Revitalizing High School Education

Introduction

Learning in schools, universities, and the workplace is crucial to students and individuals as it impacts the relevant knowledge that allows growth and success. Over the years, teaching and learning have undergone different changes to accommodate the ever-changing needs of students and teaching practice. Specifically, in a high school context, teachers’ and learners’ needs must be incorporated into curriculum development and teaching delivery to enhance students’ understanding (Chen, Wang, and Neo, 2015). This paper explores a rationale and specific recommended changes to teaching and learning based on informed literature. The paper will discuss the possible area of improvement, critically analyze the literature used based on theoretical argument, as well as link the recommendations to practice besides giving a conclusion.

The specific context where improvement is needed is in high school. Notably, the high school context acts as a transition from primary education to tertiary education. It forms an imperative level where if there is no adequate care in student learning development, future education success has numerous challenges. High school education forms a foundation for university, postgraduate, and workplace informal learning. Therefore, it is advisable to reevaluate high school education and create a better transition for students through better teaching practice. The possible area of improvement in learning and teaching is curriculum development. It involves creating purposeful, systematic as well as progressive improvement in the education system to meet world-changing learning needs. Given that learning and teaching is a continuous process, based on the theory of constructivism, curriculum development is a necessary change.

In the former high school, the curriculum design employed was subject-based. The teachers choose what subject to teach in a certain discipline. Critical thinking is taught together with some content previously discussed by teachers. The curriculum approach does not involve the students’ strengths and weaknesses other than what they should learn. It is a traditional approach that envisages tutors as the only expert in education matters directing student thinking situations. Students are passively awaiting tutors’ guidance as well as leadership in acquiring knowledge. Notably, the tutor presents all learning materials and creates an environment where students repeat shared knowledge.

Literature Used

This paper uses a book by Kaya and Akdemir (2016) as a base of argument. The book contains teaching and learning concepts and their connection to learners’ and teachers’ knowledge development. The literature used in this discussion will be from the last decade. It ensures that the knowledge reviewed and analyzed is up-to-date and incorporates current changes as too old literature may evaluate propose changes that already have solutions. Using peer-reviewed books offers benefits like eliminating theoretical errors and guaranteeing evidence-based conclusions. Likewise, the reviewed book contains teaching and learning concepts to maintain the relevance of the subject under study. Besides, it gives enough theoretical frameworks to a base conclusion.

Possible areas of improvement

Changes in Curriculum development

Curriculum change is the most suitable change in teaching and learning. It involves careful planning and implementation of instructional strategies focused on developing student learning outcomes and teaches knowledge delivery. Instructors will have to structure their curriculum around the specific assignment, daily lesson, certain unit, or the entire high school educational program. Teachers should consider different factors during curriculum planning that might hinder delivery or students’ understanding (Alsubaie, 2016). Educators will have to change the high school curriculum by ensuring the learning outcomes expected meets student’s knowledge needs based on the level of education and all material incorporated in school teaching are comprehensible as well as current. Failure to ensure up-to-date materials gives rise to knowledge deficiency in current issues (Alsubaie, 2016).

Teachers responsible for the curriculum development process must ensure that the high school education curriculum has six components necessary for effective teaching. These components give a strong foundation for the undergraduate and graduate level of education. They include the curriculum demonstrating enough knowledge of content, knowledge of the student, knowledge of resources, suitable instructional goals, coherent instruction, as well as assess student’s learning and knowledge skills. When the curriculum developed lacks these key components, students acquire insufficient knowledge, which later affects knowledge development in university education and work-related informal learning.

There are various curriculum designs, namely, subject-centered, learner-centered, as well as problem-centered (Rodrigo, 2017). The subject-centered curriculum involves focusing on a particular subject like mathematics, biology, or literature. It is more inclined to the specific subject outcomes rather than student needs. Educators compile subjects to be studied and delivered in class. On the other hand, the learner-centered curriculum focuses on student interests, goals, and needs (Rodrigo, 2017). It is the best approach that this paper recommends. The approach acknowledges that students are not identical in understanding; therefore, a standardized curriculum would not solve knowledge deficiency. It empowers individual students by offering choices. There is an opportunity to select learning and teaching activities and assignments. From research, this curriculum approach engages and motivates students, enhancing their understanding (Chen, Wang, and Neo, 2015). Problem-centered teaches the skills of looking at a problem and later formulating a solution (Rodrigo, 2017). It encourages creativity, innovativeness, and classroom collaboration.

