Originally published: Shippee, M. (2021) A Globalized Curriculum: The Next Evolution Of Education. International Conferences Mobile Learning 2021 (ML 2021) and Educational Technologies 2021 (ICEduTech 2021) ISBN: 978-989-8704-28-3
Abstract
Curriculum is a dynamic, iterative cultural artifact. Historically, educational curricular shifts have gone from Socratic dialogue, to master-apprentice programs, to humanities enrichment, to STEM focus, each with varying degrees of equitable access. Gaps in equity have led to economic-driven curricular designs. In recent years, access to learning has increased dramatically, not just the privilege of the elite. We can now focus our curricular priorities to address the needs of our global society. With this in mind we need a curriculum that is culturally responsive and iterative in nature. This paper addresses curricular evolution at a global level with insights for the future of learning.
Keywords
Curriculum, Globalization, Sustainable Development Goals
1. Introduction
Curriculum design is an iterative, cultural process. Culture is defined as the shared beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a social group. There are five key tenets of culture (Haviland, Prins, Walrath, and McBride, 2005): Culture is learned, shared, based on symbols, integrated, and dynamic. Curriculum design is linked to culture by the way we define who we are and where we want to be from our collective shared experience. Shaping a globally-responsive curriculum takes purposeful, diligent effort in observing, selecting, and presenting experiences (Shippee, 2019).
Curriculum design requires we are cognizant of, and responsive to, the context in which we have been working. Historically, cultural forces have pressured an educational perspective that embraces newer, trending technology, specifically in regard to film, radio, television, and eventually computers (Shippee, 2016; Cuban, 1986). This is reinforced by the concept of the technological sublime, a theoretical context for interpreting underlying motivations of decision makers advocating for the pursuit of greatness (Frick, 2017). To move forward in our continued iteration of curriculum, we must first look back through a historical perspective on curriculum to examine throughlines and outliers that can serve to inform our discussion (Popkewitz, 1984).
2. A Brief History of Curriculum
For the Hellenistic period, Greek education was largely esoteric having focused on the humanities and the curation of educated people. Here students were taught to be “critical” in all or almost all branches of knowledge. The scope and sequence for instruction was based on the trivium: grammar, rhetoric, and logic and the quadrivium: arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music. While the names are antique, the seven “subjects” were comparable to a modern liberal curriculum of languages, philosophy, mathematics, history, and science. The education of the Roman Empire consisted of a focus on Politics and Law, influenced by aspects of Greek education that focused on philosophy and language yet, reflecting on Roman-cultural priorities, centering on oratory (speech giving) due to its political significance. (Van Doren, 1992). Formalized medieval education yielded a culturally-specific, religious focus with a temporary reprieve from Greek influence. The Renaissance, or “Rebirth,” yielded renewed interest in Greek and Roman systems that began transcending the geographic spheres of antiquity. In response, Renaissance education began a lasting shift back to curriculum guided by ancient wisdom.
Throughout the 1700s and 1800s education continued to be the luxury of the elite. Efforts were made in various pockets of the globe to increase and equity in regard to educational opportunity, yet education was elusive to many.
Contemporary education grew out of the Industrial Revolution as a form of mass production, a mass education, the product of the Industrial Age (Lahav, 1973). “The whole idea of assembling masses of students (raw material) to be produced by teachers (workers) in a centrally located school (factory) was a stroke of industrial genius” (Toffler, 1970). In this system, content was broken apart into distinct units of study, veritable silos of learning. In the Twentieth Century, even universities felt the impact of the silo-ing of content. The “uni” in university became pointless, as universities’ separate world’s ceased to talk to one another. Each college, department, etc.. began possessing more and more autonomous power as government funding for research turned them into a loose confederation of disconnected mini-states, instead of a uni-fied organization devoted to the joint search for knowledge and truth. (Van Doren, 1992). Curriculum, teaching standards, and learning objectives all became uniquely tailored to each content category. The silo-ing of education has remained in K12 classrooms systematically validating the existing Industrial Aged model where work stations (courses) were separated and meaningful curriculum-driven collaboration is lacking.
Conversations about curriculum design were deeply impacted in the United States in the Cold War and the Soviet launch of Sputnik. The Space Age became a cultural phenomenon yielding a hyper-focused approach that lauded math and science as the keys to a successful future, a technological sublime, that is, the pursuit of nationalistic greatness. From this thinking was born STEM education.
