Recasting the curriculum

These four examples illustrate the pre-eminence of thinking-as-behavior ability in practice, which is characteristically of a high-level conceptualization/ prognostication nature (Bergquist, 1999). However, this thinking behavior must be informed by theoretical knowledge at a lower schematization and diagnostic thinking level, referred to here as facilitative thinking. Further, the four examples above indicate that the behavioral thinking in each case is clearly domain specific to each discipline and, logically, the facilitative thinking that connects domain-specific theory to domain-specific thinking behavior must itself be domain-specific. Thus, achievement of the learning outcome objectives in the curricula requires three distinct forms of domain-specific thinking: domain specific knowledge-recall, domain-specific facilitative thinking and domain-specific thinking behavior. Usually, however, only the first is explicit in the syllabus and the other two are at best vague learning outcome objectives unsupported by appropriate syllabi.

The essential roles of facilitative thinking and thinking behavior seriously challenge conventional notions of lower-level and higher-level classifications of learning. They also challenge conventional notions of competency standards, competency-based assessment and transparency that underpin the present direction of institutional quality assurance policy and initiatives.

In order to adequately address these thinking abilities in context, the authors propose a "new-order" of levels of task ability that should be identified in the learning outcome objectives as follows:

• lower-level task abilities are typically procedural, such as ability to follow set procedures. Facilitative thinking at this level is characteristically making linear connections between set knowledge/theory and set procedures. Thinking behavior required at this level is characteristically data collection, entry and ranking, informed by recall/recognition of domain-specific knowledge.

• mid-level task abilities are typically analytic/ diagnostic and characterized by finding explanations/ solutions for phenomena/problems within a limited range of set theories. Facilitative thinking at this level is typically lateral thinking that makes connections between alternative abstract theories and applications. Thinking behavior required at this level is typically lateral, analytic and diagnostic "problem-solving", informed by recall/recognition of domain-specific knowledge and procedures. Both facilitative thinking and thinking behavior required at this level are significantly more demanding and more domain-specific than in lower-level task abilities, and must be identified as particular objectives accompanied by particular domain-specific syllabi, if problem-solving ability learning outcome objectives are to be met.

• higher-level task abilities are typically anticipatory projections (prognostics, designs, strategies) to meet multiple complex requirements and to define complex future solutions. Thinking behavior at this level is typically individualistic, conceptual and multi-lateral, informed by both recall/recognition of multiple bodies of domain-specific knowledge and the outcome of mid-level analytic task activities. The facilitative thinking requirements at this level are multilateral, very demanding and very domain-specific, requiring special development, and they must be identified as specific learning outcome objectives accompanied by special domain-specific syllabi.

From the authors' perspective, therefore, both the learning outcome objectives and syllabi within curricula for effective education that meets societal expectations of graduate quality must be re-cast with increased emphasis on both facilitative thinking and thinking behavior in order to provide the essential underpinnings to practice, particularly in the professions, business and the sciences.

مواضيع ذات صلة

Relevance of curriculum to practice

Aligning Teaching and Assessment: The Key to Greatly Improved Graduate Quality and Sustainable Teaching Efficiency Curricula

Aligning Teaching and Assessment: The Key to Greatly Improved Graduate Quality and Sustainable Teaching Efficiency Complexity of the operative components

Aligning Teaching and Assessment: The Key to Greatly Improved Graduate Quality and Sustainable Teaching Efficiency Status quo

Aligning Teaching and Assessment: The Key to Greatly Improved Graduate Quality and Sustainable Teaching Efficiency

An Integrated Approach to Learning, Teaching and Assessment in a Healthcare Ethics Module Conclusions

Module evaluation

Peer learning

Assessment strategy

Lecturer as facilitator

Learning and teaching strategies

The module Ethics in Healthcare