Developing ownership of new course units through participatory curriculum design

Rick Ladyshewsky
School of Physiotherapy, Curtin University of Technology

Innovations in curriculum design are often lost when multiple tutors are given the task of implementing the new course content. Methods of developing ownership over these innovations, therefore, needs to be incorporated into curriculum design. Participation in the design of curriculum becomes a major factor. This paper will describe a participatory approach to curriculum design in a supervisory course for clinical supervisors engaged in cross cultural supervision. The method that will be described differs considerably from traditional methods of curriculum design where the unit co-ordinator is the sole contributor in designing the content and delivery of the unit. Issues that will be presented are: methods of defining the content of the curriculum; using the action research approach to increase participatory input; and, designing a valid and useful curriculum. The development of this curriculum involved cyclical meetings with important stakeholders (students, clinical supervisors and other 'experts'). The paper illustrates how the participatory method led to a definition of the problem and the emergence of a valid curriculum which was accepted by the stakeholders. To this end, the new curriculum met objectives of adult learning and of being useful, practical and immediately relevant to clinical supervisors engaged in cross cultural supervision.

Why do successful, well developed and trialed course units sometimes flounder when they are later taught by people other than those who developed them? This was an issue which came to the fore in two consecutive groups of academics who undertook action research curriculum projects at Curtin University in 1994 and 1995, respectively.

The dilemma it caused for two of the lecturers became the focus of a paper which they presented with one of the current authors at the Western Australian Teaching and Learning Forum earlier this year (Hall, King and Lawrance, 1996). In a sense this paper is a sequel to that paper. It revisits the dilemma and the insights made about it within the literature on curriculum theory in the light of an example of a possible way forward. Finally, on a sobering note, reference is made to the inherently difficult nature of designing changes for others to carry out.

Unearthing a dilemma in curriculum design

The two projects were undertaken within action research groups funded by Access and Equity moneys specifically targeting NESB students. These groups and their curriculum development work constituted a part of the planned implementation of the Curtin Cross-Cultural Education Policy in 1994 and 1995. In all, nine lecturers undertook projects, with the help of colleagues within the action research group and the action research facilitator (the first mentioned author of this paper). Over the course of one semester the lecturers in these groups systematically collected data on, reflected and made informed changes to the way they implemented innovations to their own course units. The beneficial outcomes to the students involved were substantial have been recorded elsewhere (Hall, 1995; King, 1995; Lawrance 1995; Nowak, 1995; Efford, Pearson and Ngui, 1996; Ladyshewsky, 1996; McGowan, 1996).

The dilemma arose for Chris and Bill when the innovations which they successfully introduced were subsequently required to be taught by other teaching staff. That these benefits were either not obvious to or achievable by the subsequent teachers of those units is a matter for contemplation. A question that comes quickly to mind is that of consultation. Were the other teachers adequately consulted about the changes required and did they believe them to be worthwhile?

In fact, consultation and dissemination of findings during and after the action research had been completed was something which was emphasised in all of the projects. Mindful of the need to inform and involve as many as possible of those effected within any change process, the facilitator encouraged all of the lecturers to design and carry out strategies for achieving on-going consultation and collaboration within their immediate work contexts. Most lecturers decided to:

1. Inform their Heads of Schools and/or Departments and elicit support for their projects;
2. Notify colleagues of their undertaking in a manner appropriate to the organisational ethos. (For example give a seminar and seek feedback, chat informally or circulate a memo);
3. Enlist a "critical friend" to discuss data and reflections;
4. Present findings and a summary of the process to colleagues at the end of the development period; and
5. Present their findings at University wide seminars and in publications within the literatures of their respective disciplinary fields.

The dilemma in two contexts

Chris's context

She set up a meeting to explain her rationale for the innovation, the changes it involved to the unit and the changes it required in teaching. The tutors were specifically asked for and gave their responses to these changes. There was unanimous approval and they agreed to meet with Chris at four times during the semester to discuss any issues or problems which might arise. This proceeded as Chris explained below,

To obtain feedback from tutors I paid them for additional meeting time and due to their different timetables I had individual meetings with the tutors. Feedback from the tutors was favourable and according to the tutors all was going well. The tutors had eliminated mini -lectures during the tutorials and they were concentrating on the tutorial exercises. They believed that the program was working. (Hall, King and Lawrance, 1996, p. 60)

Students were told in the lecture that I had introduced changes into the unit to encourage students to know each other, to improve group work, to increase their learning, and hopefully, to increase their enjoyment of the class. The need for feedback from students was also discussed and accepted by students. However, unlike in the 1994 study, the actual action research project and process was not explained to the students. (Hall, King and Lawrance, 1996, p. 59)

During the lecture which followed the fourth tutorial I asked students to fill in an evaluation of the tutorials. To my surprise, excluding my own class, less than 33% had completed both the exercises or attempted the exercises [on cross-cultural interaction] during the tutorials and very few had completed the exercise with the students who they had chosen to complete their major assignments with [a required follow-up to the first exercise]. Some students stated they were put into groups and they had changed these groups themselves. Students attitudes about the exercises were also poor; one student asking rather sarcastically whether the exam paper was going to be "....a social question?"