3. STEM education
A STEM education focuses on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math with the belief that these will help prepare learners to compete in their future economy. STEM remains a curricular priority in our global education systems today (Freeman, Marginson, & Tytler, 2019). Many policymakers, economists, and futurists believe a solid foundation in STEM will make students more marketable and successful, particularly in an increasingly globalized economy with the spread of products, technology, information, and jobs across national borders and cultures.
For decades, in the United States, multiple national policy documents have asserted that global competitiveness is contingent on students being actively engaged in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) at all levels of education (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 2007). In response to growing concerns about the future workforce “STEM” was introduced in 2001 by the National Science Foundation (NSF) who stated: “A well-prepared, innovative science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce is crucial to the Nation’s prosperity and security. Future generations of STEM professionals are a key sector of this workforce, especially in the critical scientific areas…To accelerate progress in these areas, the next generation of STEM professionals will need to master new knowledge and skills, collaborate across disciplines, and shape the future of the human-technology interface in the workplace.” (Carpenter, Regassa, and Watson, 2020). Critics argue STEM itself is a socially constructed label developed in response to economic and global pressure (Akerson, Burgess, Gerber, Guo, Khan, & Newman, 2018), yet one would ask: Is that not part of the role of education? To respond to changing times? After all, education is changing because the world is changing.
The truth of the matter is that the actual educational meaning and practice of STEM is not clear. Do we approach all four as siloed curricular areas with distinct course objectives to be mastered? Or, do we instead break down the silos and leverage each of these areas around a central goal or project? I would argue the latter is where the most powerful learning potential is found. Rather than focus on the individual contents of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics learners will make the most meaning by leveraging them all together with a STEM-approach to solving real world problems. Perhaps a more realistic goal is to continue the mantra of over a millenia of education, what some call “the hidden curriculum,” (The Glossary of Education Reform, 2013) that is, to motivate learners to care about the future, an empathy-driven focus to cause positive change in our world.
4. Curricular Evolution
The world is rapidly changing as a result of both wanted and unwanted disruption. The COVID19 pandemic has forced an increase in remote/distance and hybrid learning which has caused us to question our best practices for teaching and learning. While emergent technologies have afforded us the opportunity to teach and learn in new and exciting ways. Both of these disruptions will have lasting impacts on our culture and on our curriculum. One example of changes in technology is Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI is an area of computing science focused on the creation of intelligent machines that work and react like humans. The product of impressive STEM-based work, AI learns through the data we generate in our real-time efforts and many AI products impact and improve our daily lives through automation (Shippee, 2020). But then automation means “machines will become very good at being machines…so we need to be extremely good at being humans again…to dig into individual abilities, allowing people to do their best & live out their potential.” says innovator and futurist Liselotte Lyngsø (Lindzon, 2018). Herein is the need to evolve our curricular focus, one that responds to a change in our global culture as seen through our understanding of the future of work. In 2018, former LinkedIN CEO Jeff Weiner stated “Not surprisingly, there continues to be an imbalance with regards to software engineering. But somewhat surprisingly, interpersonal skills is where we’re seeing the biggest imbalance. Communication is the No. 1 skill gap.” (Mautz, 2018).
Our planning and strategizing in education has often been a means to an ends approach rather than understanding that the ends would shape the means. Our focus must be on the world that our students will face. To plan without having a clear idea of what one is planning for is seemingly futile as setting out on a journey without a map, future thinking “can serve the same role for the educational planners as did the geographers for the explorers of the Renaissance!” (Lahav, 1973).
5. Real-World Focused Curriculum
Setting aside agenda-driven, esoteric rhetoric, about curriculum. From a purely teaching and learning perspective we find direction from the field of instructional design where many powerful principles help us prescribe effective teaching and learning practices. Among them are the work of Dr. M. David Merrill (2002) who describes 5 principles of instruction: Learning is promoted when: #1 learners are engaged in solving real-world problems, #2 existing knowledge is activated as a foundation for new knowledge, #3 new knowledge is demonstrated to the learner, #4 new knowledge is applied by the learner, and #5 new knowledge is integrated into the learner’s world. These 5 principles explain the power of hands-on learning where each individual learner makes real meaning of the process. We must incorporate these principles into our curriculum design. Our future must have a problem-based approach which employs STEM-thinking, over siloed content understanding, to prepare our learners for their globally conscious future. Like any innovation, curriculum change involves some overlap in practice. Changes that look and feel similar to what we know are easier to adopt. The choice to adopt begins with an initial decision about fit as it gives way to actual implementation (Shippee, 2016; Shippee 2019; Lubinsky & Shippee 2021).
STEM-thinking is a familiar set of skills that we can employ to identify important questions for important problems, in real-life situations. STEM-thinking supports our explanation of both the natural and designed world through evidence-based conclusions, as a cognitive process of inquiry and an attitude that exhibits a willingness to engage in issues as a reflective citizen.
Meaningful adoption of a problem-based teaching with STEM-thinking serving as a lens to approach concepts can positively impact learners when it is translated into policies, education programs, and practically applied in classrooms. This adoption will lead to a prepared workforce with 21st-century competencies, an advanced research agenda, and a focus on innovation. Those of us seeking to understand the future of work in an increasingly globalized world have increased discussions about the relevance of STEM in education addressing how a STEM education leads learners to better understanding the interconnectedness of concepts and ideas.
6. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
The free-trade economics of globalization aside: does STEM have potential to have a positive impact on our world? From a problem-based learning global, cultural-perspective… absolutely. How then do we decide, on a global level, on what problems to prepare our learners to solve?
The United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), are 17 specific areas which serve as an urgent call for action by all countries, developed and developing, to employ a global partnerships that recognize “ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand-in-hand with strategies that improve health and education, reduce inequality, and spur economic growth, all while tackling climate change and working to preserve our oceans and forests.” (United Nations, 2020)
Figure 1. Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2020)
The SDGs provide guidance for helping cultivate focus areas for our future citizens who will understand and be ready to address them with a STEM-thinking skill set.
7. A Globalized Curriculum
The global challenges we face now, and in the future, are clearly significant and will require more than an academic solution, but STEM-thinking must be part of our strategic response and be more than simply tinkering with current policies and programs, or just updating science curriculums (Bybee, 2013). From a humanities perspective STEM coursework appears to tell only part of the story. Should we simply keep adding letters to the acronym like “A” for “Arts” giving us STEAM or “R” for “Reading” and/or “Research” and thus STREAM? I would suggest that we instead accept “STEM” as a guided thought process and propose that we understand the humanities (reading, writing, fine arts, history, social studies, etc…) as the glue that links the components of STEM together through context driven accounts, and stories, which both explain and illustrate the meaningful application of STEM. As an illustration of this, let us reflect on how science, technology, engineering, and math are employed to explain an Archimedean Screw. We understand that the explanation is better illustrated by both the historical accounts of its development and the stories of modern use which illustrate how it works. Further, the humanities also serve as a civic compass to help us understand the global impact of our actions through a culturally-focused perspective, a critical component when trying to help others adopt meaningful change.
Dr. Christopher Charles’ “Lucky Iron Fish” account embodies a Globalized Curriculum focusing on a real world problem that only became effective solved when culture was understood:
In 2008, Christopher Charles, then a Masters, student travelled to Cambodia for a research project. While there, he was shocked at the high rates of iron deficiency anemia and anemia in the region. He decided to dedicate his future research to developing a safe, and affordable solution. Now Dr. Charles, he was inspired by previous research which showed that cooking in a cast iron pot increased the iron content in food. He developed an iron ingot that could be boiled in soups or drinking water. But not everyone was ready to throw a block of iron into their drinking water. It was clear that Dr. Charles had to better understand the culture in which he was working.
After doing more research on the culture, he realized what he needed to do in order to persuade people to use the ingot, Dr. Charles cast the ingot into the shape of a fish that was considered to be lucky in Cambodian folklore. As explained in his thesis the concept of a lucky iron fish design did not pander to superstition, but created a cultural relevance for a solution based on science. To make the fish more attractive to the users, he gave the fish a smile. He called this prototype the “Happy Fish”. He went on to show that almost everyone used the fish and results from his research showed that regular use of the Happy Fish decreased anemia by 46%. (Roxby, 2015)
The Lucky Iron Fish story illustrates multiple SDGs, with a solution developed through a STEM-thinking lens that would have failed to make an impact if it was not for the humanities-directed understanding of culture.
