ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY,

ISLAMABAD

ASSIGNMENT NO .2

SUBMITTED TO: SEEMAB GUL

SUBMITTED BY: NAILA KALSOOM

ROLL NO.BY647998

COURSE NAME & CODE: CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AND

INSTRUCTION (0838)

UNITS NO. 6-9

SUBMITTED DATE: 13/04/2020

Q 1: Explain the process of curriculum development?
Answer: Curriculum development in its word meaning stands for the development of the
curriculum.
Rogers and Taylor:-
Curriculum development describes all the ways in which teaching or training
organization plans and guides learning. This learning can take place in groups or with individual
learners. It can take place inside or outside the classroom. It can take place in an institutional
setting like school, college, training center, or in a village or a field. It is central to the teaching-
learning process.

Curriculum development is a process involving activities like

 conceptualizing the curriculum,
 selecting and organizing the content, material and learning experiences
 suggesting the method and ways of providing these experiences
 Evaluating the learning outcomes in terms of attainment of desired educational objectives.

A curriculum refers to a defined and prescribed course of studies, which students must fulfill in
order to pass a certain level of education.
Some influential definitions combining various elements to describe curriculum are as follows

 According to John Kerr, a curriculum is planned and guided by the school, whether it is
carried on in groups, individually inside or outside the school.
 The curriculum is a total learning experience provided by the school. It includes the content
of courses (the syllabus), the method employed (strategies) and other aspects like norms
and values, which relate to the way schools are organized.
 Thus a curriculum is neither development nor a sequence of experiences. It is a plan for
facilitating learning for students.
 This plan starts with where the child is. It enumerates all the aspects and dimensions of
learning that are considered necessary. It gives a reason why such learning is considered
necessary and what educational aims it would serve.
 In a nutshell the curriculum is a means followed by the teachers and students for achieving
the set goals and the aims or objectives of education being provided in the school.
 Curriculum, in every sense, is supposed to be used for all experiences. These may be
curricular or co-curricular, imparted by the school for the realization of the stipulated aims
and objectives of the school education.

Need and importance of curriculum development (or construction).

 Curriculum development is a purposeful activity.

 It is undertaken to design or redesign for the realization of certain specific educational
objectives.
 The curriculum is the heart of the student’s college/school experience.
 The curriculum should be reviewed and revised on a regular basis so that it is able to serve
the changing needs of both students and society.
 The following points iterate the needs and importance of curriculum development.
1. Clear purpose and goals: - Curriculum construction provide written curricular
goals which are nothing but intended student development outcomes. These goals and objectives
are specified in considerable detail and in behavioral language.
2. Continuous assessment and improvement of quality : - Valid and reliable
assessment of the curriculum is necessary. The curriculum followed by an institution should be
reviewed regularly in order to maintain its effectiveness in regards to the changing needs of the
society as a whole.
3. A rational sequence: - In a curriculum educational activities are carefully ordered in
a developmental sequence. This developmental sequence helps to form a well-planned (or
coherent) curriculum based on intended goals and outcomes of the curriculum and its constituent
courses.
4. Making strategy in teaching and learning: - Curriculum development helps in
suggesting suitable teaching-learning strategies, teaching methods, instructional materials, etc. It
helps in providing for the proper implementation of the curriculum on the part of teachers and
learners.
5. Helps in the selection of learning experiences: - Curriculum development is
needed for appropriate selection and organization of learning experiences. It helps in the
selection of study matter and other activities so that learners are able to acquire goals and
objectives of teaching.

The process of curriculum development is needed for conceptualizing a curriculum in

terms of the determination of educational objectives for teaching-learning at a particular grade
of school education. Helps in continuous and comprehensive education. Curriculum development
considers the need of providing a scheme of education for CCE of the teaching-learning outcomes. With
proper feedback, it helps to bring necessary improvement in the teaching-learning process and
environment.

 In curriculum development, we think about the type of learning experiences to be given

to a child at various age and grade levels.
 It needs systematic and sequential planning to widen the sphere of the learning
experience at each level by keeping in view the principles of integration and correlation.
 The curriculum is usually concerned with two questions

1. What should we teach? What should be the content of education?

2. How should we organize it and how should we teach?

To answer these questions we should now discuss the principles of curriculum development.

(a) Suitability to the age and mental level of the children

 What is to be given to the children in the form of learning experiences at a particular age
and grade level should suit their age and mental development
 The capacity for understanding, how children grow with age. The content of the study in
any subject should be formed to suit their mental ability.

(b) According to the specific interests of students

 Children will be able to learn better in fields where they have special tastes and
inclination of the mind.
  It is also found that at different stages of age groups, children have different interest
patterns.
 Interests of children also change according to circumstances and situations.
 Therefore learning experiences should be designed to suit the interests and tastes of the
age group of students.

(c) The curriculum should be environmentally centered

 The content of the learning experiences for children should be linked with the needs of
the environment in which they live.
 For example, children from rural areas can understand and grasp easily the information
which is directly concerned with their experiences in their own rural environment.
 The same thing applies to children in a various environments like urban areas, hilly
areas, etc.

(d) The principle of the comprehensive curriculum

 The curriculum must have the necessary details. List of topics to be covered does not
solve the purpose.
 Both teachers and students should know clearly what is expected of them, what is the
beginning and what is the end of the topic for the particular class.
 Material, aids, activities, life situations etc. should be listed in the curriculum.

(e) Principle of co-relation

 The curriculum should be such that all the subjects are correlated with each other.
 While designing the curriculum, it must be kept in mind that the subject matter of
various subjects has some relation to each other so that they help the child eventually.

