Typology: Professional contexts

Posted Dec 26 2013 by nicki lee

This typology focuses on mechanisms to embed professional contexts in the curriculum. The variations outlined form a continuum from basic simulations to each student working with a partner or client that they have sourced. Some of the pros and cons of these approaches are provided. While not exhaustive, it can be used as a tool to support decision-making in curriculum design relative to curriculum control, goals and available resources.

Download the pdf

Description Pros Cons
Simulations A capstone experience that is based on an external model but is wholly designed and controlled, with no explicit external stakeholders/ partners.
  • Academic requirements and professional experiences can be balanced
  • Able to deliver consistent, well-structured curriculum because context is stable
  • Equitable in terms of processes and learning outcomes
  • No partners to manage
  • Maintains some features of the ‘real world’ experience
  • Can be limited in terms of real world experience, depending on staff knowledge of professional contexts
  • Possibly limited in scope for students to individualise according to career directions
  • Relevance, currency and student experience opportunities have to be carefully monitored and renewed
  • Student perceptions of authenticity need to be managed
External frameworks Completely class based but designed around an external framework leading to competition or similar. Students may never engage with an external stakeholder directly, but it is explicit that the brief is external to the course.
  • Academic requirements and professional experiences can be balanced
  • Able to deliver consistent curriculum where context is stable
  • Equitable in terms of processes and learning outcomes
  • No partners to manage
  • Competitions are structured, and can be highly motivating and engaging
  • Limited number of competitions that are appropriate
  • Possibly limited in scope for students to individualise according to career directions
  • May not be stable – criteria can change too late for curriculum response
  • Timing relative to delivery must be considered
  • May not be flexible in content and can become disconnected from desired learning experience/outcomes
Single
ongoingpartnership		 Ongoing partnership with one external partner or client, ie the same client continues over a period of years and the projects/activities are fairly standard or continuous. Students may not even engage with the external partner to any great degree (may just present outcomes).
  • Academic requirements and professional experiences can be balanced
  • One curriculum to deliver to all students
  • Able to deliver consistent curriculum over time because context is stable
  • Just one external stakeholder to find and manage
  • Partner unlikely to completely pull out mid-stream
  • Partner and peer evaluation/learning can alleviate supervision load
  • Finding a partner to provide a project that can run over time can be difficult
  • Limited in scope for students to individualise according to future career directions
  • Quality needs careful design, managing and renewal to maintain ‘real-world’ feel
  • Single partner can become less engaged with process and provide less input as time goes on
  • Projects can become stale over time so renewals are needed
Multiple ongoing partnerships Ongoing partnerships with multiple external partners, i.e. the same partners continue over a period of years and the activities are fairly standard or continuous, such as working with a local community group, or running a newspaper. Students work in small groups or individually, each with a different brief.
  • Academic requirements and professional experiences may be balanced over time
  • Learning needs/curriculum design can be reasonably stable over time with good relationships
  • Ongoing relationships reduce need for managing expectations in each delivery
  • Partners unlikely to pull out mid-stream
  • Partner and peer evaluation/learning can alleviate supervision load
  • Finding/maintaining a number of ongoing partners is time intensive and risky, alternative projects may be needed
  • Partners can require individual and ongoing management, as can balancing client requirements with academic
  • If partners/projects are similar, somewhat limited in scope for students to individualise according to future career directions
  • Projects can become stale over time so renewals are needed
  • Multiple potential external assessors can take different approaches
Multiple one-off partnerships Situated in classroom practice as a learning process, this category is unlikely to be formalised in assessment. Opportunities are provided to students to share and compare learning, and to debate perspectives. This may manifest throughout the unit – as a method of reinforcing given information, or at the conclusion of stages – requiring students to articulate and test their ideas with an audience of peers.
  • Academic requirements and professional experiences may be balanced over time
  • Learning needs/curriculum design can be reasonably stable over time with good relationships
  • Ongoing relationships reduce need for managing expectations in each delivery
  • Partners unlikely to pull out mid-stream
  • Partner and peer evaluation/learning can alleviate supervision load
  • Finding/maintaining a number of ongoing partners is time intensive and risky, alternative projects may be needed
  • Partners can require individual and ongoing management, as can balancing client requirements with academic
  • If partners/projects are similar, somewhat limited in scope for students to individualise according to future career directions
  • Projects can become stale over time so renewals are needed
  • Multiple potential external assessors can take different approaches

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Skip to toolbar