Research in Science Education

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 198–207 | Cite as

Knowledge engineering: An alternative approach to curriculum design for science education at a distance

  • Olugbemiro J. Jegede
  • James C. Taylor
  • Peter Akinsola Okebukola
Article

Abstract

Most of the curriculum design models within the technical-scientific approach utilise the rational and sequential process of designing and inter-relating the various elements of the design process. While this procedure may be efficient and adequate for conventional education in which the designers are professional science educators, there is doubt if it satisfies the particular needs of distance education.

The experience accumulated through a multi-disciplinary team approach to distance learning courseware development for higher education at the University of Southern Queensland Distance Education Centre motivated this study which primarily focused on a search for an alternative approach to curriculum development with a more satisfactory functional value.

Using selected units in Engineering as a focus, an experiment was designed in which a variant of the classical Wheeler model was used. This paper reports the results of this experiment. The implications for contemporary curriculum development initiatives in science especially within distance education settings are pointed out.

Keywords

High Education Science Education Design Model Sequential Process Knowledge Engineering 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baath, J. A. (1981) On the nature of distance education,Distance Education, 2 (2), 212–219.Google Scholar
  2. Brinkley, R. Pavlechko G. & Thompson, N. (1991). Designing and producing courseware for distance learning instruction in higher education,Tech Trends, 36 (1), 50–54.Google Scholar
  3. Carson, A. S. (1984). Control of the curriculum: A Case for Teachers.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16 (1), 19–28.Google Scholar
  4. Chung, C. (1985). Perceptions and preferences of teachers for distribution of decision-making authority in schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
  5. Daniel, J. S. & Stroud, M. A. (1981). Distance Education: a reassessment for the 1980s,Distance Education, 2 (2), 146–163.Google Scholar
  6. Doyle, W. & Ponder, G. (1977). The practicality ethnic in teacher decision-making,Interchange, 8 (3), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fullan, M. & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation.Review of Educational Research 47 (1), 335–397.Google Scholar
  8. Frey, K. Frei, A. & Langeheine (1989) Do curriculum development models really influence the curriculum?Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21 (6), 553–559.Google Scholar
  9. Keegan, D. J. (1980). On defining distance education,Distance Education, 1 (1), 13–36.Google Scholar
  10. Layton, D. (1989).Reconceptualizing science and technology education for tomorrow London, The British Council.Google Scholar
  11. MacDonald, J. B. (1975). The quality of everyday life in school. In J B MacDonald & E. Zaset (eds).Schools in Search for Meaning. Washington DC, ASDC.Google Scholar
  12. Ornstein, A. C. and Hunkins, F. P. (1988)Curriculum: Foundations, Principles and Issues, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Print, M. (1987).Curriculum development and design Sydney, Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  14. Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional Design: What is it and why is it? In C. M. Reigeluth (ed)Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Searles, W. (1981). A taxonomic study of curriculum development models used in science education.European Journal of Science Education, 3 (1), 77–91.Google Scholar
  16. Tamir, P. (1989). Science education: curriculum reform. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.),International encyclopedia of education: Research and studies, supplementary Vol. 1 Oxford, Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Taylor, J. C. (1983). A dynamic model of memory for research on human information processing,Instructional Science, 12, 367–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Taylor, J. C. & Barker, L.J. (1990). The instructional technology-mix in distance education: A pedagogical perspective. Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference of the Asian Association of Open Universities, Jakarta, Indonesia.Google Scholar
  19. Taylor, J. C. & Evans, G. (1985). The architecture of human information processing,Instructional Science, 13, 347–359.Google Scholar
  20. Tyler, R. W. (1949).Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Walberg, H. J. (1991). Improving school science in Advanced and development countries,Review of Educational Research 61 (1), 25–60.Google Scholar
  22. Walker, D. F. (1971). A naturalistic model for curriculum development,School Review, 80 (1), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wheeler, D. K. (1974).Curriculum process. London, University of London Press.Google Scholar
  24. White, R. T. & Tisher, R. P. (1986). Research on natural sciences. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching. New York, Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Young, J. H. (1989) Teacher interest in curriculum committees: What factors are involved?Journal of Curriculum Studies 21 (4), 363–376.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian Science Research Association 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olugbemiro J. Jegede
    • 1
  • James C. Taylor
    • 1
  • Peter Akinsola Okebukola
    • 2
  1. 1.Distance Education CentreUniversity of Southern QueenslandToowoomba
  2. 2.Science and Mathematics Education CentreCurtin University of TechnologyPerth

Personalised recommendations