Bill's context

When he was developing the laboratory unit Bill taught in all five of the laboratory sessions. He was helped by some sessional staff (postgraduate students of the school) who practised his interactive inquiry-based style of teaching with him in a team teaching situation. One staff member who took a particular interest became his "critical friend" in the project.

In the second year when others had to take over the teaching the inquiry-based approach could not be achieved. Bill's account of the problems faced is as follows.

The following semester (1/95) the unit ran again, with an increased enrolment of 280. Although I gave the lectures, the lab. sessions were allocated out, mainly to postgraduate students. Unfortunately, one of the tutors, who had been very involved in the curriculum development, and who had been my "critical friend " on the project in 1994, was not re-appointed when his contract expired. (He failed in his application for the job because he did not have a doctorate.) I sent copies of the new program to laboratory supervisors and told them this was how the program should run. To my surprise the program did not run successfully. There were complaints from both students and staff that the lab. sessions were disorganised, that they were not sure what was trying to be achieved, that assessment was difficult etc. Worst of all was the query as to when the old lab. manuals would be available again.

• Where did the new program go wrong?
• Why wasn't the intrinsic merit of the program apparent to the new supervisors?
• What should I have done to avoid the problems which arose?

In retrospect there are some actions which I consider would have helped promote the new program. For example:

1. Advertise the success of the initial program. A campus-wide seminar was conducted at the Teaching Learning Group in the university, however this was not attended by staff from the School of Electrical Engineering.
2. Discuss with laboratory supervisors what the aims of the new program were. Obviously there was some confusion here as the postgraduates related the lab. sessions to their own experiences in First year.
3. The new program was seen to be an interesting concept with "belonged" to me. Since the program was meant to be modified each year it would have been appropriate to have input from the new supervisors so that they felt some ownership of the program themselves.

Some insights from the literature

In light of the given insights from the literature, it would appear that if innovations in teaching are to be taken up by teachers other than those who developed them, then participation by the "others" needs to be even more embedded in the curriculum design than it was in these two cases. The case sketch below provides a possible solution. It illustrates how ownership and acceptance of new content and teaching processes can be achieved through participatory curriculum design. This example of participatory design evolved within an action research project which was subsequent to and which built on the findings of Chris's and Bill's projects.

Case sketch: Developing a clinical program for undergraduates in physiotherapy

The particular 'problem' that this course developer faced related to international students in an undergraduate physiotherapy program - specifically, the clinical practice component. An unusually high proportion of SE Asian students of a NESB experienced difficulty in their clinical placements. This difficulty ranged from outright failure to poor performance in general with the most common criticisms being that these student's lacked 'problem solving ability' and needed to be 'spoon fed'. This was an interesting criticism given that most of these students had done well in the academic component of the curriculum. The most obvious interpretation was that there was a cross cultural issue interfering with the student's performance and evaluation.

While the clinical co-ordinator had several years of experience in the area of fieldwork education and was familiar with supervision theory, the cross cultural dimension was a new. In the past experiences of the clinical co-ordinator, students from a SE Asian NESB did occasionally run into difficulty during their clinical placements. The problems usually corrected themselves - although the resolution was often difficult and time consuming. With the increasing number of SE Asian students enrolled in the program, however, the problem was becoming much more evident and in need of attention as it was now an equity issue.

While the literature offers a variety of theories and explanations for the challenges SE Asian students face when engaged in study in Western countries, most of them relate to classroom practice and written work (Ballard & Clanchy 1991, Fejgin 1995, Samuelowicz 1987, Schneider et al 1994, Shi 1988, Shwu-Yong & Waxman 1995, Sue & Okazaki 1990, Yee 1989, Zhang 1995). Very few deal with training issues in professional fieldwork education.

Given the limits to the literature on cross cultural influences in professional training, a different approach was needed to try and develop a greater understanding of the cross cultural influence in fieldwork education. Once this understanding was improved, it would then be possible for the course developer to begin the process of designing a curriculum to address this topic. To this end, three stages were viewed as necessary to achieve this outcome.

