Implications of the Curriculum Review in Literature in English and English Language in Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.165 | 0.406 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".