Curriculum Development

WHAT?
 

This was my second attempt at completing the Curriculum Development module. I initially registered for it in 2023 but was unable to complete it due to a period of ill health. Approaching it again this year brought a mixed sense of determination and some apprehension, partly because my earlier experience had left some unresolved feelings about my grasp of the content.

At first, the module content seemed approachable. Curriculum design was not unfamiliar territory, given my teaching responsibilities in the postgraduate Diploma in Healthcare Management at Stellenbosch University. The assignment brief appeared manageable as well: critique and redesign a curriculum using appropriate analytical frameworks discussed in our sessions, such as Harden’s SPICES model, Kern’s Six-Step Approach, and the Four-dimensional framework of Steketee.

I chose the Evidence and Information in Health Management module specifically for this task. It was an obvious selection, as I had recently taught the module after the unexpected passing of the original convener. Stepping into this role required rapid adjustments, particularly adapting learning outcomes to better align with the realities of practice. I also intentionally integrated Design Science Research (DSR) into the module. My rationale was to shift away from traditional approaches to information management, moving instead towards a dynamic, digitally responsive curriculum. The choice of DSR was driven by my belief that graduates should be prepared not only to manage existing health information systems, but also to proactively adapt these systems as responsive artefacts in their clinical and managerial environments.

As I started working on the assignment, what I thought would be a straightforward exercise quickly revealed itself as considerably more demanding and time-consuming than anticipated. Kern’s Six-Step Approach, while providing a systematic and rigorous framework for curriculum analysis and development, turned out to be far more detailed than I had initially expected. Engaging deeply with Kern’s methodical steps required careful consideration of multiple perspectives and extensive referencing. What I had initially estimated to be a relatively swift write-up became a meticulous, iterative process.

Furthermore, as I engaged more deeply with Kern’s detailed framework, the lecturer’s feedback highlighted several areas that required additional attention. For example, she asked explicitly why I had chosen Marope’s definition of curriculum from among the many available alternatives. She commented: "Great definition chosen given the many definitions out there it would be good for you to briefly (1-2 sentences) explain why you have chosen this definition, what about it speaks to you and resonates with you." This feedback made me realise that I had assumed the reader would instinctively understand my choice. Reflecting on this comment, I saw that I had missed an important opportunity to contextualise the human-centred and equity-oriented lens of Marope’s definition in my curriculum.

Similarly, another comment urged me to clarify my rationale for my comments on the SPICES model. The lecturer noted, "Robin you provide a good summary of SPICES model. What would be helpful is a brief statement of why this model appealed to you. And also contextualise SPICES as well to make explicit to the reader that SPICES model looks at evaluating the curriculum along a continuum." I realised again that while I had comfortably summarised the model, I had inadequately articulated why this continuum-based approach was particularly valuable in a context increasingly moving from traditional, paper-based systems towards agile, digitally enabled approaches in health management education.

Another lecturer comment centred on a table I had created to outline gaps between current and ideal curriculum practices. She questioned the strength of one of my claims, asking me to substantiate my point that improvements in the health system were "piecemeal." She wrote, "Quite a strong claim, always good to provide some reference." This comment made me realise that my critical stance, although often valuable, occasionally lacked sufficient supporting evidence. The lecturer’s insistence on rigorous referencing helped me recognise that strong claims required equally strong evidence, something I had underestimated in my initial submission.

Overall, these comments pointed consistently to a significant blind spot: my assumption of reader familiarity and shared understanding. While my analysis was thorough, my arguments were sometimes left abstract or inadequately substantiated. The assignment that I had initially approached with confidence gradually revealed itself to be a more demanding process than I first anticipated. It was not just the depth of Kern’s detailed approach but also my realisation that effective curriculum analysis would require more explicit justifications, clearer contextualisation, and a greater depth of evidence-based reasoning.

SO WHAT?

