The Learner-Centered Curriculum

Design and Implementation

Roxanne Cullen, Michael Harris, Reinhold R. Hill

• Publisher: Jossey-Bass
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781118171028
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education Teaching Methods

THE LEARNER-CENTERED CURRICULUM

"If an institution is to be truly learner-centered, all processes and practices need to be learner-centered, and the curriculum is no exception." —From the Preface

The Learner-Centered Curriculum is for educators and administrators who envision an educational environment that produces students who are creative and autonomous learners. By encouraging an appreciation and adoption of learner-centered practices, educators can transform their curricula to become more focused on the learner.

The book presents a framework for curriculum design based on learner-centered principles while at the same time offering technical advice on implementation as well as the strategic use of assessment, technology, and physical spaces to support innovative design. The authors include several examples of existing curricula that illustrate their framework in practice. Throughout the book, they emphasize the need for assessment, both formative and summative, stressing the point that assessment is an effective driver of change. The book includes a wide variety of options both for individual classroom practice and for programmatic assessment.

The Learner-Centered Curriculum explores the current technology and tools available to educators that can support learner-centered practices and foster autonomous learning and demonstrates how technology can assist in removing some of the obstacles to achieving a learner-centered design. In addition, the authors explain the importance of physical spaces in relation to learner-centered curricular design and show how to tie renovation to curricular implementation to foster incentive to innovate and provide a physical manifestation of learner-centered principles.

Chapter 1
Why Redesign Curriculum?

Igor Pušenjak, age thirty-four, was placed fourteenth on Fast Company's 2010 list of the one hundred most creative people. He and his brother designed Doodle Jump, the most popular application for the iPhone. The brothers' $100 investment, coupled with tenacity in the face of five previous failures, led to the game's selling more than four million copies by May 2010. On his Web site, Pušenjak describes himself as a “photographer, multimedia artist, designer, technologist, pilot, and an avid sailor,” a modern renaissance man. Pušenjak's place on the Fast Company list points to the increasing importance of creativity and adaptability to changing work opportunities.

How does this story relate to curriculum design? Lattuca and Stark (2009) believe that looking at curricular change over time reveals that universities are reactive to societal pressures—that curriculum is a reflection, in fact, of its sociocultural context. We believe the time is right for major change in the design of curriculum because of the impact of current social reality and because of the research on learning that can inform the process. Furthermore, the success story of the Pušenjak brothers illustrates two recurring themes that directly impact curriculum design. First, the brothers were not trained in the area of their success; they integrated multiple talents and knowledge bases. Second, they were resilient in the face of failure and no doubt learned from their failures, which eventually led to their success with Doodle Jump.

In this chapter, we will offer our answer to the question, Why do we need to redesign our curricula? Beginning with an exploration of the current and future need for employees who are creative, independent learners, we will then consider how the traditional view of curriculum as a vehicle for transmitting knowledge is counterproductive with regard to the goal of developing graduates with those qualities. Next, we present documentation that supports the belief that creativity and adaptability can be taught. We answer the “Why redesign curricula?” question by demonstrating how realigning traditional curriculum with a learner-centered paradigm has the potential to create learning environments that are conducive to supporting independent learning and creativity.

The Call for Creativity and Adaptability

The societal need for autonomous learners who adapt quickly to new situations, who are engaged in lifelong learning, and who are flexible and innovative in their approach to problem solving is well documented (National Leadership Council for Liberal Education and America's Promise, 2007). A national survey conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates for the American Association of College and Universities asked employers to rate new hires in the skills that are generally agreed on to represent the abilities necessary to succeed in the twenty-first-century workforce. The results looked like a bell curve: not many A's or F's, mostly mediocre. Although these results may indicate that the United States is not in the dire circumstances that some have claimed previously, they do show that employers are not completely satisfied either. The results of this survey as well as the findings of other business and industry studies and independent educational research teams all indicate that higher education needs to do a better job of preparing students.

In its publication College Learning for the New Global Century, the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education and America's Promise (2007) outlines four broad areas in which all students should be prepared: (1) knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world; (2) intellectual and practical skills, including inquiry and analysis, critical and creative thinking, written and oral communication, quantitative literacy, information literacy, teamwork, and problem solving; (3) personal and social responsibility, including civic knowledge and engagement—local and global—intercultural knowledge and competence, ethical reasoning and action, and foundations and skills for lifelong learning; and (4) integrative learning, including synthesis and advanced accomplishment across general and specialized studies. Although the publication focuses on developing general education programs to address these areas, these general education outcomes can also serve as the structure of a reasonable degree program that develops in students an appreciation for and fluency with diversity in all its forms and prepares them for engagement in an increasingly globalized society. Of particular interest to us in regard to curriculum is the call for integrative learning.

