Curriculum is a recurring topic of educational research. Over the past decade, researchers have measured and evaluated students’ responses to curriculum tone, sound, length, design, and delivery format. The output of this research may be expected to be a specific set of best practices in curriculum construction. Certainly, there was no hesitation in approving the various curriculum models as being based on “best practices”. However, what develops from a review of the existing literature on curriculum design is a tortuous path of contradictions. There are no large-scale studies that extend across the curriculum or across educational disciplines. The lack of consensus in the approach ultimately points to incompatible conclusions of best practices. It may also be the case that best practices for any curriculum are highly dependent on the teacher, course, and institution; Alternately, it may be the case that best practices cannot and Must not They are recognized at this time.
In September 2020, we launched a literature search to determine if best practices in curriculum design can be identified. After a full review of 68 articles that meet the inclusion criteria, a minimum level of consensus can be reached regarding the syllabus elements that are likely to improve students’ experience. Results often conflict within a research body or compare incompatible variables, often based on small sample sizes within individual courses. For example, while Anderson (2010) finds that students perceive more warmth from curricula that are supposed to be written by women, Denton and Valoso (2017) find that perception of a teacher’s gender has no effect; Instead, friendliness in written tone was associated with positive appreciation by students. In Extended Communications Related to Classroom Policies, Bailey et al. (2015) evaluated that teacher gender did not influence students’ perceptions of fairness in responses to students’ requests for policy exceptions. Jenkins et al (2014) found that teacher gender does not influence students’ expectations of implementing strict rules on course policies within the curriculum.
The researchers explored the use of audio and visual media to supplement the written curriculum in constructing a trainer’s perception. Harnish and Bridges (2011) found value in using a ‘warm’ tone in the curriculum, with 172 Penn State students indicating that friendly tones are stimulating; However, the use of the introductory video in coordination with the syllabus did not facilitate the perception of the teacher’s warmth. Jones (2018) suggested that graphics or illustrations were not viewed as helpful in a study of 103 first-year students. In a study of 56 students, Offerman et al. (2019) found that students remember more details from traditional approaches when compared to retaining information from a graphing model. In 2017, Moceck found that curriculum graphs boost retention of students who represent at-risk populations. Mikhailova (2018) argued that Clemson University students preferred graphical approaches and found them easier to understand. What conclusion can be drawn from this scattering of pros and cons?
Another perplexing question: Is less more? Recognizing that student expectations shaped curriculum preferences, Lightner and Bernander (2018) found that the simple curriculum was easier to understand, based on student opinions expressed in the focus group (eight students) and the survey (83 students). Conversely, Martin and Sheetz (2011) advocated longer, more detailed curricula for online courses, and a 2010 survey of 97 psychology students indicated a preference for detailed curricula (Saville et al., 2010). Similarly, in a study of 149 students from community colleges, Harrington and Gabert-Quillen (2015) found that adding additional details to the curriculum, such as study tips, positively affected students’ perceptions of the course and the teacher. In general, the length of the preferred syllabus appears to fall somewhere in the range of six to 12 pages; That is, assuming that the professor’s organization does not require a specific model, which is what most organizations do.
However, more options about curriculum design permeate the literature. Additional studies have explored the effectiveness of “promising” curricula that are negotiated, contractual, participatory, democratic, and learner-centered. There may be consensus on the importance of expressing appropriateness, but there is no clear guidance on a particular course of action that effectively expresses appropriateness.
Perhaps there is a path to consistency within the literature body. One can define limited scenarios in which gender and graphics or details make a difference. Best practices can be identified for some types of teachers and some types of students. But the custom exception has limited utility, and it raises questions as to whether any generalization is possible at all. If a practice motivates students, but results in lower information retention, what value prevails? In an ideal world, there would be an approach to curriculum design that made sense for every teacher, in every discipline, at every institution. Such an approach did not appear.
The failure to reach a meaningful consensus should not come as a surprise. Macel and Blacker first sounded a public alarm about education research in 2014. Their landmark study of 100 educational journals found that only 0.13% of published educational studies were duplicates (Makel and Plucker 2014). Moreover, they found that among the small proportion of duplicate studies, the probability of successful replication was strongly influenced by overlapping authors contributing to the original and replication attempts. McKelle et al. (2021) extended their interests in a recent study outlining the tendencies in educational researchers to omit and/or rub data, in order to confirm hypotheses. In addressing concerns about limited sample sizes in published research, educational journals have issued calls for dedicated manuscripts to replicate previous studies (Educational Research and Evaluation, 2021).