(f) The principle of practical work

 Children are very active by nature.

 They like new things and can learn more by doing or by activity method.
 Therefore curriculum should be designed in such a way that it provides maximum
opportunity to the child for practical work with the help of concrete things.

(g) Principle of flexibility

 Instead of being rigid curriculum should show the sign of flexibility.

 The organization of the curriculum should be on the basis of individual differences as
every child is different from the other.
 Apart from these conditions of society go on changing, therefore, the curriculum must be
flexible enough to address the needs as aspirations of the society.

(h) Principle of forward-looking

 This principle asks for the inclusion of those topics, content and learning experiences
that may prove helpful to the students in leading their future life in a proper way.
(i) The principle of consultation with teachers

 Teachers play a key role in the implementation of the school curriculum of any grade or
stage.
 It is therefore quite essential to seek the proper involvement of the teachers in the
construction and development of the school curriculum.

(ii) The principle of the joint venture

It is necessarily a joint venture where various experts are involved like educational
psychologists, educational technologists, curriculum specialists, evaluation specialists, teachers,
subject matter experts etc.

(iii) The principle of availability of time and other resources

Curriculum is the means to realize the outcomes of the educational objectives of the
school. Implementation of the curriculum is equally important as curriculum construction. While
developing curriculum experts should also keep its implementation in mind. They should be
aware of the conditions of the schools and possible availability of time and resources available.

Q 2 : Explain why change as function of curriculum improvement is

important?
Within the literature on curricular revision, three major premises were identified. First,
the society and culture served by an educational community dictate the needs, obligations, and
responsibilities expected of the educational program. Second, society perpetuates itself with
educational programming, i.e. the content and methodology of instruction referenced as
educational curriculum. Third, systemic change, as in the form of transitioning educational
curriculum, is often difficult at best and controversial at worst. These three elements combine to
offer a strong foundation from which educators can begin to address what is taught at all levels,
the needs of a respondent society, and the changing roles of classroom practitioners.
As noted above, the society and culture served by an educational community dictate the
needs, obligations, and responsibilities expected of the educational program. A traditionally
accepted view of educational curriculum states that it (curriculum) is the information which
should be taught with the underlying purpose of “standardizing” the behaviors of the society by
educating the young in the traditions and rituals of that culture (Beyer & Liston, l996;
Borrowman, l989; Glatthorn, l987; Tanner & Tanner, l995). Likewise, Glatthorn (l987) offered
that beliefs and behaviors of each ethnic group or geographical area were developed in order to
foster and teach children specific skills necessary for the transition from childhood to adulthood,
thereby sustaining or advancing the convictions of that culture. In the same vein, but addressing
the need for change, Purpel (l972) proposed that the primary responsibility for the child’s
learning was historically determined by the parent, but as society became more complex, the
needs for specialized training grew, necessitating more formal training. It is obvious, therefore,
that the curriculum must meet the needs and current demands of the culture, the society, and the
expectations of the population being served. To this end, the educational reform process is still
undergoing review, revision, and constant change.
Also noted above, society perpetuates itself with educational programming, i.e. the
content and methodology of instruction referenced as educational curriculum. Borrowman
(l989) stated that education is the process by which individuals gain knowledge, skills, values,
habits, and attitudes. Societal mores, cultural norms, and practical needs compel the
incorporation of various components of learning and information. Hence, the educational
curriculum is vitally important to a society’s success and may become extremely controversial
when conflicting views emerge.
Finally, as noted earlier, systemic change, as in the form of transitioning educational
curriculum, is often a challenge to all concerned and in some cases, may even create a negative,
divisive environment. It is an accepted fact that without acceptance and buy-in by all major
constituencies, long-lasting systemic change cannot occur. Cited by Beyer and Liston (l996),
James B. MacDonald (l975) suggested that “In many ways, all curriculum design and
development is political in nature” Continuing in that line of reasoning, Olson and Rothman
(l993) offered that while the last decade has been one of challenge and excitement for American
education, the fragmented and isolationist manner in which many of the reform efforts have
been implemented brought about no lasting change. Substantiating this view that change was
necessary despite overt resistance, various authors (Henderson & Hawthorne, l995; Jelinek,
l978; Kallen, l996; Patterson, l997; Toch & Daniel, l996, Wagner, l998) presented strong
arguments that outdated strategies (the implementation of curriculum) had to be discarded and
ineffectual methodology eliminated. Concurring with these views that change was not only
necessary but imminent, Scott (l994) declared that curriculum revision projects of the past
twenty years had in reality been dismal failures with a high cost to taxpayers, students, and
educators.
Monson and Monson (l993) presented the need for collaborative, sanctioned revision by
all stakeholders with an emphasis on the performance of teacher leaders. It has been suggested
that the educational community must include those not usually considered to be at the leading
edge of school reform initiatives. Hargreaves (l995) and Kyriakides (l997) both emphasized the
importance of creating coordinated efforts that supported a modification of teachers’ roles in
policy revision as it related to curriculum review and revision. Despite the fact that the
emergent view of teachers’ roles are often in conflict with the traditional view of teachers’
performance (Monson & Monson, l993; Hargreaves, l995; Scott, l994), the leadership roles of
teachers are becoming more prevalent, more dominant, and more demanding. Questions facing
the educational community, therefore, revolve around what reforms will be implemented, what
process will be used, and how to make the revisions effective and sustaining.
Accepting that changing an educational curriculum can be a challenge, the involvement
of all stakeholders, especially individuals who are directly involved in student instruction, is an
especially vital piece in successful curriculum revision. The review of literature substantiated
the concern that until the parameters of curriculum revision are defined and understood, the
process will suffer from confusion and failure for decades to come.

