I am currently teaching in a young offenders institute where education is compulsory,

I fall under the lifelong learning category whilst still being bound by typical

compulsory education requirements. I teach personal development which is a short

12 week course designed to target different areas of life which will impact learners

upon leaving prison. Topics studied whilst taking the personal development course

include sex and relationships, budgeting and finance, healthy living and stress

management. I also teach Psychology, at the minute I am working with learners

completing the full course offered by AQA at GCSE level. The option to study this

course is part of the wider step-up class where learners can choose from a range of

GCSEs and A-Levels including law, history and sociology amongst others. The

learners who are given the opportunity to complete courses within the step up class

are often serving long sentences, this is positive from an educational perspective as

it means typically, teachers and learners are not constrained by specific time

schedules, unlike those who typically sit on the personal development course.

Although there are financial impacts when designing a curriculum, this allows for a

greater level of flexibility when designing courses and therefore a more inclusive

curriculum.

There has been much debate for many years around what a curriculum actually is;

for example, in a primary school, the curriculum is stringently bound by what the

government calls the ‘National Curriculum’. Although this national curriculum is

designed to target all stages of compulsory education, it is of particular importance to

the early years of education where the basics are instilled in learners. Many teachers

feel bound by the use of this national curriculum, and, it is yet again set to change

later this year. Mick Brookes (cited in an article by The Guardian 2008) states the

national curriculum is overly prescriptive;

The system of assessment has blunted some of those good things [about the curriculum] and the propensity to go towards closed questions rather than open thinking is one of them… The testing regime has narrowed the curriculum to disastrous effect and it's having an effect on creativity and innovation in schools.

This suggests the curriculum in early years is particularly strict, with little room to

elaborate upon concepts and develop learners individual thought processes.

Perhaps Cronbleth (1992) provides, in this instance a good definition of curriculum:

Curriculum answers three questions: what knowledge, skills and values are most worthwhile? Why are they most worthwhile? How should the young acquire them?

This linear approach to curriculum design has been continuously criticised

particularly by Eisner (2002) who claims a more creative approach to curriculum is

needed. In secondary education, the application of creative techniques is more

achievable, perhaps due to the less stringent application of the national curriculum.

In secondary education, it seems, that curriculum is more effectively defined by the

following:

Grundy (1987) curriculum is a programme of activities (by teachers and pupils) designed so that pupils will attain so far as possible certain educational and other schooling ends or objectives.

It is clear to see that, depending on what educational context one is in, the social,

economic and political constraints we are subject to can dramatically effect what a

curriculum is and what it should consist of. Most importantly, for my context, I will

focus on definitions best targeting curriculum in the lifelong learning sector. Hass

(1987) provides a much broader definition of curriculum, stating it encompasses

All of the experiences that individual learners have in a program of education whose purpose is to achieve broad goals and related specific objectives, which is planned in terms of a framework of theory and research or past and present professional practice.

This definition of curriculum in my educational context is particularly relevant as it

allows for deviations from strict guidelines to occur. The nature of the learners within

a prison can provide for a hectic and sometimes unplanned lesson. This definition

also allows scope for unscheduled events to occur, allowing for teachers to decide

upon content as they see best fits the needs of learners whilst still managing to

achieve wider goals and ambitions.

It could be suggested that the variety in definition of curriculum suggests that some

teachers are not achieving their roles and fulfilling curriculum needs. By having such

a diverse number of definitions, it appears that a new definition is being made simply

to accommodate the needs of teachers as opposed to teachers meeting the

demands of the curriculum and therefore their students. However, it could also be

argued that, given the distinct differences between the ages and abilities of learners

the curriculum should provide different things at different stages of education. This

does not mean to say that there should be different definitions, but more so that a

definition of curriculum should allow for these differences to be incorporated and

applied specifically one which can adapt to suit the constant changing of factors

which can influence a curriculum design. Ultimately, I believe Bobbitt (1918) has truly

defined curriculum providing an inclusive definition which allows for the rigidity

required in early stages of education whilst still providing scope for flexibility in later

education.