Stage 1. Exploration of the Problem
Stage 2. Clarification of the Problem
Stage 3. Defining the Problem and Developing Strategies

Group 1	Nine International students of a SE Asian NESB.
Group 2	Eleven Clinical Supervisors with experiences in cross cultural supervision.
Group 3	Critical experts with experience in cross cultural supervision or teaching.
Group 4	Action Research project resource group.

The first two groups were the core group of students and supervisors with direct experiences in cross cultural teaching/learning and supervision. The third group of critical experts emerged as the action research project moved through its various cycles. Quite often, an issue arose through discussion with the core groups. In order to define the issue further, the course developer would meet with individuals who had been identified as having experience in the area under question. These critical experts provided useful insight into many of the issues that were emerging. They also helped to confirm some of the concepts that were emerging from the core group.

The last group was a collection of four lecturers engaged in cross cultural action research projects and an action research facilitator. Since all of these projects (including the one being presented in this paper) were funded by Curtin University of Technology through the Equity and Access Initiative Fund, the group met regularly to review the progress of each project. The group was extremely useful in helping participants move forward with their projects. The specific roster of meetings are delineated in figure 2.

All of these individuals had significant input into various stages that were described earlier. While these 3 stages seem distinct, they turned out to be quite inter-related. The first stage of the action research project was the exploration of the problem. Given that the course developer needed to understand the problem at a deeper level, this was an essential stage. Both the initial student and clinical supervisor focus group sessions were spent exploring the following question, "What did you see as issues in a cross cultural clinical supervision experience?"

After several focus group sessions with both parties, the course developer moved into stage two. This involved summarising the themes into broad concepts that were emerging from the discussions and sharing them with the groups. Clarification was sought by the participants in order to ensure that the course developer was not adding his own interpretation to the summaries. Both groups fine tuned or clarified the concepts based upon their own experiences and either rejected or agreed with what was being illustrated. In some cases, the summaries provided the individuals with deeper insight into cross cultural supervision as served as a developmental experience. The issues that the group articulated were broken down into several themes:

• Differences in Western vs. Eastern Models of Education
• Lack of cultural awareness
• The student's view of the teacher's role
• The teacher's view of the student's role
• Respect and authority in learning
• The teacher as the expert
• Self-esteem of the students
• Student stress
• Self Evaluation as a Western construct
• General language issues such as word selection in a professional context, communication style as a method of building rapport with clients

The action research cycle provided the course developer with a useful framework in which to explore the development of a new curriculum. The curriculum development process was very different from conventional methods of course design. In most cases lecturers have a concept of the final product. In contrast, in an action research approach, the curriculum evolves based upon the ongoing research and cyclical participatory input.

Since the development of the curriculum involved the end users to such a great degree, the course developer can more confidently develop a program which will meet the needs of the learner. The focus group sessions were rich with examples of the challenges both students and clinical supervisors face in a cross cultural teaching and learning situation. These examples will be valuable additions to the curriculum since they can be used to highlight the concepts that will be covered in the course. To this end, the course participants should see immediate relevance to their own practice.

1.	Student Focus Group Meeting 1
2.	Group Meeting 1 (AR project resource group)
3.	Clinical Instructor Focus Group Meeting 1
4.	Individual Meeting 1 (AR Project facilitator)
5.	Cross Cultural Nursing Educator Interview - Critical Expert
6.	Cross Cultural Counselling Seminar: - Critical Expert
7.	Student Focus Group Meeting 2
8.	Clinical Instructors Focus Group Meeting 2
9.	SE Asian Clinical Instructor Interview - Critical Expert
10.	Group Meeting 2 (AR Project resource group)
11.	Student Focus Group Meeting 3
12.	Clinical Instructor Focus Group Meeting 3
13.	Field Observation - 2 students
14.	Field Observation - 2 students
15.	NESB Communication in Context Seminar
16.	SPEAK Program Seminar (SPEAK is a special program for non-English speakers to encourage them to engage in more conversational dialogue as part of their studies)
17.	Individual meeting 2 (AR Project facilitator)
18.	Group Meeting 3 (AR Project resource group)
19.	Student Focus Group Meeting 4
20.	Meeting with Educator who works with NESB students - Critical Expert
21.	Student Focus Group Meeting 5
22.	Group Session 4 (AR Project resource group)

The action research cycle proved to be a valuable tool for curriculum development. It was found to be particularly useful in exploring a problem which was poorly represented in the literature and in the background expertise of the course developer. For this reason, lecturers who are given the responsibility for developing a new course may find the action research process to be extremely valuable. The methodology helped the course developer to apply much of his own expertise in supervision theory to a new area of practice - cross cultural supervision.

