominantly non-negotiable. Most engineering curricula are primarily of this kind, although some negotiation may be allowed, and to this extent they are reflexive.

More often than not large change of a structural nature is generated by outside agencies, as for example, ABET or the British Engineering Institutions. Such impositions may not always have the desired effect. Nevertheless it is clear that the received curriculum is subject to continuing minor modification. The aggregate of these modifications sometimes shows that major change has taken place. This point is illustrated by the examples of mechanics in the United States and mathematics in the United Kingdom as they applied to engineering education.

Major factors that undoubtedly induce change are changes in the market on both the supply and demand sides of the equation. The problem about the debate about the relationship between the curriculum and industry is that the curriculum is neither, considered in terms of lifelong learning, or derived from an adequate theory of curriculum that embraces lifelong learning. In this sense a spiral approach may be a partial answer, as might be frameworks of the kind suggested by Whitehead (1932).

The spiral approach is described. It is followed by a discussion of the generalist versus specialist debate. Generalists take cognizance of the view that it is not possible to keep adding to the curriculum and, therefore, what is required is a sound education in engineering fundamentals. To meet the goals of lifelong learning the curriculum may have to be tempered with some reflexive components.

A reflexive curriculum derives from a constructivist position that holds that all knowledge is relative, therefore, it may be negotiated. A typical example of limited reflexivity is where students are allowed to choose their own topic for a project.

A ?>restructured?> curriculum, as defined here, results from an interaction between received and reflexive elements.

An example of the startup of a new degree is described. It is left to the reader to decide if the curriculum developers would have been helped had they approached the problem from the perspective presented in this chapter.

The remainder of the chapter is concerned with how change might be brought about and the kind of leadership that is required. The principles of change are derived from reports in the engineering literature that also relate to the literature on innovation. It is concluded that change is dependent on individuals who are dependent for its continuance on effective management, and trust. Of such is curriculum leadership.