The central theory [of curriculum] is simple. Human life, however varied, consists in the performance of specific activities. Education that prepares for life is one that prepares definitely and adequately for these specific activities. However numerous and diverse they may be for any social class they can be discovered. This requires only that one go out into the world of affairs and discover the particulars of which their affairs consist. These will show the abilities, attitudes, habits, appreciations and forms of knowledge that men need. These will be the objectives of the curriculum. They will be numerous, definite and particularized. The curriculum will then be that series of experiences which children and youth must have by way of obtaining those objectives.

Bobbitt’s definition of curriculum helps me to understand what it is in this sense; a

collection of information and resources inter-related designed in a way which

promotes learning and participation. Regardless of socio-economic factors of both

the learner and resources, it essentially creates the environment in which one can

make sense of experiences with reference to particular specialisms. Basically, by

combining information which dictates who, what, where, when and why lessons

happen, with resources such as syllabuses, schemes of work and lesson plans, we

can create a specialist bubble whereby learners apply their already existing

experiences and knowledge to new demands i.e. subject content in order to develop

their understandings.

The definition that we apply to curriculum can have a dramatic influence on how a

curriculum is designed. There are three main approaches to curriculum design;

linear, spiral and thematic. As has been suggested, the more stringent definition of

curriculum lends itself well to the linear approach. Under the linear approach, a list of

topics are taught consecutively, assuming learning can be chunked and each

individual topic is taught in its own right. The teacher can decide the order of topics

which is demonstrated in the scheme of work and assessment is done at the end of

the topic and end of the course. This straightforward, one directional approach is

more applicable to settings which require a lot of structure and lacks flexibility.

Following this approach to designing a curriculum, four questions are typically

addressed; what educational purpose do you seek to attain? How will you achieve

this? In what order? Have the objectives been achieved? This is reflective in the

course structure, and will be discussed later in models and ideologies. In a prison,

particularly a young offenders institute, this approach to curriculum design is not

particularly effective. Although the organised detail is required, the assumption that

all learners can move at the same pace is evidently not true. The use of learning

objectives are strongly advocated under this approach however, the use of them is

not fully put to use as this approach does not suggest room for recap, revision or

‘going back over things’. This repetition and method of embedding is fundamental to

the progress of learners, Marzano (2007) highlights the importance of the ability of

teachers to do this effectively and the effects it can have on learners. For a

curriculum to be so eliminating of this, seems to be almost valueless. Howard (2007)

also notes that the linear approach tends to structure models so tightly that they

result in tasks being broken down into such small details that they can often lose

their value. Knowles (1975) highlights the importance of learners appreciating the

value of the material they are trying to learn in motivational factors and essentially

their success.

A hit back to the linear approach was devised by Bruner and termed the spiral

approach. Here, learners continually return to the basic ideas they first learnt as new

concepts are added. Bruner (1960) argues that this approach to curriculum design

enforces a solid understanding of information, allowing for discovery learning to take

place. As aforementioned, Marzano (2007) explains the importance of being able to

revisit information in the learning process and how, this interaction between already

existing knowledge and new experiences can develop an individual’s understanding

of a concept. This approach lends itself well to formative, on-going assessment

throughout a course which is particularly useful in my placement setting. The

curriculum should be designed to fit the learners, not learners fitting the needs of the

curriculum, I believe the spiral approach is helpful at sustaining this as, by its very

nature, it allows learners to work at different paces, ensuring all different abilities

have the opportunity to reach the same level of attainment regardless of their starting

positions (differing levels of original attainment). Bruner (1960) states

We begin with the hypothesis that any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development.