As the report states, “In a world of daunting complexity, all students need practice in integrating and applying their learning to challenging questions in real-world problems,” and continues, “In a period of relentless change, all students need the kind of education that leads them to ask not just ‘how do we get this done?’ but also ‘what is most worth doing?’” (National Leadership Council for Liberal Education and America's Promise, 2007, p. 13). These perspectives are widely agreed on at the present time, but it is not always clear how we might arrive at the stated outcomes. The report authors argue,

The general public—and many college students—continue to believe that choosing a “marketable” major is the key to future economic opportunity. Guided by this conviction, many students see study in their major field as the main point of college, and actively resist academic requirements that push them toward a broader education. Many policy makers hold a similar view of career preparation, evidenced by their support for occupational colleges and programs that promise initial job readiness but not much else.

Those who endorse narrow learning are blind to the realities of the new global economy. Careers themselves have become volatile. Studies already show that Americans change jobs ten times in the two decades following college, with such changes even more frequent for younger workers. Moreover, employers are calling with new urgency for graduates who are broadly prepared and who also possess the analytical and practical skills that are essential both for innovation and for organizational effectiveness. (pp. 15–16)

As early as 1994, Bridges claimed that the concept of job security was a thing of the past, that today's workforce is operating by a new rule system, a new paradigm in which all workers are contingent and that a worker's value to an organization must be proven on a daily basis. Graduates can no longer expect to spend an entire career with one company climbing the corporate ladder, but rather must think of themselves as in business for themselves and maintain a career-long professional development plan. And this new workplace is a project-based team environment that demands agility and adaptability on the part of the worker. Bridges (1994) wrote, “These new rules are still evolving and are becoming operative in some parts of the economy more quickly than others …. At Sun Microsystems, Apple Computer, Intel and hundreds of smaller high-tech companies, these rules are already obvious” (p. 52). His predictions proved correct.

IBM conducted a global study of the elements needed for enhancing workforce performance in today's turbulent environment. From their survey of four hundred organizations in forty countries, the researchers concluded that the key to enhanced workforce performance was “an adaptable workforce that can rapidly respond to changes in the outside market” (IBM Global Services, 2008, p. 1). In other words, we need workers who are creative and who can adapt and solve problems in new ways. Yet creativity and adaptability have not been a major focus in the undergraduate experience.

Bronson and Merryman (2010) claimed in a Newsweek article that American creativity is actually declining. They make the point that while other countries are making creativity a national priority, we're headed in the opposite direction. The authors further note that student scores on creativity tests are dropping at the same time that their IQ test scores are rising. So the question remains, what needs to change in our education system in order to develop creative problem solvers for this world of daunting complexity? Bronson and Merryman pointed to the ironic state of educational reform. Currently the Chinese are replacing their “drill and kill” teaching with problem-based learning. At the same time, we are continuing to argue about standardized curricula, rote memorization, and nationalized testing. These authors noted that “overwhelmed by curriculum standards, American teachers warn there's no room in the day for a creativity class. Kids are fortunate if they get an art class once or twice a week” (p. 3). And herein lies the problem with our current way of thinking about creativity as well as about curriculum. First is the assumption that fostering creativity is the sole domain of a single discipline, namely art education, and second is the knee-jerk response to a curriculum issue: add a course.

Legislators and others continue to call for more tests in order to drive the needed changes in undergraduate education. More evaluation of the current curriculum will not foster needed change. To use an agricultural metaphor, calling for more testing is like trying to make the sheep fatter by weighing them more often when what they need is a richer pasture. Supplementing the current undergraduate diet with additional courses in global knowledge and critical thinking or creativity will not address the need either. What is needed is a redesigned undergraduate educational experience that will foster creativity as well as learner autonomy.

Can Creativity Be Taught?

