Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Curriculum Design for the Twenty-First Century

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Curriculum Models for the 21st Century

Abstract

Changing student profiles, the pervasive influence of technologies and the pressure to produce work-ready graduates with more than discipline knowledge are three consistent themes giving rise to new curriculum models in the twenty-first century. The new approaches are both exciting and challenging—exciting because they offer new and enhanced opportunities for students to learn and challenging because they are charting new territory which has implications for institutional infrastructure, learning, and teaching. In this chapter we explore the imperatives for change and set the context for the theoretical models, curriculum designs, and innovations presented by the contributing authors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abel, R. (2007). Innovation, adoption and learning impact: Creating the future of IT. Educause Review, 42(2), 12–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airsasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., et al. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, J., & Higson, H. (2008). Graduate employability, ‘soft skills’ versus ‘hard’ business knowledge: A European study. Higher Education in Europe, 33(4). doi:10.1080/03797720802522627

  • Ang, C. S., Avni, E., & Zaphiris, P. (2008). Linking pedagogical theory of computer games to their usability. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(3), 533–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, P., & Corbin, L. (2012). Student engagement: Rhetoric and reality. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(6), 759–772. doi:10.1080/07294360.2012.655711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrie, S. C. (2004). A research-based approach to generic graduate attributes policy. Higher Education Research and Development, 23(3), 261–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behrendt, J., & Zeppenfeld, K. (2008). Web 2.0. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Philadelphia, PA: SRHE and Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosanquet, A., Winchester-Seeto, T., & Rowe, T. (2010). Changing perceptions underpinning graduate attributes: A pilot study. In M. Devlin, J. Nagy, & A. Lichtenberg (Eds.), Research and development in higher education: Reshaping higher education (Vol. 33, pp. 105–117). Melbourne, VIC: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, M., Hedberg, J., & Kuswara, A. (2010). A framework for Web 2.0 learning design. Educational Media International, 47(3), 177–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brew, A. (2010). Transforming academic practice through scholarship. International Journal for Academic Development, 15(2), 105–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cancela, J. M., & Ayán, C. (2010). Profile and working expectations of Spanish physical education university students. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2487–2491. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.358

  • Chalmers, D., & Partridge, L. (2012). Teaching graduate attributes and academic skills. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.), University teaching in focus. Camberwell, VIC: ACER Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiţiba, C. A. (2012). Lifelong learning challenges and opportunities for traditional universities. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46(0), 1943–1947. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.408

  • Choy, S., & Ng, K. (2007). Implementing wiki software for supplementing online learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 209–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, D. (2007). Blogs, other Web 2.0 technologies and possibilities for educational applications. In D. Solesa (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Informatics, Educational Technology and New Media (pp. 317–325). Sombor, Serbia: Pedagoski Facultet u Somboru.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collis, B., & Gommer, L. (2001). Stretching the mold or a new economy? Part 2: Realising the scenarios for the University in 2005. Educational Technology, 12(4), 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornbleth, C. (1990). Curriculum in context. London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cranmer, S. (2006). Enhancing graduate employability: best intentions and mixed outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 169–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572041

  • de Jong, T. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Harpe, B., Radloff, A., Scoufis, M., Dalton, H., Thomas, J., Lawson, A., et al. (2009). The B factor project: Understanding academic staff beliefs about graduate attributes: Final report. Sydney, NSW: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • ECAR. (2010). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/Resources/TheECARStudyofUndergraduateStu/217334