This suggests that regardless of individual differences, if the curriculum is designed

well and applied appropriately, we can ensure every learner achieves. The spiral

entertains Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of the zone of proximal development but

paraphrases as scaffolding. Scaffolding is essentially, the safe zone which a teacher

places around a student to ensure their energy can be focused on the difficult task in

hand. It is this scaffolding aspect of the spiral approach which I find particularly

useful when considering curriculum design within a young offenders institute as it

allows the teacher to provide the reassurance and support that many learners

actively seek but also promotes development and independent learning.

The third and final approach to be considered is thematic. The thematic approach to

curriculum design focuses on tailoring all subjects to one particular theme. Here, all

different subjects are co-related by an underlying theme. For example, a learner may

take English, math, science, geography and history. These separate lessons will all

be held in their own entity however, they may all focus on the beach for instance.

This thematic approach lends itself well to; in my opinion; primary school not

secondary, further or higher education. I base my opinion on the fact that this

approach works well to reduce fragmentation in the school day. This is particularly

useful for primary school where individual subject testing is not prolific as it is in other

educational times. Further, the thematic approach works well alongside the national

curriculum which again, spends the prevalence of its time in primary school. An

OFSTED report into the efforts of a particular school hoping to implement a thematic

approach wider states

'a more creative curriculum is being implemented to link subjects together….it is already providing more effective opportunities for pupils to write for a range of purposes and this is beginning to impact on the quality of pupils' writing. ….there is a good range of visits and visitors and this enhances learning…..the introduction of a more creative curriculum is helping to provide opportunities for writing, assessment for the current year indicates some improvement….'

This suggests the thematic approach can be beneficial but in certain contexts. When

the idea is applied to my setting, I do not think it would work particularly well as

learners need to be constantly stimulated. A typical criticism of the thematic

approach is that it appears repetitive to learners because the underlying theme is

recurrent throughout all lessons. This can lead to disengagement from learners and

reduce productivity. For this reason alone, I do not think a thematic approach would

benefit learners in prison. Perhaps around particular times of year e.g. Christmas, a

thematic approach could be taken and a mini curriculum could be devised for a

week, replacing all current schemes of work etc. but for day to day running, it is not

suitable.

In the prison environment, it appears different areas of education can employ

different aspects of each of the approaches discussed. If possible, a curriculum

should be designed to incorporate different aspects of each approach, promoting an

integrated approach.

Approaches often lead to ideologies being developed; this is no different when

considering curriculum design. An ideology is essentially a sociological concept /

view point which can mould the way we view the use of and design of a curriculum.

Ideologies are often structured through the beliefs we hold regarding economics and

society, they also incorporate psychological perspectives. I will discuss and evaluate

the main ideologies present in curriculum design, applying their uses to my own

teaching context.

Classical Humanism advocates that education should not just focus on a subject but

on the learners too thus, a curriculum should comprise of a combination of the two

important aspects of information. Focus is on knowledge; the acquisition and

development of; in learners. Education is essentially teaching, whereby a more

experienced individual transfers knowledge to a less experienced individual in a

formal setting adhering to standards promoting competitiveness and intrinsic

worthwhileness. Although this ideology endorses the humanist perspective, claiming

the individual is the most important, it is fairly reductionist. Classical Humanism

assumes that learners best learn via reading and writing, and that we (as teachers)

put our efforts best into those who are deemed the best academically. Clearly, in a

prison, the ‘best academics’ are in short supply. Many learners have the potential to

be pushed to achieve greater than they imagine they can be, however, this ideology

somewhat claims these learners are not worthy of an education. For the majority of

my learners, the idea of reading and writing is a chore, not an enjoyable educational

experience and therefore, more original methods of education are employed. For

me, Classical Humanism is too judgemental an ideology to employ in curriculum

design. It doesn’t appear to allow room for unmotivated learners and their influence

on the classroom and curriculum. When a curriculum is designed, it is crucial to

acknowledge social factors which can influence the effectiveness of said curriculum,

this ideology essentially ignores these factors and attempts to maintain status quo.

The education I provide to learners is fundamentally about making a difference.