Changing curriculum development as a significant change in teaching and learning in high school follows the constructivism theory. According to this theory, learning is an active and contextualized process where an individual constructs knowledge instead of acquiring it (Bada and Olusegun, 2015). A learner brings in past experiences, ideas, events, and activities in a manner that provides mutual interaction. Knowledge gets constructed out of individual will rather than repetition and imitation (Bada and Olusegun, 2015). Each person has a specific interpretation and knowledge construction process. Therefore, as noted above, a learner-centered approach in curriculum design should take precedence.

Introduction of assessment for learning

Over the recent past, there has been growing interest in assessment for learning with researchers and practitioners emphasizing that assessment for learning is an effective tool for supporting learning to enhance teaching. Recent literature on assessment establishes there is need for educators to integrate assessment for learning in their teaching and assessment practice as it has a significant impact of future development of the subject (Pereira 2016).

Unlike traditional assessment methods, assessment for learning enhances students’ learning as well as development of teaching and assessing thus has more elaborate role in shaping the future of education (Leirhaug and MacPhail 2015). Assessment for learning can be defined as any form of assessment whose priority is serving the purpose of promoting pupils’ learning (Pereira 2016). Assessment for learning is commonly viewed from the constructivist perspective of learning in that it is based on what works in teaching and learning (Tolgfors 2018). On the other hand, Spector et al. (2014) state that assessment for learning falls in the category of self-regulated learning model in that it adapts teaching to the needs of individual students. Teachers can use different assessment for learning techniques such as peer and self-assessment in identifying the needs of individual students. Additionally, teachers can use summative assessment techniques in assessment for learning as long as these assessments have formative functions that enables teachers to provide learners feedback (Boud and Soler 2016).

Assessment for learning is based on five key strategies including; (1) to clarify and share the intentions of learning with individual learners, (2) to develop effective discussions, activities, and tasks in classrooms that leave evidence of learning, (3) to provide feedback that enables learners to progress towards the learning outcomes, (4) to activate learners to become learning resources for each other, and (5) to empower learners to own up learning (Healey 2014). Teachers are free to invent ways in which these strategies.

Assessment for learning is perceived to contribute to learner-centered methods of learning thus effective in fostering development of autonomy, reflection, and a sense of responsibility among students (Moate and Cox 2015). On the other hand, Lumpkin et al. (2015) state that assessment for learning influences the ways through which learners look at their own learning resulting in deep learning. Further, Ebert-May et al. (2015) note that assessment for learning is both problem and case-based thus helps students to acquire professional skills and learning in different contexts. For these benefits, it would be beneficial to integrate assessment for learning in high schools.

Theories informing the suggested changes

Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development

Vygotsky’s cognitive development theory is helpful in shaping a learner-centered curriculum as opposed to the subject-centered and problem-centered curriculum. The theory asserts some major themes, which include social interaction having a fundamental role in cognitive development. It also emphasizes More Knowledgeable Other (MKO), which relates to a person with higher ability as compared to that of a learner, for example, a teacher who influences learning development. Lastly, it asserts the concept of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Daniels, 2016: Kaya and Akdemir, 2016). It is a distance between the learners’ ability to solve problems independently and when they have guidance from another person. Based on these themes, the curriculum developed should equip teachers with enough skills that guide students to develop knowledge other than acquiring it.

Kaya and Akdemir, (2016) literature offering ideas in learning and teaching has comprehensive information. It offers different theories related to teaching and learning and explaining the significance of curriculum development. It explains that the curriculum supports students’ critical, reflective, as well as creative thinking techniques revealing student’s multi-faceted development. However, the literature does not offer a clear method of curriculum development inclined to students’ and teacher learning and teaching growth, respectively. Kaya and Akdemir (2016) argument is theoretically sound. There are different theories explained in the literature that forms the overall foundation towards advocating for curriculum change to teaching and learning.