Background of the Investigation

As in many states during the l990s, educational reform efforts in Missouri addressed
educational curriculum revision which had become closely tied to school districts ‘accreditation,
assessment procedures, and staff evaluation. Pleasing the constituencies, parents, business, and
communities, while simultaneously addressing test scores, community values, and student
needs, found principals and teachers torn between understanding what to present, how to teach,
and when to test. The overall expectation, however, was to “jump in” and revise the
instructional curriculum, thereby “improving” existing instructional programs. Excellent
materials were available; good resources were developed; professional development
opportunities were heavily emphasized. Why then were so many curriculum revision projects
considered a “bust” when evaluated by the administrative teams or community steering
committees? Test scores did not indicate strong improvement; in fact, in many cases they were
considered inadequate or even worse, disastrous. Teacher morale went down. Communities were
in uproars about “changing what their kids were taught.” While some districts were experiencing
tremendous success in the curriculum revision projects and the subsequent assessment
procedures, others were experiencing total lack of improvement. There did not appear to be a
correlation between the amount of money spent and success of the curriculum revision projects;
nor did there appear to be a relationship to the geographic or economic status of the districts
experiencing success. The reasons for the lack of improvement were as varied as the school
districts or community members with whom one spoke.
Based on the anecdotal review, questions began to arise. While several primary research
questions were developed, an overview of noteworthy areas included the following:
1. What determined the “success” of curriculum revision processes?
2. Were there specific factors that had a significant impact on whether or not the revision
project was successful?
3. Did teachers have strong views on the process of curriculum revision processes?
4. Did teacher attitudes and/or backgrounds have an impact on the success or failure of
curriculum revision procedures?
5. Did the revision procedures have an influence?
6. What effect, if any, did pre-service training have on the revision process?
7. Could these factors be identified and generalized to other programs?

Based on this initial examination of the topic, the research study was developed. The
purpose of the study was to determine what, if any, key elements would affect successful
curriculum revision projects. The goal of the study was to determine correlates of successful
programs that would enable teachers and principals to progress through the revision process and
to culminate the project with a strong instructional program and a useable curriculum. The
study was conducted in a two-year research project concluding in the spring of l999. The
findings offered significant opportunity for further study, information for practicing
administrators and teachers, and knowledge for teacher and principal preparation programs.
Conclusions offer methods and means of improving the effectiveness of curriculum revision
programs. Since it is obvious that education will continue to change and curriculum will
perpetually be altered, this information is of vital importance regarding principles for principals
and effective curriculum revision.