Feldman, Czikszentmihalyi, and Gardner (1994) make the case that creativity has multiple meanings, which can sometimes impede communication, so we will begin by defining what we mean by creativity. They define their use of the word as “the achievement of something remarkable and new, something which transforms and changes a field of endeavor in a significant way. In other words, we are concerned with the kind of things that people do that change the world” (p. 1). The most accepted general definition is simply the “production of something original and useful” (Bronson & Merryman, 2010). We like Franken's definition of creativity as “the tendency to generate or recognize ideas, alternatives, or possibilities that may be useful in solving problems, communicating with others, and entertaining ourselves and others” (2006, p. 396), because it aligns most closely with our curricular goals and is probably a more reasonable way of thinking about teaching creativity. We are not expecting every student to change the world, but we can expect every student to recognize ideas and alternatives and learn to solve problems in new ways. Gardner (2006) described creative people as those who take risks without fear of failure while seeking the unknown or challenging the status quo. We will return throughout the book to the idea of taking risks with this attitude toward failure, in regard to creating suitable educational environments that foster creativity. Environment is key, as Czikszentmihalyi (1996) asserts. He maintains that creativity is tied to context—to interactions of talented people in an environment that is open and accepting of innovation. The role of environment will also serve as a theme throughout as we focus on environments that are conducive to learning.

In summarizing one hundred years of research on creativity, Plucker (2008) found that creativity more often than not involves teams and collaboration. Creative environments are collaborative and active. Feldman, Czikszentmihalyi, and Gardner's belief that reflection is the single quality that sets humans apart from other organisms (1994) is key to understanding creativity. In discussing the learner-centered curriculum, we will return to the concepts of risk taking, attitude toward failure, collaboration, and reflection as we consider ways to create curricula that respond to the need for creative thinkers.

Czikszentmihalyi's theory as to the role of context and cultural attitude toward creativity is reflected in a recent book that addressed creativity and innovation from a cultural perspective. Senor and Singer (2009) examined the Israeli phenomenon of entrepreneurism. Israel produces more start-up companies than China, India, Korea, Canada, and the United Kingdom in spite of what would appear to be limitations of size, geographical location, and perpetual political turmoil. The authors explain that Israel's impressive economic growth is a result of a unique mind-set. The Israeli mind-set, what some might call chutzpah, is an outgrowth of unique political and social realities. Senor and Singer attribute this mind-set for entrepreneurism to the military service that all citizens experience, coupled with the incredible diversity of cultural backgrounds within Israel. The military experience gives young Israelis a social range, a sense of responsibility, initiative, and agility of mind as well as ease with confronting authority, challenging accepted ways of doing things, critically analyzing and learning from mistakes, and assuming risk. Although the Israeli military experience may not be intentionally designed to foster creativity, there are certainly lessons to be learned. First, the experience creates an intense sense of community. Senor and Singer claim that the military experience creates a lifelong networking system that young Israelis capitalize on once their military experience is over. Control is also a key feature of the experience. The young Israelis are expected to confront authority, they are given tremendous responsibility, and competence is expected. There is an acceptance of mistakes, provided that the individual learns from the mistakes and maximizes his or her potential as a result. In short, the environment fosters creative thinking.

Creative thinking thrives in environments that offer individual freedom, alternative thinking, safety in risk-taking, and collaboration and teamwork. Gardner (2008) noted in regard to educational environments and creativity that

Too strict adherence to a disciplinary track operates against the more open stances of the synthesizer or the creator. Options need to be kept open—a straight trajectory is less effective than one entailing numerous bypaths, and even a few disappointing but instructive cul-de-sacs. (p. 84)

In other words, the educational path needs to be more flexible and integrative.

Creativity requires seeing possibilities, seeing from a new perspective, and perceiving difference, or what Langer (1989) would call mindfulness. She defined mindfulness as the ability to create new categories and to maintain an openness to new information and an awareness of more than one perspective. Without these abilities, individuals become entrapped in habitual ways of thinking, solving problems, and seeing, thus leading them to miss new signals and opportunities. The ideal in teaching creativity as well as learner autonomy lies in teaching mindfulness, or, as Langer would define it, becoming attuned to our cognitive processes, thinking about what we perceive and deliberately noticing difference and distinctions in our observations. We will refer to this as intentionality, becoming aware of one's own process of learning.

Langer (1997) talks ab...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Table of Contents
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• About the Authors
• Chapter 1: Why Redesign Curriculum?
• Chapter 2: Curriculum Design in the Instructional Paradigm
• Chapter 3: The Learner-Centered Curriculum
• Chapter 4: Leading Curricular Implementation
• Chapter 5: Learner-Centered Design in Practice
• Chapter 6: Assessment Aimed at Learner Autonomy
• Chapter 7: Innovating Through Technology
• Chapter 8: Learning Spaces That Support Learner-Centered Curricula
• Closing Thoughts
• References
• Index
• End User License Agreement