Educators’ reasoning(s) and their effects on successful attainment of curriculum goals

M.A. Makumane, S.B. Khoza


It has been suggested that the curriculum development process should focus on three factors: people, programmes and process in order to achieve the idealised goals. In other words, for a curriculum to be successfully enacted, it should encompass societal needs (social reasoning), facts as representative of a specific discipline (professional reasoning) and the unique strategies adopted by the educator to attain desired goals (personal reasoning). These three factors are driven and influenced by educators’ reasoning (social, professional and personal), which drive and have an impact on their practice. The purpose of this article is to explore three propositions of educators’ reasoning. Such reasoning is divided into personal, social, and professional reasonings, and their effects on successful attainment of curriculum goals. Using an interpretive qualitative case study, 20 participants were selected using purposive sampling: with two selected using convenience sampling for the reported study. Data were generated using reflective activities and one-on-one semi-structured interviews. The findings demonstrate that being grounded in either social or professional reasoning, while disregarding the other, may hamper the attainment of goals. Thus, this article recommends integration and alignment of the three propositions of reasoning (personal, social, and professional) in order to successfully attain curriculum goals.


curriculum development, personal reasoning, professional reasoning, strategies, social reasoning

Full Text:



Acevedo, S. M., M. Aho, E. Cela, J.-C. Chao, I. Garcia-Gonzales, A. MacLeod, ... and C. Olague. 2015. Positionality as knowledge: From pedagogy to praxis. Integral Review 11(1): 28‒46.

Berkvens, J., J. van den Akker and M. Brugman. 2014. Edited by addressing the quality challenge: Reflections on the post-2015 UNESCO Education Agenda. England: Netherlands National Commission for UNESCO.

Bernstein, B. 1999. Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education 20(2): 157‒173.

Bryman, A. and E. Bell. 2007. Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, L., L. Manion and K. Morrison. 2011. Research methods in education. 7th Edition. London: Routledge.

Davids, K., D. Araujo, L. Vilar, I. Renshaw and R. Pinder. 2013. An ecological dynamics approach to skill acquisition: Implications for development of talent in sport. Talent Development & Excellence 5(1): 21‒34.

Devlin, M. 2006. Challenging accepted wisdom about the place of conceptions of teaching in university teaching improvement. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 18(2): 112‒119.

Donnelly, R. and M. Fitzmaurice. 2005. Designing modules for learning. In Emerging issues in the practice of university learning and teaching, ed. G. O’Neill and S. Moore, 99‒110. Dublin: AISHE.

Dowden, B. H. 2019. Logical reasoning. California State University Sacramento: Sacramento, CA.

Durukan, U. G. and A. Saglam-Arslan. 2015. The analysis of the understanding levels of teacher candidates in different about basic astronomy concepts. Participatory Educational Research (PER) 2(2): 28‒46.

Evtyuginaa, A. A., I. I. Hasanovaa, S. S. Kotovaa, A. N. Sokolovaa and I. A. Svetkinab. 2016. Communicative, educational, pedagogical objectives and planning in Russian language teaching. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education 11(15): 8293‒8302.

Harden, R. M. 2002a. Learning outcomes and instructional objectives: Is there a difference? Medical Teacher 24(2): 151‒155. doi: 10.1080/0142159022020687.

Harden, R. M. 2002b. Developments in outcome-based education. Medical Teacher 24(2): 117‒120.

Hoadley, U. and J. Jansen. 2013. Curriculum: Organising knowledge for the classroom. 3rd Edition. Cape Town: Oxford University Press Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd.

Hoadley, U. 2018. Pedagogy in poverty: Lessons from twenty years of curriculum reform in South Africa. London and New York: Routledge ‒ Taylor & Francis Group.

Hunsander, P. D. and D. R. Thompson. 2014. Influence of mathematics curriculum on student achievement. In The enacted mathematics curriculum: A conceptual framework and research needs, ed. D. R. Thompson and Z. Usiskin, 47‒73. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Jansen, J. D. 2001. Image-ining teachers: Policy images and teacher identity in South African classrooms. South African Journal of Education 21(4): 242‒246.

Kennedy, D., A. Hyland and N. Ryan. 2006. Writing and using learning outcomes: A practical guide. Bologna: European Higher Education (EHEA).

Khoza, S. B. 2013. Learning outcomes as understood by “publishing research” facilitators at a South African university. Mevlana International Journal of Education 3: 1‒11.

Khoza, S. B. 2015. Can Turnitin come to the rescue: From teachers reflections? South African Journal of Education 35(4): 1‒9.

Khoza, S. B. 2016. Is teaching without understanding curriculum visions and goals a high risk? South African Journal of Higher Education 30(5): 1‒16.

Khoza, S. B. 2018. Can teachers’ reflections on digital and curriculum resources generate lessons? Africa Education Review 1(2018): 1‒16.