Procedure, Investigation, Limitations:-

Procedure
The research design focused on perspectives of practitioners. The study design was a
quantitative analysis using a Liker scale response checklist. Analyses of the 28 response options
were combined with six constructed response opportunities blending a quantitative analyses
with a qualitative review. To further substantiate the data, 4 focus groups were interviewed with
general patterns and themes evaluated. The focus group participants were selected from school
districts not participating in the print survey instrument.
Investigation
The study sample consisted of educational practitioners employed by public school
districts within the Southeastern quadrant of Missouri. A total of l47 districts were included in
the initial research sample. A total of 49 school districts were randomly selected representing
one-third (33.3%) of the total districts located within the identified geographical area. Of the
total 49 districts requested to participate, a total of 41 Superintendents responded in the
affirmative for participation. This equated to a total of 246 surveys being submitted to
practitioners. Of this initial mailing, 190 respondents returned surveys for a 77% response rate.
Of these participants, 73% were classroom teachers and 27% were building level and central
office leaders. The classroom practitioners represented the core content areas of math, science,
English, and history as well as physical education, vocational education, and all special
programs within the traditional educational program.
Limitations
This study addressed an educational issue of national significance, but this project was
limited specifically to the state of Missouri. The number of participants and the number/size of
school districts were limited and located solely within the Southeastern quadrant of the state of
Missouri. While selection of the participants was done by random assignment, final designation
of respondents was at the discretion of the building level administrators.
Results of the Study
Based on the research results, several conclusions were derived. First, there was no
major difference in teachers’ or administrators’ responses in the areas of gender, professional
assignment, training, or educational tenure. An area that did appear to have strong significance
was the in-service training component. Overwhelmingly, districts provided in-service training,
and respondents considered this an essential element in the success of a curriculum revision
project. Teachers and principals both emphasized the need for specific training. They
consistently stated that training in the actual revision process, a clear understanding of the
project, and a focused effort toward a cohesive result, were imperatives.
 Consistency of review and on-going assistance were two areas additionally emphasized.
Teachers and principals both agreed that the traditional “one-shot” in-service program was
inadequate. In fact, statistical data were strongly substantiated by the focus groups’ responses
which portrayed the reason for project success or failure as the periodic (weekly or monthly)
meetings (or lack thereof) on the revision processes. A third area of repeated emphasis was the
time element of the in-service training. As stated above, the “one-shot” in-service approach, a
one time, in-depth in-service training, did not work. Responses strongly focused on the need for
frequent interaction. Time frames of hours, days, weeks, or months did not appear to have an
impact. Rather, the frequency of contact during the time frame underscored the perceived
success or failure of the project.
Personal ownership within the curriculum revision process was vital. Initiation of the
curriculum revision process did not appear to have significant impact. Within the interim
process, however, the actual personal involvement in the revision project was extremely
important. If the curriculum were “brought in” by the administrators, outside experts, etc., the
effectiveness of the program was considered to be negligible. It is important to note the
statistical results indicated the effectiveness rate was considerably higher when the curriculum
was reviewed, rewritten, and established by practitioners directly using the program.
One of the most interesting points during the study was a by-product analysis. When
asked about changes or alteration of instruction, there was no significant statistical difference.
Based on respondents’ reactions, there was no significant statistical difference in changes or
alteration of direct classroom instruction upon completion of the curriculum revision process. A
large majority of the respondents indicated that the teaching methods used at the conclusion of
the revision projects did not significantly alter, if at all, the processes and information related
through classroom instruction.
Conclusions/Recommendations of the Study
On the basis of this investigation, the review of literature, and the conclusions developed
from prescribed data of the study, the following recommendations were made.
1. Practicing educators, both administrators and classroom instructors, must be directly
involved in successful curriculum revision processes.
Not only must the “team” approach be fully implemented in the initial revision process, the two
elements must be consistently sustained.
First, administrators must maintain an on-going involvement in the revision process. Second,
teachers must have strong support, consistent feedback, and continual opportunity for
professional discussion.
2. The time frame for training and revision procedures should be of short duration.
The “one-shot” approach does not work. The single day, or even two or three day training
sessions are not effective. The results of this study indicated that combined with number one
above, the revision process, training, conversations, and review, must be long-term and periodic.
Teachers indicated that “identify, revise, experience, and review” would be a much more
effective method of actually revising the “taught” curriculum than the method commonly used
of revising and moving on. While this (typical) method might have “aligned” the curriculum
with the new assessment, it did not create an effective change in classroom instruction or
teaching strategies.
3. The review process must be consistent throughout an extended period of revision.
This is addressed above. Teachers stated, both statistically and anecdotally, that without
consistent, frequent, periodic review of the changing curriculum, the process is little more than
an exercise in futility.
The practitioners strongly suggested that a willingness to adapt their instruction would occur as
soon as the curriculum revision became significant enough to merit continuous discussion and
implementation, i.e. evaluation, student involvement, teacher involvement, parental
involvement, and administrative support.
4. Participants in the revision process should have access to continuous assistance, opportunity
for frequent discussion, and periodic review throughout the entire process. This will increase
the essential “buy-in” noted so often as vital for effective curriculum reform.
Discussed previously. Teachers consistently emphasized professional discussion, consistent
opportunities to review the changes, and evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed
changes.
5. In-district expertise must be combined with out-of-district authorities to better accommodate
demands and the expectations of the curricular revision procedures.
The often used term “buy-in” cannot be over-emphasized in this study. The results indicated that
while information from experts who study curriculum revision extensively is well-received,
there must be an internal review process and support system to fully effect the process.
Returning to the now familiar refrain, the out-of-district opportunities cannot replace the in-
district consistency of review needed to fully implement an effective process.
In both, districts which felt they had attained successful curriculum revision, as well as in
districts which felt they had not been successful, similar indicators emerged. First, specific
knowledge related to the revision process must be provided. Second, the review process must
be in-house, frequent, and supportive.
6. Better understanding of the curriculum, curricular revision, and curriculum needs are being
developed. Further need exists, however, as indicated by the lack of change in classroom
instruction.
As we accept the changing needs of our schools, we accept the changing needs of the
curriculum. To effectively implement these changes, however, we must begin to learn more
about the process of systemic change, how to implement it effectively, and how to incorporate
the ideal of teacher leadership throughout the curriculum revision process.
To effect long-lasting change in classroom instruction, a substantive change must first occur in
the curriculum.
The building leader must collaborate even more effectively with his/her staff and constituencies.
No one individual can be responsible for the entire curriculum revision process; it is truly a
‘team-approach’

Q 3: Critically examine curriculum development at primary and secondary

level?
An educational system depends upon a curriculum to systematize and execute the
process of education. Curriculum is a channel that helps teachers and other agents to impart
education to approaching generations. There is a lot of difference between theory and practice
that is why only experts are not enough to develop a curriculum unless and until it involves
practitioners who have relevant and sufficient experience of teaching and learning to develop
curriculum at a grass root level. No doubt it is a very difficult and a hard nut to crack like task
that the developers of curriculum has to face while fitting a curriculum into a specific context
under certain conditions.
In Pakistan the whole process of curriculum development is contradictory to a
standardized and generalized process of curriculum development prevailing in the
developed countries. Here experts are inducted to develop curriculum rather involving
practitioners in this process. These experts tend to address the question of what content
should be delivered to the learners rather than addressing the question of all those above
mentioned questions being addressed in developed countries. Until the whole process of
desired curriculum is overanalyzed into mainstream teaching and learning environment, the
desired outcomes seem to be unattainable. Till day people have defined curriculum in
various ways according to their perception, conception and interpretation. Curriculum is not
a static process, rather it is a dynamic process that evolves according to the needs and
demands of the, society and learners. This process of evolution is life-long and demands
attention to run along the main stream. So for its smooth sail and better development both
actioners and theorists must evolve it according to the needs of learners, society and specific
context and conditions. These conditions are apparent and known to us. This neither
challenges to the centralization of the curriculum nor threats any national integrity. The
participation of the teachers in the process of curriculum development will help them update
and improve not only to the curriculum but also for the better and effective teaching and
learning process itself.
If we really want to see our curriculum and education successful there is a dire need
to involve the teachers who are fully aware of the dynamics of curriculum, in the process of
curriculum development. A conventional concept of curriculum that curriculum is a
combination of all planned and unplanned academic activities that are carried out inside the
four walls of a school must be revised and re-defined. It must go beyond the academic
activities to the collected vision, national ideology and a philosophy of a nation and
country. Curriculum must be such a dynamic one that may have direct influential effect on
the teachers and their belief systems. In a country where educational experiences for
learners are very rare and even nothing to none curriculum must become an agent of change
from non-productive academic activities to a productive vehicle for providing practical and
activity based academic experiences to the children. This new concept of curriculum may
provide our policy makers, practitioners, and learners’ broader implications of curriculum.
Curriculum as has multidimensional meanings, aspects, types and definitions for example;
implicit curriculum, explicit curriculum, hidden curriculum and core-curriculum, however a
single line definition of curriculum is a difficult task. Its definition depends upon the
national ideology, value system, the belief system of a nation and the context where this
curriculum evolves. This concept of curriculum makes context or situation, the role of
teachers, head teachers and supervisory personnel very significant.
Teaching. However, curriculum contains four major elements objectives, content,
teaching methods and students assessment evaluation. Each component is considered to be
equally important. In the context of Pakistan, curriculums referred to as an official
curriculum excluding hidden curriculum whereas the latter also plays a very crucial role in
the educational institutions. Thus, curriculum is considered as a vehicle to transfer the
societal values and norms through the teaching learning process in the educational
institutions. Therefore, curriculum should respond to the societal needs and values so that
the young generation could be physically, socially, morally and intellectually developed as
active citizens. The following sections will discuss the curriculum development process and
its implications for education in Pakistan.
Curriculum Development In The Light Of National Education
Policies