A development of Classical Humanism is Liberal Humanism. Here, there is still an

emphasis on the individual however, the liberation aspect relates to equality of

opportunity. Immediately, this ideology emerges more applicable to my learners

curriculum because that original ignorance is eradicated, equality of opportunity

stresses that regardless of who you are, we should all be entitled to the same

education. Education is seen to be a process by which we draw out each individual’s

talents and abilities, where students learn best by interacting and experiencing with

others. This idea links very well to the spiral approach to curriculum design which, as

aforementioned, is particularly relevant to my teaching context.

Progressivism is essentially the middle gap between Classical and Liberal

Humanism. It is the no man’s land between left and right, the transition period. The

origins of Progressivism are believed to be from Dewey (1915). This ideology

favours those who want to work towards better conditions in government and

society. What this means is that a Progressivist perspective to curriculum design

would aim to underwrite the whole curriculum to help create more democratic, fair

societies via developing individuals. Key features of this ideology state the

curriculum should allow for student-centred learning, and that learning should be

active. Progressivism, in this sense works well under a thematic approach to

curriculum design. Positively, this ideology aims to develop reasoning and rationality

in learners, providing excellent opportunities for teachers to write the higher levels of

Blooms taxonomy into their schemes of work. I do believe the general principle of

this ideology could be particularly useful when designing a curriculum for prisoners

as learners however, features of it such as the teacher being a facilitator, suggest

there needs to be an already existing level of understanding in learners and a

motivation to learn which is not always present in prisoners and therefore perhaps

not so effective.

Finally, I will consider Instrumentalism. Jim Callaghan thrust Instrumentalism into the

limelight in his 1964 speech ‘The Great Debate’. Instrumentalists believe and

campaign that education is paid for by the state and should therefore reflect state

priorities. Immediately, we can assume that this ideology is not relevant to higher

education whereby individuals pay for their own educations but more to compulsory

and further education. My teaching context falls into the latter, suggesting; I should

be subject to this ideology; even more so that my learners are prisoners.

Instrumentalists believe education should serve the state and the states

requirements, producing a skilled workforce which can best supply demand. In this

ideology, curriculums should be designed as a central process (could this be seen as

a wider national curriculum?) with teachers being technicians serving a higher being.

The impacts upon curriculum design following this ideology are that lessons should

be interactive. Learners should be encouraged to develop skills (be them physical or

academic) which can benefit the community in which they will work. Positively, this

ideology; as an ideology; would thrive in a prison curriculum. Equipping and

developing learners with skills which can not only serve the state but also help them

earn a living and break the offending cycle is a key feature of prison education.

However, this ideology suggests somewhere, someone can see into the future. What

it is saying is that learners should attend classes to develop a skill to fulfil a role

which is vacant. How can anyone possibly know that in 1, 2, even 3 years (i.e. the

length of time it can take for someone to obtain a qualification) the need for that skill

will still exist? They can’t and therefore, to me, the ideas and proposed methods

which are derived from this ideology are great, and I would advocate strongly these

ideas to be written into a prison curriculum but the fundamental underpinning idea

that it is all to serve the state and not the individual leaves a sour taste.

The final designing decision to make when considering the composition of a

curriculum is which model to use. Alike ideologies, models tend to mirror an

approach and are usually developed by means of formulating a plan of action from

an ideology.

The outcomes / product model is a clear representation of the Linear approach,

based on the instrumental ideology. The aims of education should be clearly

identified, with measureable objectives and clearly defined achievements. Infed

(online) states curriculum should not “be the result of ‘armchair speculation’ but the

product of systematic study”. Basically, this model provides guidance for curriculum

design through the breakdown of specific roles, involving detail to each particular

point i.e. what do we need to know in order to work / achieve. Tyler’s product model

outlined in his 1949 book: Basic Principles of Curriculum Instruction approaches

curriculum design as a technical exercise where there is a clear emphasis on

planning and learning objectives throughout. Tyler perceives the curriculum to be a

