Faculty of Education - Theses
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 1 of 1
-
ItemRemaking the university curriculum: what counts as knowledge in new forms of online learning( 2017)The purposes of a university education and the knowledge it should seek to impart are today very much in question. Teaching within universities is becoming increasingly focused on generic instrumental and vocational agendas, and there are strong drives to improve teaching and make greater use of online technologies in response to a widening student body. The significance and implications of these trends for different aspects of university work have been widely debated, but there has been little attention to the changing dynamics of curriculum making and the assumptions at work in how subjects are being put together. Within this context, this thesis investigates the question ‘what counts as knowledge in new forms of online learning’. It focuses on the differences and similarities evident in the purposes, assumptions and constraints recognised by those working in different kinds of knowledge fields; and on the coherence of the conceptions of knowledge at work within the framing and development of new online initiatives and subjects. The thesis approaches these questions through a qualitative study of online initiatives developed at two Australian universities. The research draws on traditions of curriculum inquiry and policy sociology to focus on how those responsible for the development of the new online initiatives and subjects grapple with questions of knowledge and its teaching in their aims and practices. It considers the institutional policy framings informing the new online initiatives and undertakes case studies of the curriculum development of particular subjects, drawing on interviews with policy leaders and lecturers, and analyses of policy documentation and curriculum materials. For the policy leaders, the thesis shows that while their rhetoric is concerned with students’ own knowledge constructions, their approach positions curriculum content as settled and predefined. For the lecturers, it highlights significant differences in how those located in disciplinary and professional fields conceptualised knowledge and approached their curriculum development, but also that these orientations were undermined to an extent in the process of working with the new platforms. It shows the lecturers’ practices here led to more ‘instructivist’ rather than ‘constructivist’ teaching, and a greater emphasis on knowledge as a defined body of content to be taught. The thesis uncovers three problems arising in current university developments. One is the neglect of the differences between disciplines and professional knowledge fields, and the ways in which the different purposes and orientations of these fields shape curriculum development. A second is the neglect of the conditions required to encourage constructivist teaching practices online, including in relation to questions of substance. And a third is the neglect of the complex relations between curriculum and pedagogical form in building what counts as knowledge. The thesis explores the effects of these policy blindspots on lecturers’ practices of curriculum making and on the forms of education made possible as a result. In doing so, it opens up some new ways for researchers and institutional leaders to engage with questions of knowledge and curriculum within higher education.