Curriculum design as an enabler of student involvement and success in higher education
Abstract
Quality assurance, promotion, and the success of students are core drivers in Higher Education. Students shifted from being receivers in the knowledge transfer process of Higher Education to active co-producers in the learning process, which makes students more involved in the quality assurance process today than they were in the past. This shift requires curriculum developers of programmes to not only understand the nature of the change in the students’ role in Higher Education but also to anticipate future changes in their role. The Mode 1, Mode 2 and Mode 3 models of knowledge production are useful systems to help curriculum designers understand this daunting task. This research conducts a theoretical exploration into students’ shift in knowledge production as they engage with the curriculum in higher education, which explores the different modes of knowledge production. The exploratory research includes practical curriculum examples that highlight the changes in the structures of control, characteristics, and practicalities of the different modes, changes in assessment strategies, changes in teacher-student relationships, and the inclusion of other role-players such as industry and society. The first mode of knowledge production is a disciplinary and homogeneity model, with the second mode shifting to a transdisciplinary, heterogeneous, transient, and more systemic model which includes industry stakeholders, with a permeable boundary. The third mode of knowledge production is situated in the fourth industrial revolution space and looks at the combined future of science, knowledge, and technology.Downloads
References
Asmal, K. 2002. The restructuring of the higher education system in South Africa. Pretoria: South African Government. https://www.gov.za/documents/restructuring-higher-education-system-south-africa-report-national-working-group (Accessed 1 May 2020).
Buchanan, R. 2001. Design research and the new learning. Design Issues 17(4): 3‒23. https://doi.org/10.1162/07479360152681056 (Accessed 30 April 2020).
Ball, J. 2019. The double diamond: A universally accepted depiction of the design process. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/double-diamond-universally-accepted-depiction-design-process (Accessed 26 May 2020).
Carayannis, E. G., D. F. J. Campbell and S. S. Rehman. 2016. Mode 3 knowledge production: systems and systems theory, clusters and networks. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 5: 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-016-0045-9 (Accessed 26 May 2020).
Drain, A. and E. B-N. Sanders. 2019. A collaboration system model for planning and evaluating participatory design projects. International Journal of Design 13(3): 39‒52.
IDEO. s.a. Design Kit. https://www.designkit.org/methods (Accessed 26 May 2020).
Hessels, L. K. and H. Van Lente. 2010. The mixed blessing of Mode 2 knowledge production. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 6(1): 65‒69.
Kraak, A. 2000. Changing modes: A brief overview of the “Mode 2” knowledge debate and its impact on South African policy formulation. In Changing modes: New knowledge production and its implications for higher education in South Africa, ed. A. Kraak, 9‒33. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.
Mahabeer, P. 2018. Curriculum decision-makers on decolonising the teacher education curriculum. South African Journal of Education 38(4): 1‒13.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott and M. Gibbons. 2003. Introduction: “Mode 2” revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva 41: 179‒194.
Sanders, E. B-N. and G. W. Simons. 2009. A social vision for value co-creation in design. http://www.timreview.ca/article/310 (Accessed 26 May 2020).
Sanders, E. B-N. 2017. Design research at the crossroads of education and practice. She-ji The Journal of Design Economics and Innovation 3(1): 3‒15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2017.05.003 (Accessed 26 May 2020).
Sandstrom, G. 2014. Higher education and science for development: The historical and conceptual foundations of Mode 3. Knowledge Education Sciences and Society 5(1): 15‒44.
SAQA see South African Qualifications Authority.
South African Qualifications Authority. 2000. The National Qualifications Framework and Curriculum Development. https://www.saqa.org.za/docs/pol/2000/curriculum_dev.pdf (Accessed 26 May 2020).
Sutherland, I. 2004. Paradigm shift: The challenge to graphic design education and professional practice in post-apartheid South Africa. Design Issues 20(2): 51‒60. https://doi.org/10.1162/ 074793604871284 (Accessed 26 May 2020).
Xing, B., L. Marwala and T. Marwala. 2018. Adopt fast, adapt quick: Adaptive approaches in the South African context. In Higher education in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, ed. N. W. Gleason, 171‒206. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0194-0_8 (Accessed 26 May 2020).
This journal is an open access journal, and the authors and journal should be properly acknowledged, when works are cited.
Authors, copyright holders, may use the publishers version for teaching purposes, in books, theses, dissertations, conferences and conference papers.
A copy of the authors' publishers version may also be hosted on the following websites:
- Non-commercial personal homepage or blog.
- Institutional webpage.
- Authors Institutional Repository.
The following notice should accompany such a posting on the website: This is an electronic version of an article published in SAJHE, Volume XXX, number XXX, pages XXX “XXX", DOI. Authors should also supply a hyperlink to the original paper or indicate where the original paper (http://www.journals.ac.za/index.php/SAJHE) may be found.
Authors publishers version, affiliated with the Stellenbosch University will be automatically deposited in the University Institutional Repository SUNScholar.
Articles as a whole, may not be re-published with another journal.
The following license applies:
Attribution CC BY-NC-ND 4.0