After the independence of Pakistan, the first educational conference was convened in
Karachi in 1947 to restructure and reshape the whole process of education including the
process of curriculum in order to make curriculum effective and responsive to the needs of
the country. But, the fruitful results could not be achieved. Therefore, in 1959 the national
commission on education was set up to review the whole education system of the country.
Although, it was time consuming task, it produced an explicit framework for promoting
education in Pakistan aiming at restructuring the education system. The objectives of
education were elaborated and emphasis was laid on the overall development of an
individual through education process so that he/she could become effective member of the
society. But due to several reasons, our education system was not to fully achieve the
desired objective.
In late1960s, it was realized that there was a need to formulate new education policy in
order to bring about changes in the education as a whole. This policy also focused on the
quality education and character building of the young generation that appeared to be
marvelous on paper other than putting these ideas into practice through the curriculum.
After a few years a new government took over and announced another educational policy in
1972 for a period of 8 years which provided a comprehensive list of objectives of education
including the promotion of ideology of Pakistan, building national cohesion by promoting
social and cultural harmony among the people, nurturing the total personality of the
individual. Mobilizing the youth for leadership roles. It was proposed that these objectives
can be achieved through the translation of curriculum into classroom practice. For example;
the Educational Policy (1972-80) mentioned that 'relevant curricula will be prepared in line
with the nation's changing social and economic needs compatible with its basic ideology
and to provide a. massive shift from general education to more agro technical education'
(Government of Pakistan 1972). In the light of the above policy objectives, the curricula at
the primary, secondary and tertiary levels were revised and implemented in the educational
institutions but the policy could not fully achieve its targets. However, another educational
policy was introduced in 1979. This policy also retained more or less the same objectives of
the past policies. However, this policy laid an emphasis on the individual as a good Muslim
and making him/her effective member of Muslim Ummaha Education Policy emphasized
the need for creating awareness in every student that he/she as a member of Pakistani nation
was also a part of the universal Muslim Ummah and that it was expected of him/her to con-
tribute towards the welfare of fellow Muslims.

In line with the National Education Policy 1979, a gigantic task of restructuring or
renovating curriculum was done to ensure that adequate content on Islam and Islamic
ideology was included and due coverage was given to instructional materials aimed at
promotion of national.

Q 4: Vocationalisation has political approach rather than educational. How?

Social Role of Vocationalisation
The introduction of vocational content and courses into the school curriculum has its
own supporters and critics. One argues that the introduction of vocational programs in schools
has the potential to create a more inclusive environment for disadvantaged students (e.g. Kelly
and Price 2009) by providing career-focused, experiential learning. In Indonesia, upper-
secondary vocational schools cater more to the poor than to general secondary schools, drawing
21% of their students from the lowest income quintile, compared to only 13% for general
secondary schools (ADB 2007: 30). Studies in OECD countries also provide evidence of this
trend. They report that a 10% increase in the share of upper-secondary students in vocational
and pre-vocational programs is associated with a 2.6% increase in the secondary school
graduation rate and a 1.9% increase in the proportion of 15–19-year-olds in school (Bishop and
Ferran. This data demonstrates the social role of TVET that is closely related to the ‘original’
process of Vocationalisation that began in the 1970s with the aim to promote the social inclusion
of less privileged groups in education and training, to narrow educational gaps and to avoid
social fragmentation  (Lauglo; Lauglo and Maclean. Vocational skills were viewed as a coherent
part of the overall education system. The pacification and diversification of secondary education
and the expansion of access to vocational and technical education have helped to retain more
students in school. This social function of Vocationalisation led some youths to stay in school
longer than they might have if they only had the choice of an academic curriculum.
However, others who criticize Vocationalisation believe that it leads to the stratification of
society and the replication of socio-economic structures. Young argues that a vocational
approach to curriculum design leads to the situation when learners remain fixed in their life
experiences and are unable to move to a different social status. This partly relates to the attitudes
towards TVET in many societies: ‘the vocational is at the bottom of a hierarchy of knowledge
and value, it is a stream of learning available to the ‘lower achiever”. This negative stigma
attached to VET creates a ‘vocational habitus’ (Taylor) where students stay and which in turn
develops their aspirations. As a Australian Council of Education study (referred to in Dalley-
Trim et al.) highlights, profiles of Australian students in vocational education programmers
include low achievers, residing in rural areas, attending government schools, from an English-
speaking background and having parents who do not have tertiary education. VET content in
schools leads to reproducing social structures as students are not challenged to go beyond their
experiences.