Curriculum change is fundamental in practice. Based on the literature, the school needs curriculum change as it develops students’ and teachers’ thinking skills. It also raises thinking individuals who do not necessarily rely on knowledge acquired but rather construct their knowledge. The scientific approach to curriculum development and change in the literature suggests that a more learner-centered curriculum design enhances student understanding. It shifts losses incurred by students as they learn without internalizing and understanding what they learn. It offers a new understanding and platform of processing information, in turn producing new knowledge to learners and teachers. Based on this evidence, it is plausible to conclude that curriculum change that focusses on learner-centered development is fundamental in high school.

The performativity theory

The performativity theory focusses on what is performed and produced in the formative assessment practice in teaching and learning (Charteris et al. 2016). When viewing assessment for learning from the performativity perspective, Dann (2016) states that focus should be placed on how the current educational policies and curriculum offers teachers and students opportunities to interact and influence what will be delivered. On the other hand, Brown (2016) argues that the performativity theory focuses on the discursive practices performed in a classroom and the kind of knowledge and attitude these practices have on individuals and the world at large. The performativity theory can be applied as a critical reflexive tool in different studies with an aim of maximizing the efficiency of education through controlling outcomes and creating a culture of accountability (Harman et al. 2016). For this benefit to be attained, Pereira (2014) notes that compliance is key and both teachers and students have to remain accountable to each other. Nonetheless, there is a possibility to act in different ways: teachers and students can either accept or reject compliance as well as obey or resist accountability, which hinders full realization of the expected outcomes (Macfarlane 2015). Although performativity is widely associated with accountability Kalfa and Taksa (2017) identify two ways in which teachers can act in their teaching practices names creativity and personal learning. Promotion of creativity helps students to develop individual initiatives, problem-solving and imagination skills in the learning process. On the other hand, personal learning helps teachers to take into account the needs and interests of individual learners.

Performativity emphasizes the need to use different versions of assessment for learning in the teaching practice based on students and teachers respond to the actions of each other (Wilkins 2015). For example, Addison (2014) asserts that transformative assessment is more effective than conformative assessment in helping individual learners meet their learning needs. Transformative assessment in this case appreciates the role of contingency in assessment criteria and the possible influence students will have on the assessment practice. According to Butler (2015) the applicability of performativity theory in development of collective understanding and collaborative educational experiences is challenged, which questions the degree to which this theory is sound. For this reason, there has been a paradigm shift to the didactic perspective.

The didactic perspective

The recurrent actions of students and teachers in formative assessment has resulted in the development of a cultural pattern which is metaphorically referred to as fabrication (Trepule et al. 2015). These fabrications are grouped based of the most prominent features that correspond to the functions of assessment for learning under various situations. Under each fabrication, a teacher sets precise requirements for learners’ actions in the assessment practice, which implies that students are assessed differently.

Didactic assessments focus on the relationship between a teacher, the student, and the subject content. The relationship is often presented in a didactic triangle with mutual influence highlighted on all the three corners (Lyckhage and Pennbrant 2014). From a different perspective, Vlăduţescu (2014) states that education from the didactic theory is a process through which learning, socialization, and constitution of subjects occurs simultaneously. From this perspective, the practice of assessment not only seeks to promote progress towards students and teachers’ goals but also to strengthen the relationship between teachers and students.

Application to Practice

Application of Curriculum change

Based on Vygotsky’s cognitive development theory, advocating for curriculum change to teaching and learning is a suitable approach. It is a theory of constructivism that directs that reflective teaching and learning do not rely on personal efforts alone but also depends on giving priority to others. A teacher has to undertake students’ interest in curriculum development as it incorporates and sharpens students’ learning and understanding. Similarly, the student should understand the importance of teachers as they guide them in learning. The theory emphasizes collaboration between the stakeholders in the education system whose effort contributes towards a successful curriculum. Adapting Vygotsky’s cognitive development theory of constructivism offers benefits such as students can openly express individual ideas and defend these concepts against others. Students learn deeply by asking questions and setting hypotheses. Furthermore, students get an adequate opportunity of realizing different explanations and inconsistent and consistent information. The learner-centered curriculum offers student cognitive development through educative discussions.