Receiving detailed feedback from the lecturer was initially unsettling, but when I revisited my assignment, I began to see clearly why these points were emphasised. The lecturer’s specific prompts for me to clarify my choices, such as the rationale for selecting Marope’s curriculum definition and explicitly linking the SPICES model to my context, highlighted my recurring tendency to assume reader familiarity and shared understanding. Importantly, these observations resonated deeply with insights from our earlier class discussions and group activities. For instance, the collaborative critique we undertook using the SPICES model during our contact sessions emphasised the importance of explicitly positioning curricula within their real-world contexts. I recognised that my own assignment lacked the kind of explicit grounding we had practised together in class.

As I reflected more deeply, I realised that these shortcomings in my written assignment mirrored similar tendencies in my teaching practice. Just as my lecturer noted that I assumed readers would instinctively follow my theoretical reasoning without explicit guidance, I saw that I frequently made similar assumptions in my classroom interactions. My assumption was that students inherently grasped the rationale behind curriculum design choices or implicitly understood the benefits of frameworks like Design Science Research. This insight was significant because it suggested that my approach in writing was not an isolated issue, but a broader area of my educational practice requiring attention.

Engaging further with the lecturer's feedback and recalling discussions from our sessions, such as the debates around "Diseases of the Curriculum," I recognised three pivotal areas that needed addressing to improve my curriculum analysis practice:

Explicit Contextualisation:
One of the most powerful insights from the feedback and online discussions was the essential need to explicitly communicate the rationale behind curriculum choices. As highlighted during our online synchronous session on 22 May, we were encouraged to clearly articulate not only what curriculum models we chose, but precisely why those models resonated with our teaching context. Reflecting on this, I realised my assignment lacked sufficient explicit contextualisation. Moving forward, I must consciously ensure I explain how and why specific theoretical definitions and models align meaningfully with my educational context.

Balanced Articulation of Strengths and Weaknesses:
Reflecting further, another valuable insight emerged from both my lecturer’s comments and the small-group activities using the SPICES framework. In those group discussions, we were explicitly guided to identify what was working well alongside areas needing improvement. The lecturer’s feedback similarly reminded me that my critique-heavy approach overshadowed recognition of existing curriculum strengths. My natural inclination towards identifying gaps, such as highlighting the "piecemeal" progress of digital health, needs to be consciously balanced by actively articulating existing strengths in our current systems. Explicitly recognising these strengths in curriculum analysis makes critique more constructive and actionable.

Meaningful Integration of Frameworks:
A reassuring aspect of the lecturer’s feedback was her positive reception of how I integrated Kern’s Six-Step Approach and Design Science Research (DSR). Her comment, "This is really lovely how you mapped Kern’s onto the DSR process," affirmed my approach to aligning curriculum theory with practical, context-specific methodologies. However, this positive feedback also came with a reminder: I needed to explicitly justify and contextualise why integrating these two frameworks made sense. I realised that my earlier oversight in clearly justifying my choices also risked undermining the very strengths that had resonated positively. I must therefore consistently provide explicit reasons for integrating multiple frameworks, ensuring that such decisions are transparent and clearly aligned with intended learning outcomes.

Reflecting on these insights, I also recalled my earlier forum discussion post, where I had emphasised my ambition to move students from a static "Information Management" paradigm towards an agile "Digital Health" approach. I realised now that achieving this shift in teaching practice required more than embedding new frameworks; it required clearer communication of why such a shift was necessary. Without explicit contextualisation, students and colleagues might perceive these curriculum changes as arbitrary rather than meaningful responses to evolving health information challenges.

In essence, the assignment and its feedback process provided a lens through which I saw clearly how explicit justification and meaningful contextualisation underpin both effective academic communication and impactful teaching practice. The lecturer’s constructive, targeted questions helped reveal broader insights into my educational practice, reinforcing lessons from our classroom discussions and collaborative group activities. These insights offer a valuable foundation upon which to strengthen my curriculum design and teaching approaches moving forward.

NOW WHAT?