series of documents which plan, detail and deliver a course from which measureable

outcomes are achieved. This model of curriculum design is used in my teaching

experience as each area within the identified curriculum has related required

outcomes. When broken down into a scheme of work and lesson plans again, there

are clearly defined objectives which we hope to achieve and through the use of

these objectives, we can measure achievement. Positively, this method of curriculum

design lends itself well to quality assurance. If we can prove that the learning

objectives have been achieved, we must have a well-designed curriculum, therefore

we can conclude that effective teaching and learning has taken place – the

curriculum has served its purpose. Further, this method of curriculum design allows

for detail to be made which can provide solid guidance for both teachers and

learners, clear outlines as to what is required ensure that there is clarity and

transparency in the curriculum. This over active use of learning objectives has been

criticised, Grundy (1987) explains that this method of design suggests education

starts and ends with objectives, that there cannot be room for external actions and

does not appear to provide context for social vision. This lack of real life reflection

and ignorance of individual learner differences is further discussed in Kelly (2009)

where it is also claimed that this method, which supports the linear approach is

reductionist. This method assumes that education and learning is a one-way

process, with a clear transference of knowledge. We know this is not the case. Paton

(2012) highlights the consequences of using a model such as this when designing a

curriculum stating teaching is almost becoming a box ticking exercise to satisfy those

who do the quality assurance checks. Just because a box has been ticked, how can

we be certain learning has taken place if we are simply offering a one-way road of

teaching and learning?

I believe there is a tendency, recurrent enough to suggest that it may be endemic in the approach, for academics in education to use the objectives model as a stick with which to beat teachers. ‘What are your objectives?’ is more often asked in a tone of challenge than one of interested and helpful inquiry. The demand for objectives is a demand for justification rather than a description of ends… It is not about curriculum design, but rather an expression of irritation in the problems of accountability in education. (Stenhouse 1974: 77)

Stenhouse, building on his criticism of the product model, developed his own; the

process model. This model is linked to the liberal humanist ideology and is a student

focused model. Stenhouse claims although there can be a material document

labelled a curriculum it is, in essence not a physical thing but more so the interaction

of teachers and learners and knowledge. Education is viewed as an active process

where the elements are in constant interaction where the skeleton of the curriculum

is chiefly principles regarding how things are to be learnt but not learning objectives.

Emphasis is on formative assessment (the constant verbal interaction between

teacher and learner) not summative. For example, a teacher enters an establishment

with the ability to think critically and an understanding of their role equipped with a

proposal for action (lesson plan). Using this, they develop interactions between and

with others in the establishment (delivery of lesson). This in turn generates thinking

and action which can be evaluate the process. Essentially, learning occurs via

experience therefore the curriculum should provide the framework for teachers to

develop the experiences which learners have, have had and will have. Keeping in

line with the liberal humanist ideology and spiral model of curriculum, this method is

particularly useful to my teaching setting. It accepts experiences of learners as part

of the learning process and attempts to accommodate these, almost writing them

into the curriculum. As a model of curriculum it provides the flexibility which the

product model lacks and gives the idea that it can be adapted to suit any educational

establishment, with room for development as required.

“given the uniqueness of each classroom setting, it means that any proposal, even at school level, needs to be tested, and verified by each teacher in his/her classroom” (unknown)

Unfortunately, this method does not indicate any indicative content to curriculum and

therefore lessons, it is unclear where the uniformity as to what is taught is. Because

of this, it may be difficult to truly assess achievement and this questions its quality

assurance. Stenhouse accepts this as a criticism of his model and states that it is a

critical model, designed through criticism of another not a marking model. This model

also places a heavy reliance on teachers, the loose frameworks it suggests to

curriculum design means teachers truly have to hold a great knowledge regarding

subject content as there is little prescribed materials. This could be problematic when

considering supply and cover teaching which is prevalent within my workplace.