Applying the theory of constructivism in curriculum change will include assessing teachers’ and students’ efforts. Teachers who have experience in teaching are used to assess students’ strengths and weaknesses. Understanding students’ competencies help in formulating a curriculum that covers the variance between the needed knowledge and actual students’ knowledge. Moreover, it helps understand which the best curriculum design is; either adapting a problem-centered, learner-centered, or subjected-centered approach. Once a learner-centered approach becomes most suitable, students get a chance to soliloquize as well as think aloud in problem-solving. Teachers then guide students to achieve solutions that they may not solve individually. Letting students initially solve problems without help in a well-crafted curriculum allow them to construct knowledge other than acquiring it (Alsubaie, 2016). It helps teachers offer only the necessary help until students achieve on their own. Adapting the theory of constructivism into practice requires a well-defined step hence maintaining a learner-centered approach.

When it comes to implementing the theory of constructivism in curriculum change, more research is fundamental. Currently, there is very minimal literature discussing the importance of the learner-based approach in curriculum development. Constructivism theory has different themes, as discussed in Vygotsky’s cognitive development theory. The needed research should not only look at students’ competencies but also teachers’ delivery skills. Whenever there are inadequate teachers’ delivery skills, the expected results are not achievable regardless of how well the curriculum may be. Areas of concern in curriculum development should now shift to stakeholders’ experience and not solely on implementation.

In the future, the idea of incorporating constructivism into curriculum development should be taken seriously; it has the ability to adapt to a changing world. Research should factor in what elements affect the implementation of the learner-centered curriculum. The adequate solution should thereafter be developed and evaluated to enhance dynamism. Future research in this discipline should also understand which specific competencies in teachers and students allow learners-based curriculum development. Notably, changing the curriculum must be based on theoretically proven measures. Theories adapted should enhance more reflective thinking in curriculum development other than been result-oriented.

Application of assessment for learning

I would accept and adapt the performativity theory of assessment for learning in practice. Although assessment for learning has had positive results in teaching and learning, it has its challenges including the implementation being time consuming and increased workload for teachers since teachers have to work with individual learners (Moate and Cox 2015). To overcome this limitation, teachers could give initial assessment forms to learners and ask learners complete the forms and submit them upon admission so teachers can consider the needs of different students when designing the subject content. Assessments can then be designed around this content so that learning occurs for all students. In addition, performativity theory of assessment for learning is perceived by students to be boring, which makes it difficult for teachers to authentically engage teachers (Harman and Zhang 2015). To overcome this limitation, teachers should develop interesting ways to assess learners. For example, team and group assessments would be more exciting as compared to individual sit-ins thus motivate students to participate in assessments. Further, the knowledge produced through students’ participation in assessment for learning may significantly differ from the learning outcomes stipulated in the official curriculum. To overcome this limitation, curriculum developers should incorporate students’ needs in the process of designing the curriculum. Moreover, the application of the performativity theory could result in lack of validity in the assessment tools given they are to be used for individual students. To promote validity, a single type of assessment should only be given to learners with similar learning needs and at the same level of learning.

The practical orientation of the assessment for learning has been under-elaborated in the existing literature and in particular, literature does not define the relationship between assessment for learning and different theories of learning (Tolgfors 2018). Nonetheless, teachers should be able to engage learners in the process of assessment, which would significantly promote learner autonomy, motivation, and self-regulation (Healey 2014). On the other hand, Moate and Cox (2015) note that the theories of assessment for learning are connected with the constructivist learning theory thus the principles of constructivism would promote the productivity of assessment for learning. Dann (2016) posit that in the constructive alignment, assessment for learning requires a teacher to take the role of a deliverer of the subject content stated in the syllabus. From the constructivist perspective, students in assessment for learning are seen as customers thus teacher should clarify the learning intentions for all students (Macfarlane 2015). This clarification can be attained using three questions: (1) where is the learning going, (2) where is the learner at this moment, and (3) what is the next step to help the learner get to what is desired. To help the learner through this journey, teachers should divide the course into certain themes to be covered throughout the course duration and announce the goals and knowledge requirements for every theme.