  • Ellis, R. A., & Goodyear, P. (2010). Students’ experiences of e-learning in higher education: The ecology of sustainable innovation. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eseryel, D., Ge, X., Ifenthaler, D., & Law, V. (2011). Dynamic modeling as cognitive regulation scaffold for complex problem solving skill acquisition in an educational massively multiplayer online game environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(3), 265–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Euler, D. (2010). Shaping learning cultures: A strategic challenge for universities. In U.-D. Ehlers & D. Schneckenberg (Eds.), Changing cultures in higher education (pp. 75–84). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fasuga, R., Holub, L., & Radecký, M. (2010). Dynamic properties of knowledge networks and student profile in e-Learning environment. In F. Zavoral, J. Yaghob, P. Pichappan, & E. El-Qawasmeh (Eds.), Networked digital technologies (Vol. 88, pp. 203–214). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher-Flinn, C. M., & Gravatt, B. (1995). The efficacy of computer assisted instruction (CAI): A meta-analysis. Journal of Computing Research, 12(3), 219–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, S. P., & Bosanquet, A. M. (2006). The curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t it? Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 269–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. G. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosper, M. (2011). MAPLET—A framework for matching aims, processes, learner expertise and technologies. In D. Ifenthaler, Kinshuk, P. Isaias, D. G. Sampson, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on problem solving and learning in the digital age (pp. 23–36). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosper, M., Malfroy, J., & McKenzie, J. (2013). Students’ experiences and expectations of technologies: An Australian study designed to inform planning and development decisions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 268–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosper, M., McNeill, M., Phillips, R., Preston, G., Green, D., & Woo, K. (2010). Web-based lecture technologies and learning and teaching: A study of change in four Australian universities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 18(3), 251–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or praxis? London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanke, U., Ifenthaler, D., & Seel, N. M. (2011). Modeling the world of instruction: Creative insight or learnt by advise? The Open Education Journal, 4(Suppl 1:M10), 113–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D. (2009). Using a causal model for the design and development of a simulation game for teacher education. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 6(3), 193–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Bridging the gap between expert-novice differences: The model-based feedback approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(2), 103–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D. (2011). Intelligent model-based feedback. Helping students to monitor their individual learning progress. In S. Graf, F. Lin, Kinshuk, & R. McGreal (Eds.), Intelligent and adaptive systems: Technology enhanced support for learners and teachers (pp. 88–100). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D. (2012). Is Web 3.0 changing learning and instruction? In P. Isaias, D. Ifenthaler, Kinshuk, D. G. Sampson, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Towards learning and instruction in Web 3.0. Advances in cognitive and educational psychology (pp. xi–xvi). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D., & Eseryel, D. (2013). Facilitating complex learning by mobile augmented reality learning environments. In R. Huang, J. M. Spector, & Kinshuk (Eds.), Reshaping learning: The frontiers of learning technologies in a global context (pp. 415–438). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D., Eseryel, D., & Ge, X. (2012). Assessment for game-based learning. In D. Ifenthaler, D. Eseryel, & X. Ge (Eds.), Assessment in game-based learning. Foundations, innovations, and perspectives (pp. 3–10). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • James, R., Krause, K.-L., & Jennings, C. (2010). The first-year experience in Australian universities: Findings from 1994 to 2009. Melbourne, VIC: Centre for the Study of Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L. F., & Levine, A. H. (2008). Virtual worlds: Inherently immersive, highly social learning spaces. Theory Into Practice, 47(2), 161–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Cho, Y. H. (2008). Externalizing mental models with mindtools. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Understanding models for learning and instruction. Essays in honor of Norbert M. Seel (pp. 145–160). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, N., Blackey, H., Fitzgibbon, K., & Chew, E. (2010). Get out of MySpace. Computers in Education, 54(3), 776–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(2), 193–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement issues. Change, 35(2), 24–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1988). Timing feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefoe, G., & Hedberg, J. (2006). Blending on and off campus: A tale of two cities. In C. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning environments: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 325–337). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook and social integration and informal learning at university: Is it more for socialising and talking to friends about work than actually doing work. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 141–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maor, D. (2006). Using reflective diagrams in professional development with university lecturers: A developmental tool in online teaching. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(2), 133–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, M., Gosper, M., & Hedberg, J. (2012). Technologies and the assessment of higher order outcomes: A snapshot of academic practice in curriculum alignment. In P. Isaias, D. Ifenthaler, Kinshuk, D. G. Sampson, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Towards learning and instruction in Web 3.0. Advances in cognitive and educational psychology (pp. 109–121). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D. J., & Draper, S. W. (2009). A blueprint for transformational organisational change in higher education: REAP as a case study. In T. Mayes, D. Morrison, H. Mellar, P. Bullen, & M. Oliver (Eds.), Transforming higher education through technology enhanced learning. York: Higher Education Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oblinger, D., & Hawkins, B. L. (2006). The myth about student competency. EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or IT: First steps toward understanding the net generation. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation. Boulder, CO: Educause.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2007). Giving knowledge for free: The emergence of open educational resources. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/7/38654317.pdf

  • OECD. (2011). Education at a glance 2011: OECD indicators. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2011-en

  • Oliver, K. (2007). Leveraging Web 2.0 in the redesign of a graduate-level technology integration course. TechTrends, 51(5), 55–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F. G., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirnay-Dummer, P., Ifenthaler, D., & Seel, N. M. (2012). Designing model-based learning environments to support mental models for learning. In D. H. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 66–94). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Print, M. (1993). Curriculum development and design. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Race, P. (2006). The lecturer’s toolkit (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramos, M., & Carvalho, H. (2011). Perceptions of quantitative methods in higher education: Mapping student profiles. Higher Education, 61(6), 629–647. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9353-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, G. (1999). Change matters: Making a difference in education and training. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shephard, K. (2009). E is for exploration: Assessing hard-to-measure learning outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 386–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, J. S., & Lattuca, L. R. (1997). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in action. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, J. S., & Lowther, M. A. (1986). Designing the learning plan: A review of research and theory related to college curricula. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, J., & Yorke, M. (Eds.). (1998). Capability and quality in higher education. London: Kogan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. C. (2001). Fifth generation distance education. Higher Education Series (Vol. 40). Canberra, ACT: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toohey, S. (1999). Designing courses for higher education. Philadelphia, PA: The Society for Research in Higher Education & Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. (1998). World declaration on higher education for the twenty first Century: Vision and action. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/declaration_eng.htm

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, 2109, Australia

    Maree Gosper

  2. Open Universities Australia, Level 1, 473 Bourke Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia

    Dirk Ifenthaler

Authors
  1. Maree Gosper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dirk Ifenthaler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Maree Gosper or Dirk Ifenthaler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Learning and Teaching Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Maree Gosper

  2. Open Universities Australia, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Dirk Ifenthaler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gosper, M., Ifenthaler, D. (2014). Curriculum Design for the Twenty-First Century. In: Gosper, M., Ifenthaler, D. (eds) Curriculum Models for the 21st Century. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7366-4_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation