Implications of the Curriculum Review in Literature in English and English Language in Higher Education
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The curriculum review in Literature in English and English Language in higher education has been discussed for years, consistent with the idea that developing an integrative curriculum has become a globally discussed issue and challenging for all higher education institutions (Khan & Law, 2015).Furthermore, scholars such as Banda and Kakoma (2020) state that it is vital as a country and the Curriculum Development Centre (CDC) to revise, contextualise and integrate the curriculum for the two disciplines as that would significantly improve students" results.They further emphasise that English Language and Literature in English are related subjects, so there is a case to argue for their integration.The assertions imply that the intrinsic interface between the two disciplines points to the integrated pedagogy, which is more of a reason to review the curriculum.They also note that the curriculum review should be relevant to the university setting since their vision differs.It should address the institutions" vision, intentions, goals and objectives as that would improve students" performance in the classroom.Taking the discussion further is Maphosa et al."s (2014) observation that teaching, learning, assessment and university products all have a bearing on meaningful curriculum development, which is only possible if academic staff members thoroughly understand the curriculum, its design, principles, and processes.It can be inferred that the successful academic performance of a particular university is determined by the quality of the structure of its curriculum and how the lecturers comprehend, interpret, and implement it.In the context of this study, teaching and learning of the two disciplines can improve when the curriculum is revised and enhanced to promote integrated pedagogy in institutions of higher learning.In the study that investigated curriculum development in higher education literature in the USA, the UK, Australia, and Canada in 2021, the findings indicate that curriculum development in institutions of higher learning has received increasing scrutiny and Abstract: The dialectic on the implications of the curriculum review for Literature in English and English Language in Higher Education is one of the emerging trends.Research shows that the two disciplines are pedagogically symbiotic, yet some institutions of higher learning separate them, oblivious of their synergetic relationship.Separatist teaching denies students the acquisition of cross-cutting pedagogical benefits, implying a need to review the curriculum for the two disciplines.This study explored the implications of the curriculum review for Literature in English and English Language in higher education.The investigation adopted a qualitative approach of a multiple case study type.Data were collected from face-to-face interviews with lecturers and focus group discussions with year three students purposely sampled from the Language and Social Education and English Language and Linguistics departments.Data were interpreted and analysed thematically.Language in/for/with content theory and Schema theory formed the basis for this study.The findings revealed the implications of the curriculum review, such as disciplined integrated pedagogy, stakeholders' (students, parents, and lecturers) inputs in the curriculum review, and the training of lecturers in integrated pedagogical approaches.The study concluded that the involvement of all stakeholders in the review can improve students' performance.It recommends inclusivity and implementation of integrated pedagogy between the two disciplines in higher education.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».