When it comes to applying assessment for learning, teachers will be required to adapt the needs of learners for each subject instead of adapting them to a general framework that can be applied to each subject. Although adapting needs to each subject is time consuming, the results are more expound given that the needs of individual learners in every subject are met (Tolgfors 2018). In addition, applying assessment for learning principles in different subjects does not require teachers to adopt a particular perspective on education since it all depends in the beliefs of a teacher about progress in students’ learning and their ability to sequence instructions in a manner that reflects what was delivered, which further saves time in assessment for learning (Macfarlane 2015). Nonetheless, assessment for learning can be solely adopted in classroom interactions or attained through involving planned and formal assessments; whichever the case, the capacity of both teachers and learners as the designers of the assessment procedures and users of information in the assessment materials determines the effectiveness of the actions adopted and their impact on learning (Dann 2016). To promote efficiency, teachers should engage learners to ensure that the mots appropriate actions and agreed upon and understood by both students and teachers. For example, if a formal assessment is agreed upon, learners and teachers should agree the areas to be covered and the way in which the assessment will be conducted. Further, teachers will be required to use both self-assessment and peer-assessment to engage learners in the assessment process. While self-assessments help students to be more assertive and well-articulated, peer-assessments allows interaction between students and creates an opportunity for formative feedback (Tolgfors 2018). Moreover, teachers should consider regular tutor-assessments as they provide learners an opportunity to learn more about the topic while articulating their knowledge. Making assessments regular is also a way of providing immediate feedback since learners compare their performance with that of previous assessments.

When it comes to implementing the idea of assessment for learning in high school, more research is required to shed more light to the actions that teachers should take to promote the quality of learning outcomes. In addition, the idea odd assessment for learning should be taken seriously in high schools for it helps students to acquire more knowledge and informs their selection of courses in higher education.

Conclusion

Summarily, the paper discussed how the curriculum and assessment for learning could influence changes in teaching and learning in a high school. As discussed above, there are different curriculum designs. In the former high school, there was a subject-centered curriculum development where teachers were the expert and guided whet to teach. It involved students becoming passive, and following teachers’ lead. The discussion proposed a change of curriculum into a learner-centered curriculum. It involves taking into account learners’ weaknesses and strengths before developing the curriculum. Students have the opportunity of making choices and developing individual knowledge with little guidance from teachers only when needed. As stated, the paper takes into account Kaya and Akdemir (2016) literature as a base of discussing the importance of curriculum change. Vygotsky’s cognitive development theory is a constructivism theory that takes a fundamental role in discussing ways of implementing curriculum change. There were three stages discussed above, as presented in theory. The theory is implementable in practice as it directs reflective teaching and learning. It advocates for personal efforts and collaboration between what the leaners have and what extra can teachers add to students’ knowledge.

The lack of proper curriculum in school can lead to a disaster in teaching. Students and teachers are changing in their educational needs and teaching delivery needs. With that in mind, it is advisable to have a good curriculum that does not waste students’ and teachers’ time. The need to solve the subject-centered curriculum by adapting a constructivism theory encompassing individuals’ efforts in school and the educational matter is advisable. A way to avoid inconsistency associated with the subject-related curriculum is adopting a change to the learner-centered curriculum. Similarly, lack of assessment for learning means that the needs of students are not adapted in the syllabus which lowers students’ satisfaction in a curriculum and schooling. Therefore, there is a pressing need to assess the needs of individual learners and consider them during curriculum development in high school in order to promote the quality of high school education.

Looking for further insights on Rethinking Fashion: Strategies for Mitigating Overproduction and Reducing Environmental Harm? Click here.

References

Addison, N., 2014. Doubting learning outcomes in higher education contexts: From performativity towards emergence and negotiation. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(3), pp.313-325.

Alsubaie, M.A., 2016. Curriculum Development: Teacher Involvement in Curriculum Development. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9), pp.106-107.