Reflecting on these insights, it became clear that meaningful change in my approach to curriculum analysis and teaching practice required specific, intentional actions. Guided by the lecturer’s feedback and our rich classroom discussions, I have identified several key practical adjustments I intend to implement.

Explicit Communication of Curriculum Rationale:
Given my newfound awareness of the necessity of explicit contextualisation, I will actively incorporate clear justifications for my curriculum design decisions. For example, inspired by the lecturer’s suggestion regarding my use of Marope’s curriculum definition, I plan to explicitly discuss with students and colleagues why particular definitions and frameworks resonate within our specific teaching context. In practice, this means structuring discussions and curriculum documents to include brief but clear explanations of the chosen theoretical frameworks. My intention is to avoid implicit assumptions, ensuring transparency in how and why we make curriculum decisions.

Balanced Curriculum Critique:
Recognising my natural inclination towards identifying curriculum gaps, I intend to consciously adopt a more balanced analytical approach. Inspired by our small-group exercise using the SPICES model during the synchronous session, I now plan to systematically document and communicate existing strengths alongside any identified areas for improvement. This balanced critique will provide a more constructive foundation for curriculum improvement, offering reassurance to students and colleagues alike that their existing practices and experiences are recognised and valued.

Transparent Integration of Curriculum Frameworks:
Building upon the lecturer’s positive comments about my integration of Kern’s Six-Step Approach with Design Science Research (DSR), I plan to consistently provide explicit justification when integrating multiple frameworks in curriculum development. Practically, this involves articulating how and why these frameworks complement each other, using visual aids, tables, or diagrams like the one I used in my assignment, to clearly demonstrate their alignment. Furthermore, I aim to facilitate discussions with my colleagues about the value of such integrated approaches, ensuring broader buy-in and understanding of these methodological decisions.

Enhanced Academic Rigour and Evidence:
A significant practical change involves improving my referencing and evidence base, especially for strong assertions such as those identified by the lecturer (e.g., claims of "piecemeal" progress). To achieve this, I will dedicate additional time to researching and consolidating a robust database of relevant academic sources, policy documents, and systematic reviews that substantiate key curriculum and health information system claims. Strengthening my evidence base will not only enhance my assignments but also provide a stronger foundation for future curriculum proposals, presentations, and publications.

Practical Teaching Adjustments:
Drawing on insights from my previous forum discussion contributions, particularly my aim to transition students from traditional information management to agile Digital Health thinking, I plan to revise my teaching strategies accordingly. For instance, I intend to explicitly introduce students to Design Science Research early in my modules, clarifying why this approach equips them better to engage with rapidly evolving digital health technologies. Practically, I will also use case studies and real-world examples to demonstrate how DSR methodologies enable proactive and responsive problem-solving within health management contexts.

Professional Development Planning:
Recognising the long-term value of the insights gained, I have updated my Professional Development Plan to explicitly include targeted actions informed by the lecturer’s feedback and our module sessions. Specific professional development goals include organising a departmental workshop to share lessons learned about explicit curriculum rationalisation, enhancing transparency in curriculum design, and offering practical sessions on integrating and justifying curriculum frameworks.

Ultimately, this reflection has clarified that effective curriculum analysis and teaching practice rely not only on robust theoretical grounding but equally on explicit communication, balanced critique, rigorous evidence, and transparent methodological integration. These practical commitments are now central to my ongoing development as an educator, ensuring that my curriculum design practices are both academically rigorous and practically meaningful for colleagues and students alike.

REFERENCES

• Thomas et al. (2022). Curriculum Development for Medical Education: A Six-Step Approach.

• Marope (2017). Reconceptualizing and repositioning curriculum in the 21st century.

• Harden, Sowden & Dunn (1984). Educational strategies in curriculum development: the SPICES model.

• Peffers et al. (2020). Design science research process: a model for producing and presenting information systems research.

• Boulle et al. (2019). Data Centre Profile: The Provincial Health Data Centre of the Western Cape Province.