For now, however, the best practice in curriculum design is to be careful in calling for ‘best practices’.
Dr. Lindsey Luther, DNP, is a Teaching Fellow at Mount Carmel College of Nursing. Professor Miriam Abbott, MA, is a faculty fellow at Mount Carmel College of Nursing. Dr. Roxanne Oliver, DNP, is the Director of Graduate Programs at Mount Carmel College of Nursing.
references
Anderson, Kristen. 2010. “Student Stereotypes of Professors: An Example of Dual Violations of Race and Gender.” The social psychology of education 3: 459-472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-010-9121-3
Billy, Sarah, Jed Jenkins, and Larissa Barber. 2015. “Students’ Reactions to Course Policy Decisions: An Empirical Investigation.” Teaching Psychology 43 (1): 22-31. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0098628315620065
Denton, Ashley Wagner and James Velasso. 2017. “Changes in Curriculum Tone Affect Ratings of Warmth (but not Proficiency) for Both Male and Female Teachers.” The social psychology of education 21: 173 – 187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9409-7
Educational research and evaluation. 2021. “A Call for Studies of Replication in Breeding.” https://think.taylorandfrancis.com/special_issues/replication-studies/
Harnisch, Richard and Robert Bridges. 2011. “The influence of course tone: Students’ perceptions of the teacher and the course.” Soc Psychol Educ 14: 319-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9152-4
Harrington, C. M., and C. A. Gabert-Quillen. 2015. “Syllabus length and image use: An empirical investigation of student perceptions.” Teaching and Learning Psychology Scholarship 1(3): 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000040
Jenkins, Jed, Ashley D. Bogga, and Larissa K. Barber. 2014. “More content or more politics? A closer look at curriculum details, teacher gender, and perceptions of teacher effectiveness. College teaching 62 (4): 129-135. 10.1080 / 87567555.2014.935700
Jones, Natasha. 2018. “Designing a Human-Centered Curriculum: Positioning Our Students as an Expert End User.” Computers and configuration 49: 25-35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S8755461518300392
Leitner, Robin, and Ruth Benander. 2018. “First Impressions: Student and Faculty Observations on Four Curriculum Styles.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 30 (3): 443-453. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1199421
McCall, Matthew and Jonathan Blacker. 2014. “Facts are more important than novelty: Repetition in the sciences of education.” Educational researcher. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jonathan-Plucer-2/publication/268522706_Facts_Are_More_Important_Than_Novelty/links/546f9f360cf2d67fc03119f5/Facts-Are-More-Important-Than-Novelty.pdf
Mackel, Matthew, Garrett Hodges, Brian Cook, and Jonathan Blacker. 2021. “Both Questionable and Open Research Practices Are Prevalent in Educational Research.” Educational researcher. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211001356
Martin, Peter and Laura Temple Sheetz. 2011. “Teaching and Learning Experiences in a Collaborative Distance Learning Environment.” Teaching geriatrics and geriatrics 32 (3): 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701960.2011.598976
Mikhailova, EA 2018. “Improving soil science education with a graphical curriculum.” natural science education 47: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.4195/nse2017.12.0025
Mocek, Evelyn A. 2017. “Effects of syllabus design on information retention by at-risk first-semester college students.” Curriculum Magazine 6 (2) https://www.syllabusjournal.org/syllabus/article/view/222
Offerman, Amy, Kwan Shu, and Deendra Little. 2019. “What do students actually pay attention to and remember from the curriculum? An eye-tracking study of a visually rich, text-based curriculum.” Teaching and Learning Scholarship in Psychology. 10.1037 / stl0000157
Savile, Brian, Tracy Zinn, Alison Yost, and Kimberly Marchock. 2010. Curriculum details and students’ perceptions of teacher effectiveness. Teaching psychology. 37: 186-189. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232841045_Syllabus_Detail_and_Students’_Perceptions_of_Teacher_Effectivity
Views after:
77