Khoza, S. B. 2019. Lecturers' reflections on curricular spider web concepts transformation strategies. In Transformation of higher education institutions in post-apartheid South Africa, ed. E. N. Ivala and C. L. Scott, Vol. 1, 15‒26. New York: Routledge ‒ Taylor & Francis Group.

Khoza, S. B. and A. T. Biyela. 2019. Decolonising technological pedagogical content knowledge of first year mathematics students. Education and Information Technologies 2019(2): 1‒15.

Kumar, R. 2012. Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Kurz, A. 2011. Opportunity to learn the Intended curriculum: Measuring key instructional indicators and examining relation to achievement for students with disabilities. Graduate School of Vanderbilt University. Nashville, Tennesse.

Kurz, A., S. N. Elliott, J. H. Wehby and J. L. Smithson. 2010. Alignment of the intended, planned, and enacted curriculum in general and special education and its relation to student achievement. The Journal of Special Education 44(3): 131‒145. doi: 10.1177/0022466909341196.

Makumane, M. 2018. Educators’ enactment strategies of the French integrated curriculum in Lesotho: An action research. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of KwaZulu Natal.

Marken, J. and G. Morrison. 2013. Objectives over time: A look at four decades of objectives in the educational research literature. Contemporary Educational Technology 4(1): 1‒14.

Ministry of Education and Training. 2009. Curriculum and Assessment Policy Education for Individual and Social Development. Maseru: Ministry of Education and Training.

MOED see Ministry of Education and Training.

Montouri, A. 2006. The quest for a new education: From oppositional identities to creative inquiry. ReVision A Journal of Consciousness and Transformation 28(3): 3‒20.

Moon, J. 2002. The module and programme development handbook. London: Kogan Page Limited.

Mpungose, C. B. 2016. Rationale of teaching physical sciences curriculum and assessment policy statement content: Teachers’ reflections. Int J Edu Sci 14(3): 256‒264.

Nuthall, G. 2012. Understanding what students learn. In Understanding teaching and learning: Classroom research revisited, ed. B. Kaur, 1‒40. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Okoth, T. A. 2016. Challenges of implementing a top-down curriculum innovation in English language: Perspectives of Form III English language teachers in Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice 7(3): 169‒177.

Penuel, W. R., R. S. Phillips and C. J. Harris. 2014. Analysing teachers’ curriculum implementation from integrity and action-oriented perspectives. J. Curriculum Studies 46(6): 751‒777.

Pinar, W. 2013. Plagiarism and the “Tyler rationale”. Journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies 9: 1‒13.

Raselimo, M. and D. Wilmot. 2013. Geography teachers’ interpretation of a curriculum reform initiative: The case of the Lesotho Environmental Education Support Project (LEESP). South African Journal of Education 33(1): 1‒15.

Remillard, J. T. 2005. Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research 75(1): 211‒246.

Remillard, J. T. and D. Heck. 2014. Conceptualizing the curriculum enactment process in mathematics education. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education 46(5): 705‒718.

Samuel, M. 2009. On becoming a teacher: Life history research and the force field model of teacher development. In Life history research: Epistemology, methodology and representation, ed. R. Dhunpath and M. Samuel, 3‒18. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Sandelowski, M. 1991. Telling stories: Narrative approaches in qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 23(3): 161‒166.

Schiro, M. S. 2013. Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers, Inc.

Spillane, J. P., B. J. Reiser and T. Reimer. 2002. Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research 72: 387‒431.

Tyler, R. W. 1949. Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Walton, D. 1990. What is reasoning? What is an argument? The Journal of Philosophy 87(8): 399‒419.

Walton, D. 2005. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. 1st Edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Welman, C., F. Kruger and B. Mitchell. 2005. Research methodology. 3rd Edition. Cape Town: Oxford University Press Southern Africa.

Yair, G. 2000. Reforming motivation: How the structure of instruction affects students’ learning experiences. British Educational Research Journal 26(2): 191‒210.

Yamanaka, A. and L. Y. Wu. 2014. Rethinking trends in instructional objectives: Exploring the alignment of objectives with activities and assessment in higher education – A case study. International Journal of Instruction 7(2): 75‒88.

Yin, R. K. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods. 4th Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage



  • There are currently no refbacks.

eISSN: 1753-5913

Copyright © 2016 South African Journal of Higher Education

Hosted by Stellenbosch University Library and Information Service since 2016.

Creative Commons License -CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

This journal is hosted by the SU LIS on request of the journal owner/editor. The SU LIS takes no responsibility for the content published within this journal, and disclaim all liability arising out of the use of or inability to use the information contained herein. We assume no responsibility, and shall not be liable for any breaches of agreement with other publishers/hosts.