Skilbeck (1984) provides a further model of curriculum design claiming the most

influential and central factor to consider when designing a curriculum is the context.

The setting in which the curriculum is carried out, culture and ethos are all deciding

factors when designing a curriculum and deciding what and how to deliver it. This

situational model is particularly useful when evaluating current curricula as it

encourages the designer to analyze the present situation to discover the impacts of

what is currently being taught. The whole picture is viewed when applying this model

to curriculum design, with the institution itself under scrutiny. The curriculum is

believed to be the whole experience a learner encounters from the minute they walk

through the door to the minute they leave, including the hidden curriculum. In this

sense, the situational model is particularly useful in the prison curriculum as the

hidden curriculum is a huge part of each and every lesson, and the time in between.

Further, a large part of learners acceptance to lessons and education is formed from

their previous experiences; this model accepts the influence of internal and external

factors on the process of teaching and learning and tries to encompass these into

the curriculum. As mentioned, this model is predominantly used when evaluating

already existing structures, in this light, it would appear useful to all educational

settings regardless of who the learners are and where they learn. Alike Stenhouse’s

model, this one also seems to lack provisions regarding indicative content, with no

start and no finish.

Maybe, the greatest suggestion made through Skilbecks model, is the idea that we

should abandon models and adopt an elemental approach. By doing so, we would

ensure the fluidity and malleability of models such as his and Stenhouse’s whilst still

providing structured frameworks seen in Tyler’s model.

Overall, I do not think I can conclusively pick just one approach, ideology or model to

follow when designing a curriculum for my teaching practice. Different aspects of all

prove both beneficial and undesirable. I do not think that by sticking exactly to one

particular approach or ideology or method we will ever truly design the best

curriculum there can be. I believe by understanding these different perspectives to

curriculum design, we can ensure as designers we pick the best aspects to suit the

needs of our learners and accommodate the external demands placed on us.

Word Count: 4535

References

Bobbitt, F. (1918) The Curriculum. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

BROOKES, M. (2008) National curriculum constraints teachers and pupils. Guardian, 11th Jun. available from: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2008/jun/11/schools.uk4

Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dewey, J. (1915) The School and Society: being three lectures. (2nd Ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Eisner, E.W. (2002) The Arts and the Creation of Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Grundy, S. (1987) Curriculum: Product or Praxis? London New York: Routledge Falmer.

Hass, G. (1987) Curriculum Planning: A new approach. (5th Ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

INFED (unknown) Curriculum theory and practice. Available from: http://infed.org/mobi/curriculum-theory-and-practice/ [Accessed 18 March 2014].

Kelly, A. V. (2009) The Curriculum: Theory and Practice. London Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Knowles, M. S. (1975) Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall/Cambridge.

Marzano, R.J. (2007) The art and science of Teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Paton, G. (2012) Ofsted ‘taking the soul out of school’. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9640875/Ofsted-taking-the-soul-out-of-school-adviser-warns.html [Accessed 18 March 2014].

Skilbeck, M. (1984) School Based Curriculum Development. London: SAGE Publications.

Stenhouse, D. (1974) The evolution of intelligence: A general theory and some of its implications. New York: Barnes and Noble.

Tyler, R.W. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind and society: Interaction between learning and development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Part 2 – Rationale and Annotation for scheme of work

I have chosen to focus on the scheme of work (SOW) provided for a topic within the GCSE Psychology class I teach. Currently, there are six learners studying this course, split across two classes which have three learners each. Classes run for 90 minutes, once a week. The time aspect of the curriculum is based on the guidelines provided by the government that each learner should receive 15 hours of education each week. The 15 hours is then, subsequently divided amongst a variety of courses which each learner is expected to attend. The learners in the psychology class often have or are studying towards their math and English GCSE also, this is an important deciding factor when considering a learners eligibility for the course.