Bada, S.O. and Olusegun, S., 2015. Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), pp.66-70.

Boud, D. and Soler, R., 2016. Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), pp.400-413.

Brown, S., 2016. Learning to be a ‘goody-goody’: Ethics and performativity in high school elite athlete programmes. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 51(8), pp.957-974.

Butler, J., 2015. Notes toward a performative theory of assembly. Harvard University Press.

Charteris, J., Quinn, F., Parkes, M., Fletcher, P. and Reyes, V., 2016. e-Assessment for learning and performativity in higher education: A case for existential learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(3).

Chen, D.T., Wang, L.Y. and Neo, W.L., 2015. School-based curriculum development towards a culture of learning: Nonlinearity in practice. British Journal of Educational Studies, 63(2), pp.213-228.

Daniels, H., 2016. Vygotsky and pedagogy. Routledge.

Dann, R., 2016. Developing understanding of pupil feedback using Habermas’ notion of communicative action. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(3), pp.396-414.

Ebert-May, D., Derting, T.L., Henkel, T.P., Middlemis Maher, J., Momsen, J.L., Arnold, B. and Passmore, H.A., 2015. Breaking the cycle: Future faculty begin teaching with learner-centered strategies after professional development. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(2), p.ar22.

Harman, R.M. and Zhang, X., 2015. Performance, performativity and second language identities: How can we know the actor from the act?. Linguistics and Education, 32, pp.68-81.

Harman, R.M., Ahn, S. and Bogue, B., 2016. Reflective language teacher education: Fostering discourse awareness through critical performative pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, pp.228-238.

Healey, M., 2014, February. Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. In Workshop Presented at University College Cork (Vol. 12, p. 15).

Kalfa, S. and Taksa, L., 2017. Employability, managerialism, and performativity in higher education: a relational perspective. Higher Education, 74(4), pp.687-699.

Leirhaug, P.E. and MacPhail, A., 2015. ‘It's the other assessment that is the key’: three Norwegian physical education teachers' engagement (or not) with assessment for learning. Sport, education and society, 20(5), pp.624-640.

Lumpkin, A., Achen, R. and Dodd, R., 2015. Focusing teaching on students: examining student perceptions of learning strategies. Quest, 67(4), pp.352-366.

Lyckhage, E.D. and Pennbrant, S., 2014. Work-integrated learning: A didactic tool to develop praxis in nurse education. Advances in Nursing Science, 37(1), pp.61-69.

Macfarlane, B., 2015. Student performativity in higher education: Converting learning as a private space into a public performance. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(2), pp.338-350.

Moate, R.M. and Cox, J.A., 2015. Learner-Centered Pedagogy: Considerations for Application in a Didactic Course. Professional Counselor, 5(3), pp.379-389.

Moate, R.M. and Cox, J.A., 2015. Learner-Centered Pedagogy: Considerations for Application in a Didactic Course. Professional Counselor, 5(3), pp.379-389.

Pereira, D.A.R., 2016. Assessment in higher education and quality of learning: perceptions, practices and implications (Doctoral dissertation, Universidade do Minho).

Pereira, Í.S.P., 2014. Writing and the situated construction of teachers’ cognition: portfolios as complex performative spaces. Language and Education, 28(6), pp.521-538.

Rodrigo, R.T., 2017. Reflections and Insights on the Models of Learning: Subject-centered, Learner-Centered and Problem-Centered Design Models.

Spector, J.M., Merrill, M.D., Elen, J. and Bishop, M.J. eds., 2014. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 413-424). New York, NY: Springer.

Tolgfors, B., 2018. Different versions of assessment for learning in the subject of physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23(3), pp.311-327.

Trepule, E., Tereseviciene, M. and Rutkiene, A., 2015. Didactic approach of introducing technology enhanced learning (TEL) curriculum in higher education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, pp.848-852.

Vlăduţescu, Ş., 2014. Didactic Communication as Tool in European Integration. Communications in Applied Sciences, 2(1), pp.85-96.

Wilkins, C., 2015. Education reform in England: quality and equity in the performative school. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(11), pp.1143-1160.