8. Conclusion
Education is changing because the world is changing. Curriculum design is, and should be, in a constant state of dynamic iteration that responds to these changing times. As equitable access to education increases, so to should our desire to increase global awareness through a globalized curriculum. We have an opportunity to help plan a bright future for all humankind that transcends geography and economic status and highlights the creative abilities we have to solve our shared problems.
Also Published: Shippee, Micah, A Globalized Curriculum: The Next Evolution of Education (March 3, 2021). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4533148 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4533148
REFERENCES
Akerson, V. L., Burgess, A., Gerber, A., Guo, M., Khan, T.A., and Newman, S. (2018) Disentangling the Meaning of STEM:
Implications for Science Education and Science Teacher Education, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29:1, 1-8, DOI: 10.1080/1046560X.2018.1435063
Bybee, R. W. The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities. Arlington, Virginia: National Science Teachers Association, 2013.
Carpenter, E., Regassa, L.B. and Watson, C.L. “Accelerating Discovery: Educating the Future STEM Workforce | NSF –
National Science Foundation.” Nsf.gov. 24 Jan. 2020. Web. 14 Dec. 2020 https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=505552
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and Machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
Freeman, B., Marginson, S., and Tytler, R. (2019). An international view of STEM education. 10.1163/9789004405400_019.
Frick, K. T. (2017). The Cost of the Technological Sublime: Daring Ingenuity and the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay
Bridge. Escholarship.org Web. 4 Jan. 2021. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2d00f48t
Haviland, W.A., Prins, H.E.L., Walrath, D, and McBride, B.. Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge., 2005. Print.
Lahav, R. (1973). Futurology and Education: Four Futurologists and Their Theories of Education. The Journal of Educational
Thought (JET) / Revue De La Pensée Éducative, 7(1), 48-64. Web. 17 Dec. 2020. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23768782.pdf.
Lindzon, J. (2018, July 18). This is what work will look like in 2100. Fast Company. Web. 4 Jan. 2020. https://www.fastcompany.com/90180181/this-is-what-work-will-look-like-in-2100
Lubinsky, J. and Shippee, M (2021) Esports and strategic organizational adoption of innovation. (Andrews, S. and Crawford C. eds.). Chapter in Pathways and Opportunities Into the Business of Esports. IGI Global (in press)
Mautz, S. “What Job Skill Is Most Lacking in the U.S.? LinkedIn CEO Jeff Weiner Has a Surprising Answer.” Inc.com. 23
Apr. 2018. Web. 4 Jan. 2021. https://www.inc.com/scott-mautz/linkedin-ceo-jeff-weiner-just-revealed-employees-lack-this-1-surprising-job-skill-more-than-any-other.html
Merrill, D.M. “First principles of instruction.” Educational Technology Research and Development. 1 Sept. 2002. Web. 28 Oct. 2020. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02505024
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, & Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Popkewitz, T. (1984). Paradigm and ideology in educational research : the social functions of the intellectual. London New York: Falmer Press.
Roxby, P. “Why an iron fish can make you stronger.” BBC News. 17 May 2015. Web. 14 Dec. 2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-32749629
Shippee, M. (2016). mLearning in the organizational innovation process. Dissertation. Syracuse University. Syracuse, NY
Shippee, M. (2019) WanderlustEDU: An Educator’s Guide to Innovation, Change, and Adventure. San Diego: Dave Burgess Consulting, Inc.
Shippee, M. (2020) No brainer AI in the classroom. Teach Magazine. September/October 2020.
Stohlman, M., Moore, T. J., and Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34.
Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. New York: Random House.
The Glossary of Education Reform. “Hidden Curriculum Definition.” The Glossary of Education Reform. 3 Dec. 2013. Web. 14 Dec. 2020. https://www.edglossary.org/hidden-curriculum/
United Nations. “THE 17 GOALS | Sustainable Development.” Sdgs.un.org. 11 Dec. 2020. Web. 14 Dec. 2020. https://sdgs.un.org/goals
Van Doren, C. (1992). A history of knowledge: past, present, and future. New York, N.Y: Ballantine Books.
Discover more from Micah Shippee, PhD
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