The scheme of work (appendix 1) followed by the team which deliver the psychology GCSE is the one provided by the awarding body; AQA. Small adaptions are made to the scheme of work in order to best suit the demands of the prison environment for example, on the original SOW, AQA advise the possible number of lessons in which subject content can be delivered, when considering this in curriculum design, the prison staff had amended this according. AQA base 1 lesson on a 1 hour time slot, as aforementioned, classes in the prison are 1 ½ hours, this means that in some instances, for example the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sections in the SOW are not infact 1 ½ lessons as AQA suggest but only 1 in the prison. Positively, these amendments can allow for a spiral approach to be employed as it often means that individual classes can allow time for recapping, expansion and individual revision sessions. Frequently, we (teachers) employ the use of supplementary evidence in lessons through various activities. This allows us to formatively assess learners in an informal way, judging the effectiveness of the lesson and employ the spiral approach so often favoured. See appendix item 2, this supplementary activity is designed to be used with learners working individually and/or as mixed ability groups depending on the class size. Learners are asked to order the cards to correctly show the sequence of events as described in the ‘multi-store’ explanation of memory and can then use peer and self-assessment as a marking scheme when shown the correct order. This activity can be used either following the lesson in which this information is learnt or a few lessons later as method of recap. This use of the spiral model is not explicit in the scheme of work but can be employed at the teachers’ discretion. The flexibility of this is extremely beneficial to my setting in a prison because, as previously discussed, the spiral model is particularly useful when working with lower level learners on work which is a higher level than they may be used to.

The overt use of learning objectives throughout the SOW suggests a quite linear approach, employing Tyler’s model which states the explicit use of learning objectives to better enhance learning. Generally speaking, every teacher across the country is expected and encouraged to make use of learning objectives, in a linear fashion. I believe it is the methods we employ to achieve these learning objectives which are the crucial part to a SOW and curriculum. From this perspective, it could be assumed that every curriculum nationwide will show aspects of a linear approach

and, as concluded earlier, this is positive as it encourages the development and use of several approaches not just one. A simple comprehensive task can be employed to ascertain learning when assessing learning objectives. This could be verbally, using formative assessment or written using summative assessment. Appendix item 3 is one of many available past papers for the AQA specification of this course. To best serve the needs of the curricula, the use of these questions could be formatted to match the learning objectives in a linear fashion but administered following a spiral approach by doing so as a recap task later into the course.

Throughout the SOW it is noted that learners are required to ‘describe 2 contemporary applications’ this relation of subject content to real life encompasses a liberal humanist perspective, it encourages the experiences of learners to be discussed and to guide their work whilst still requiring subject specific knowledge and application. Aside from the obvious use of past papers, a good way to develop this in lessons is identified in the SOW through the use of videos and real life examples. Although this can be difficult at times in the prison (due to lack of internet access in lessons), and therefore sometimes requires adaption to the SOW, it is possible to obtain videos which do not require internet access prior to the lesson. See appendix item 4 for examples.

The repetition of basic skills and application of prior knowledge is clear throughout the SOW and it is this format which allows my colleagues to use this SOW without too much editing. The spiral approach to curriculum design is particularly useful, especially within psychology as it allows learners to acquire basic skills and knowledge (those factors at the bottom of Blooms taxonomy) in the first instance of the course and to develop them throughout. Other topics within the GCSE Psychology course also use similar wording and require similar achievements to be made in order to pass the end of year exam and this would not be possible without using a spiral approach which allows for the re-visiting and enhancing already existing knowledge.

Word Count: 918

APPENDIX #2Template for multi-store activity; to be cut out into separate cards

SHORT TERM MEMORY

SENSORY MEMORY

LONG TERM MEMORY

INPUT

ATTENTION

REHEARSAL

REHEARSAL

RETRIEVAL

FORGOTTEN

FORGOTTEN

APPENDIX #3Please see separate past paper June 2012.

APPENDIX #4A series of videos used to demonstrate real life applications.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRD40Sidevs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WPY3I8yTkY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9iHbrlVHMA