These arguments about the social role of TVET have been overshadowed by the economic
arguments that relate TVET (and education) to the economic paradigm where the concept of
economic competitiveness became the main reference point for many educational reforms.

Economic Competitiveness
Over the last two decades, globalization has come to the fore, and the focus of countries
has shifted from social to economic issues. Nations have been transformed into competition
states, and now competitiveness is at the top of the political agenda internationally. Institutions
like the World Economic Forum (WEF) define national economic competitiveness and measure
it to provide comparative statistics for ‘evidence-based’ policy. The WEF classifies countries
according to the stage of development: factor-driven economies (stage 1), efficiency-driven
economies (stage 2) and innovation-driven economies (stage 3) with a transition phase between
each stage.

The composition of the Global Competitiveness Index produced by the WEF includes human
capital components. In the Global Competitiveness Index, 18 indicators or 15.9% of all
indicators (Sabadie and Johansen) were related to human capital which focuses on individuals’
capacities to be developed through education and training. Education related factors have
different a weighting at various stages of development. Human capital accounts for more than
24% of the national economic competitiveness score for countries in the innovation-driven stage,
and for 16.3% at the factor-driven stage in the WEF Global Competitiveness Index (Sabadie and
Johansen. This data as well as other studies (e.g. Mankiw et al; Barro; Krueger and Lindahl
shows that human capital leads to economic growth. In addition, Sabadie and Johansen’s
modelling demonstrates that ‘in all selected countries, increases in the GCI score through human
capital are much higher than what can be gained through improvements in macroeconomic
stability’. Therefore, an improvement of education and training systems is even more important
to the enhancement of economic development than is ‘macroeconomic stabilization, although the
latter is routinely considered a key factor of development’.
Internationally, the human resource development (HRD) concept has attracted more and more
attention compared to human capital, although the meaning of these two concepts is quite close.
In its broad definition, HRD includes health and standard of living, together with education and
vocational training; in its narrower definition, the focus is on upgrading skills in order to
maximize the effectiveness of economic activities. Therefore, although human capital constitutes
only the economic dimension of HRD, ‘in recent years the narrower definition of HRD has
‘tended to prevail” and both concepts have been used interchangeably.

An expansion of the narrower agenda of HRD has influenced the reorientation of

secondary and higher education towards individuals’ employability (Kelly) and productivity to
achieve development goals through income generation. In this new debate, Vocationalisation is
viewed to be an instrument for HRD that can be effective in increasing economic
competitiveness and reducing poverty through improving productivity and employability.
Vocational skills are considered as an effective way to develop human capital that emphasizes
the economic purposes of education and training.

Therefore, in terms of Vocationalisation, the move is from education-driven to a

functional model of skills development within secondary schooling: that is, from
Vocationalisation as an inclusion of TVET content into schooling to a more broad interpretation
that takes in the vocational stream at school. Karmel stated that over the last decade, the
Australian VET system has become industry led ‘rather than educationally driven’.

Vocationalisation Agenda in the Region

The Vocationalisation of secondary schooling is present in the Asia-Pacific region. Out
of 41 countries included in UNESCO statistics, 22 provide vocational programs at the upper-
secondary level and 16 at the postsecondary, non-tertiary that prepare students for direct entry
into a specific occupation. These statistics do not include the vocational content of schooling
delivered through the academic part of curriculum. The variations across different regions within
Asia-Pacific and amongst countries in the regions are significant. For example, in India, only
1.8% are enrolled in the upper-secondary TVET, and in Indonesia, it is 38%, whilst in the
People’s Republic of China (PRC), 50.7% are enrolled in pre-vocational studies.

In accord with the HRD argument, many governments establish high targets for the
proportion of secondary students they want to enroll in vocational studies. For example, targets
for secondary vocational programmer enrolments, set up by the governments of Indonesia and
the PRC, were 70 and 60%, respectively (Copenhagen Development Consult). India targeted
25% (World Bank) and Bangladesh 20% of all secondary students to be enrolled in the
vocational/technical secondary stream (World Bank). Pakistan planned to add
technical/vocational streams in secondary education and aimed for half of all secondary students
to enter those streams (World Bank). These targets could provide implementation challenges for
these governments. As a reflection on Australia’s expansion of VET system over the past
20 years revealed, an increase in funding by government’s played a key role in this process
(Snell and Hart). Currently, 61.2% of upper-secondary students pursue pre-vocational or
vocational programs in Pakistan.
A number of trends related to Vocationalisation which may be observed in the region will now
be discussed.

Trends in the Vocationalisation of secondary education

Expanding the Basis for Vocationalisation
As argued above, the demand to enhance productivity and the employability of
individuals through the development of work-related competences brings the vocational strand at
the secondary school level under the umbrella of ‘Vocationalisation’, together with general and
‘pre-vocational’ options. Functional aspects of this training that are relevant to labor market
needs (e.g. technological knowledge, flexibility, better productivity) become increasingly more
important than are educational achievements. Employers across different countries when
surveyed (e.g. Turner; Australian Industry Group and Deloitte; Jiang) consider employability
skills to be the most important factor for employing graduates. Although a list of employability
skills varies across countries,3 they are nevertheless related to the general skills valued by
employers and the ones that help individuals gain employment and progress successfully through
a working career. This functional approach to skills development provides some directions for
TVET programs developed at the upper-secondary level that should mainly be focused on
general/employability skills, within the context of specific occupations. These skills, variously
referred to as core, employability, generic, key or life skills/competencies, are playing a
significant role in ensuring that young people have the necessary qualities to enter and participate
in the workforce. In 2008, an Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) research network on core
competencies was established to identify core competencies and to explore the ways in which
these competencies operate in diverse contexts.