The most difficult part of curriculum design has been completed. Having gained a greater understanding of the problem, it is now possible to design a curriculum using the information brought forward by the project participants. Anxiety levels about designing a new course and the relevance to end users was minimised given such a high degree of participant input into the development of the content. This achieved, the challenge now becomes one of designing the most appropriate way of presenting the content. The fact that there was such a high degree of end user participation makes this challenge easier.

Conclusion

References

Efford, P., Pearson, M. and Ngui, M. (1996). Design culture cross cultural concepts and meaning related to design: A pilot program. Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings HERDSA Conference 1996. Perth, Western Australia, 8-12 July. http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/efford.html

Fejgin, N. (1995). Factors contributing to the academic excellence of American Jewish and Asian students. Sociology of Education, 68, 18-30.

Gappa, J. and Leslie, D. (1993). The Invisible Faculty. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Inc.

Hall, S. H. (1995). Reflective practice in cross-cultural university teaching. In Summers, L. (Ed), A Focus on Learning, p116-120. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Edith Cowan University, February 1995. Perth: Edith Cowan University. http://cea.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1995/halls.html

Hall, S., King, C. and Lawrance, B. (1996). Which way next? Sustaining innovative changes in units with multiple tutors. In Abbott, J. and Willcoxson, L. (Eds), Teaching and Learning Within and Across Disciplines, p57-64. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Murdoch University, February 1996. Perth: Murdoch University. http://cea.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1996/hall.html

Hancock, J., Clark, H., Rea, J. and Fitzpatrick, J. (1982). The Counsellor in the Innovations Program. A report on a Commonwealth Schools Commission Project. Sturt Campus, Adelaide College of Advanced Education, Adelaide, South Australia.

King, C. (1995). Developing cross-cultural interaction in a university classroom. In Summers, L. (Ed), A Focus on Learning, p139-143. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Edith Cowan University, February 1995. Perth: Edith Cowan University. http://cea.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1995/king.html

Ladyshewsky, R. (1996). Cross cultural clinical supervision: The impact of culture on teaching and learning. Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings HERDSA Conference 1996. Perth, Western Australia, 8-12 July. http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/ladyshewsky1.html

Lawrence, W. B. (1995). A cross-cultural curriculum development project in Electrical Engineering at Curtin University. In Summers, L. (Ed), A Focus on Learning, p153-156. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Edith Cowan University, February 1995. Perth: Edith Cowan University. http://cea.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1995/lawrence.html

McGowan, J., (1996). Cross cultural curriculum development: Breaking the mould - marketing law tutorials for a cross cultural class. Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings HERDSA Conference 1996. Perth, Western Australia, 8-12 July. http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/mcgowanj.html

Nowak, R. (1995). Student opinion questionnaire case study. In Summers, L. (Ed), A Focus on Learning, p186-189. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Edith Cowan University, February 1995. Perth: Edith Cowan University. http://cea.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1995/nowak.html

Ramsden, P., Margetson, D., Martin, E. and Clarke, S. (1995). Recognising and Rewarding Good Teaching in Australian Higher Education. A Report to the Committee for Advancement of University Teaching.

Samuelowicz, K. (1987). Learning problems of overseas students. Higher Education Research and Development, 13, 49-57.

Schneider, B., Hieshima, J., Lee, S. and Plank, S. (1994). East-Asian academic success in the United States: Family, school, and community explanations. In P. Greenfield and R. Cocking (Eds), Cross-Cultural Roots of Minority Child Development. Hillsdale New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 323-350.

Shi, F. (1988). Asian-American students on college campuses. The Education Digest, 52, 59-62.

Shwu-Yong, L. H. and Waxman, H. C. (1995). Motivation and learning environment differences between Asian-American and white middle school students in mathematics. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 28, 208-219.

Smith, D. and Lovett, T. (1995). Curriculum: Action on Reflection. Social Science Press, Wentworth Falls, New South Wales, Australia.

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. Heinemann, London.

Stuart Hunter, Mary (1995). Video link-up from University of South Carolina, USA, a keynote address to the seminar, First Year Experience, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia.

Sue, S. and Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian-American educational achievements: A phenomenon in search of an explanation. American Psychologist, 45, 913-920.

Yee, A. (1989). Cross-Cultural Perspectives on higher education in East Asia: Psychological effects upon Asian students. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 10, 213-232.

Zhang, Y. (1995). Asian students in the United States: Lessons that can be learned. Singapore Journal of Education, 15, 14-20.

Endnote

Pseudonyms have not been used here because the description comes from the lecturers' own publications of their projects.