Standards, objectives, outcomes, competencies… there are various names for the expectations of curriculums (Drake, 1998). In New Zealand we refer to them as
achievement objectives (Ministry of Education, 2007). However Drake (1998) identifies four different types of standards: content; performance; opportunity-to-learn; and life- long.
Drake (1998) articulates the concern that when standards are created we are essentially deciding what is worth knowing, and while content or performance standards focus on the idea of unmalleable notions of knowledge, in truth, knowledge is dynamic and is currently expanding at exponential rates. Thus, it would seem, such standards
developed through a life-long lens, would be more receptive to the changing nature of knowledge while providing a focus for curriculum development that transcends disciplines of knowledge and reflects authentic and real-life contexts, providing transferability to other contexts. Such standards would also appear to be the perfect platform for developing organizing centres or themes for curriculum integration and New Zealand’s key competencies are congruent with this type of standard.
2.6
Benefits of Curriculum Integration
The benefits of curriculum integration have been widely investigated and various benefits have been claimed. Wallace et al (2007) have noted the benefit of increased engagement due to the relevance of the learning and the meaning created. Beane (1992; 1997) notes the benefits of better relationships between students, and students and teachers; a better sense of community; higher order knowledge development; increased application of knowledge; and collaborative planning. Terry (2008) also highlights the inclusiveness of curriculum integration, suggesting that it is not only of benefit to regular students but also those who are gifted, and William and Reisberg (2003) highlight the benefits for those of low-ability and special needs also.
2.7
Barriers to Curriculum Integration
Dowden (2007a; 2007b) describes the major barriers to curriculum integration, at a national level, as being reflective of the current conservative political perspectives
plaguing the United States, Australia and New Zealand; as well as the continuing uncertainty and perplexity of curriculum integration itself.
At a more local level for schools, Drake (1998) and Miller and Drake (1995) highlight key barriers to curriculum integration as being extensive but surmountable. Within schools where subjects are taught by separate teachers as in most high schools, timetabling
becomes a key issue and new approaches to how classes and learning are structured have to be considered. Staff resistance is also a barrier (Bartlett, 2005; Carr et al., 2000; Drake, 1998). Professional development, collaborative planning and support and extra time helps to overcome this barrier. Community and parental resistance can also be a barrier. Informing parents and the community about curriculum integration, and ensuring that teachers articulate to both students and parents the focuses for learning and the key concepts being developed, will help parents and the wider community become more confident about curriculum integration (Bartlett, 2005; Beane, 1997).
Other barriers to contend with are identified by Bartlett (2005) and Drake (1998) as
ensuring the integrity and quality of the knowledge and the integration program, finding adequate resourcing, developing core subject learning adequately, and accessing and using adequate assessment procedures. Such barriers will take time to conquer but regular evaluation, reflection, communication and adaptation should help to work through these; highlighting the importance of a managed system of change within
schools that supports and develops teachers and students through curriculum integration (Ellis, 2005).
2.8
Criticisms of Curriculum Integration
Beane (1997) and Ellis (2005) attribute the most obvious criticism of curriculum integration as coming from educational traditionalists who argue that due to
collaboration with students, the learning being developed is random and, potentially, haphazard, failing to be of any worth to students. Beane (1997), Ellis (2005), Loepp
teachers force integration so it lacks depth and integrity. All of these educators agree that not everything should be integrated.
Audet (2005b) and Beane (1997) suggest teachers may face criticism as they work to overcome dominant school structures and opinions, face challenges to their teaching philosophy and spend extensive amounts of time preparing and organising. Criticisms also stem from the voices of parents, who, not understanding curriculum integration, feel that it is a means of experimentation that can potentially fail and lead to crucial loss of time in children’s learning (Beane, 1997; Drake, 1998).
Schug and Cross (1998) argue vehemently against curriculum integration suggesting that many of the beliefs advocating curriculum integration are simply myths, especially in regards to comparing it to the separate subject approach. Brophy and Alleman (2002) argue that curriculum integration, while sometimes necessary and useful, is often misused. They suggest that curriculum integration can often lack educational value, be full of ‘busy work’, distort content knowledge, have task expectations that are difficult at best, and expect students to do things about which they have no prior knowledge or understanding and are therefore likely to fail.
3.
Key Competencies in Education
3.1
Introduction
Rychen (2003) explains that the purpose of competencies is to allow individuals to successfully fulfil the many different roles that they may be called upon within their lives. They are not an end in themselves, but if students are provided with the learning opportunities needed to develop these, they are useful tools that can help lead students to effectively meet all of life’s challenges (Rychen, 2003).
“Competency is the ability to carry out a complex task that requires the integration of knowledge, skills and attitudes… Competencies enable people to perform effectively in a particular environment,” (Jordan, Carlile, & Stack, 2009: 203)
This section will consider the theoretical underpinnings of key competencies; the history of them and development across the world and in New Zealand; the New Zealand Key Competencies in the revised curriculum, and their practical application as well as their links to the QueenslandNew Basics project. Finally, potential benefits, barriers and criticisms will be considered.
3.2
Theoretical Underpinnings of the Key Competencies
The development of key competencies reflects the current changes in educational focus from the traditional curricula development through the individual disciplines. It is widely recognised that knowledge is dynamic, and the move to focus on key
competencies indicates the new impetus to understand that knowledge is dynamic and naturally draws across disciplines (Drake, 1998; Kearns, 2001; Ministry of Education, 2005; Ouane, 2003; Trier, 2003). Competencies typically combine related attitudes, values, knowledge, and skills, progress on a continuum, relate to given contexts and can be learned and taught (Gilomen, 2003c).
At the theoretical base of the concept of key competencies are theories of learning such as sociocultural theory and situated learning theories (Carr, 2006; Hipkins, 2006; Kearns, 2001). Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, where knowledge and understanding is co- constructed through authentic learning experiences that involve interactions with others, provides theoretical validity to the concept of key competencies and their development across the disciplines and over time (Bartlett, 2005; Hipkins, 2001). Situated learning theories go further: learning occurs within certain contexts and this learning can only be transferred when learners have multiple opportunities to experience the same learning in a variety of different situations and contexts (Arnold & Ryan, 2005). Situated learning theory posits the importance of transference of learning and provides the premise for
such transferability to occur, especially for generic understandings that apply to all aspects of life and learning.
Key competencies, as designed in the reviewed New Zealand curriculum, provide a crucial facet and focus for life-long learning in such a manner, enabling multiple opportunities for learning development and transference of this to other contexts (Brink, 2002). Gonczi (2003) suggests in order to seriously develop key competencies; a change in previous assumptions about learning is needed and situated learning, constructivist based theories of learning help to support this.