In 2006, the Singapore Workforce Development Agency identified ten foundational skills
that are applicable across all industries. Since then, courses are offered in these areas,
particularly for those who do not have any formal qualifications, in order to provide an
alternative entrance requirement for National Innovation and Technology Certificate (NITEC)
courses. Since 2001, qualifications in the Philippines have been based on three types of
competencies: basic (generic work skills), common (industry specific) and core (occupation
specific). Some examples of basic competencies are leading workplace communication, leading
small teams, developing and practicing negotiation skills and solving problems related to work
activities. In the Philippines, life skills were integrated into SIYB competency standards. A
recent study by Bowskill suggests that after several years following graduation, school graduates
in New Zealand valued more the development of employability skills through their TVET
courses rather than subject-specific and specialized skills.

Question 5: curriculum of the school cannot be better than the quality of

person prepared by teacher education institution, make comments.
Answer: Increasing graduation rates and levels of educational attainment will accomplish little if
students do not learn something of lasting value. Yet federal efforts over the last several years
have focused much more on increasing the number of Americans who go to college than on
improving the education they receive once they get there.
By concentrating so heavily on graduation rates and attainment levels, policy makers are
ignoring danger signs that the amount that students learn in college may have declined over the
past few decades and could well continue to do so in the years to come. The reasons for concern
include:
 College students today seem to be spending much less time on their course work than
their predecessors did 50 years ago, and evidence of their abilities suggests that they are
probably learning less than students once did and quite possibly less than their
counterparts in many other advanced industrial countries.
 Employers complain that many graduates they hire are deficient in basic skills such as
writing, problem solving and critical thinking that college leaders and their faculties
consistently rank among the most important goals of an undergraduate education.
 Most of the millions of additional students needed to increase educational attainment
levels will come to campus poorly prepared for college work, creating a danger that
higher graduation rates will be achievable only by lowering academic standards.
 More than two-thirds of college instructors today are not on the tenure track but are
lecturers serving on year-to-year contracts. Many of them are hired without undergoing
the vetting commonly used in appointing tenure-track professors. Studies indicate that
extensive use of such instructors may contribute to higher dropout rates and to grade
inflation.
 States have made substantial cuts in support per student over the past 30 years for public
colleges and community colleges. Research suggests that failing to increase
appropriations to keep pace with enrollment growth tends to reduce learning and even
lower graduation rates.
While some college leaders are making serious efforts to improve the quality of teaching, many
others seem content with their existing programs. Although they recognize the existence of
problems affecting higher education as a whole, such as grade inflation or a decline in the rigor
of academic standards, few seem to believe that these difficulties exist on their own campus, or
they tend to attribute most of the difficulty to the poor preparation of students before they enroll.

Some Immediate Improvements

Many colleges provide a formidable array of courses, majors and extracurricular
opportunities, but firsthand accounts indicate that many undergraduates do not feel that the
material conveyed in their readings and lectures has much relevance to their lives. Such
sentiments suggest either that the courses do not in fact contribute much to the ultimate goals that
colleges claim to value or that instructors are not taking sufficient care to explain the larger aims
of their courses and why they should matter.
Other studies suggest that many instructors do not teach their courses in ways best
calculated to achieve the ends that faculties themselves consider important. For example, one
investigator studied samples of the examinations given at elite liberal arts colleges and research
universities. Although 99 percent of professors consider critical thinking an “essential” or “very
important” goal of a college education, fewer than 20 percent of the exam questions actually
tested for this skill.
Now that most faculties have defined the learning objectives of their college and its
various departments and programs, it should be possible to review recent examinations to
determine whether individual professors, programs and departments are actually designing their
courses to achieve those goals. College administrators could also modify their student evaluation
forms to ask students whether they believe the stated goals were emphasized in the courses they
took.
In addition, the average time students devote to studying varies widely among different
colleges, and many campuses could require more of their students. Those lacking evidence about
the study habits of their undergraduates could inform themselves through confidential surveys
that faculties could review and consider steps to encourage greater student effort and improve
learning.
The vast difference between how well seniors think they can perform and
their actual proficiencies (according to tests of basic skills and employer evaluations) suggests
that many colleges are failing to give students an adequate account of their progress. Grade
inflation may also contribute to excessive confidence, suggesting a need to work to restore
appropriate standards, although that alone is unlikely to solve the problem. Better feedback on
student papers and exams will be even more important in order to give undergraduates a more
accurate sense of how much progress they’ve made and what more they need to accomplish
before they graduate.

More Substantial Reforms

More fundamental changes will take longer to achieve but could eventually yield even
greater gains in the quality of undergraduate education. They include:

Improving graduate Education. 

Colleges and universities need to reconfigure graduate programs to better prepare
aspiring professors for teaching. As late as two or three generations ago, majorities of new
Ph.D.’s, at least in the better graduate programs, found positions where research was primary,
either in major universities, industry or government. Today, however, many Ph.D.’s find
employment in colleges that are chiefly devoted to teaching or work as adjunct instructors and
are not expected to do research.
Aspiring college instructors also need to know much more now in order to teach
effectively. A large and increasing body of useful knowledge has accumulated about learning
and pedagogy, as well as the design and effectiveness of alternative methods of instruction.
Meanwhile, the advent of new technologies has given rise to methods of teaching that require
special training. As evidence accumulates about promising ways of engaging students actively,
identifying difficulties they are having in learning the material and adjusting teaching methods
accordingly, the current gaps in the preparation most graduate students receive become more and
more of a handicap.
Universities have already begun to prepare graduate students to teach by giving them
opportunities to assist professors in large lecture courses and by creating centers where they can
get help to become better instructors. More departments are starting to provide or even require a
limited amount of instruction in how to teach. Nevertheless, simply allowing grad students to
serve as largely unsupervised teaching assistants, or creating centers where they can receive a
brief orientation or a few voluntary sessions on teaching, will not adequately equip them for a
career in the classroom.
A more substantial preparation is required and will become ever more necessary as the
body of relevant knowledge continues to grow. With all the talk in graduate school circles about
preparing doctoral students for jobs outside academe, one has to wonder why departments spend
time readying Ph.D. candidates for entirely different careers before they have developed
adequate programs for the academic posts that graduate schools are supposed to serve, and that
most of their students continue to occupy.
Many departments may fail to provide such instruction because they lack faculty with
necessary knowledge, but provosts and deans could enlist competent teachers for such
instruction from elsewhere in the university, although they may hesitate to do so, given than
graduate education has always been the exclusive domain of the departments. Enterprising
donors might consider giving grants to graduate schools or departments willing to make the
necessary reforms. If even a few leading universities responded to such an invitation, others
would probably follow suit.
Creating a teaching faculty.
The seeds of such a change already exist through the proliferation of instructors who are
not on the tenure track but are hired on a year-to- year basis or a somewhat longer term to teach
basic undergraduate courses. Those adjunct instructors now constitute as much as 70 percent of
all college instructors.
The multiplication of such instructors has largely been an ad hoc response to the need to
cut costs in order to cope with severe financial pressures resulting from reductions in state
support and larger student enrollments. But researchers are discovering that relying on casually
hired, part-time teachers can have adverse effects on graduation rates and the quality of
instruction. Sooner or later, the present practices seem bound to give way to more satisfactory
arrangements.
One plausible outcome would be to create a carefully selected, full-time teaching faculty,
the members of which would lack tenure but receive appointments for a significant term of years
with enforceable guarantees of academic freedom and adequate notice if their contracts are not
renewed. Such instructors would receive opportunities for professional development to become
more knowledgeable and proficient as teachers, and they would teach more hours per week than
the tenured faculty. In return, they would receive adequate salaries, benefits and facilities and
would share in deliberations over educational policy, though not in matters involving research
and the appointment and promotion of tenure-track professors.
These faculty members would be better trained in teaching and learning than the current
research-oriented faculty, although tenured professors who wish to teach introductory or general
education courses would, of course, be welcome to do so. Being chiefly engaged in teaching,
they might also be more inclined to experiment with new and better methods of instruction if
they were encouraged to do so.
A reform of this sort would undoubtedly cost more than most universities currently pay
their non-tenure-track instructors (though less than having tenured faculty teach the lower-level
courses). Even so, the shabby treatment of many part-time instructors is hard to justify, and
higher costs seem inevitable once adjunct faculties become more organized and use their
collective strength to bargain for better terms.
 Progress may have to come gradually as finances permit. But instead of today’s legions
of casually hired, underpaid and insecure adjunct instructors, a substantial segment of the college
faculty would possess the time, training and job security to participate in a continuing effort to
develop more effective methods of instruction to engage their students and help them derive
more lasting value from their classes.

Rethinking the undergraduate curriculum.

The familiar division into fields of concentration, electives and general education leaves too little
room for students to pursue all of the objectives that professors themselves deem important for a
well-rounded college education. This tripartite structure, with its emphasis on the major and its
embrace of distribution requirements and extensive electives, was introduced by research
universities and designed more to satisfy the interests of a tenured, research-oriented faculty than
to achieve the various aims of a good undergraduate education. The existing structure is unlikely
to change so long as decisions about the curriculum remain under the exclusive control of the
tenure-track professors who benefit from the status quo.
By now, the standard curriculum has become so firmly rooted that during the periodic
reviews conducted in most universities, the faculty rarely pause to examine the tripartite division
and its effect upon the established goals of undergraduate education. Instead, the practice of
reserving up to half of the required number of credits for the major is simply taken for granted
along with maintaining a distribution requirement and preserving an ample segment of the
curriculum for electives.
The obvious remedy is to include the non-tenure-track instructors who currently make up
a majority of the teaching faculty in curricular reviews so that all those who play a substantial
part in trying to achieve the goals of undergraduate education can participate in the process. It is
anomalous to allow the tenure-track faculty to enjoy exclusive power over the curriculum when
they provide such a limited share of the teaching. Such a reform might be difficult under current
conditions in many colleges where most undergraduate instructors serve part-time, are often
chosen haphazardly and frequently lack either the time or the interest to participate fully in a
review of its undergraduate program. If adjunct instructors achieve the status previously
described, however, their prominent role in teaching undergraduates should entitle them to a seat
at the table to discuss the educational program, including its current structure. Such a move could
at least increase the likelihood of a serious discussion of the existing curricular structure to
determine whether it truly serves the multiple aims of undergraduate education.
Colleges should also consider allowing some meaningful participation by members of the
administrative staff who are prominently involved in college life, such as deans of student affairs
and directors of admission. The current division between formal instruction and the extra
curriculum is arbitrary, since many goals of undergraduate education, such as moral development
and preparation for citizenship, are influenced significantly by the policies for admitting
students, the administration of rules for student behavior, the advising of undergraduates, the
nature of residential life and the extracurricular activities in which many students participate.
Representatives from all groups responsible for the policies and practices that affect these goals
should have something to contribute to reviews of undergraduate education.