Applying Structures of Knowledge and Process to the new upper sec geography curriculum

 

      In our most recent ST-LT Professional Learning session, we shared with the fraternity about Erickson and Lanning’s ideas of Structure of Knowledge and Structure of Process to support the delivery of the new upper secondary syllabus. What do you need to know about the two structures so that you can enact a concept-based curriculum?

I will share three key points in this blog article:

·       What is a concept-based curriculum?

·       How does the structures of knowledge and process interact with each other?

·       How can we foster professional growth in concept-based instruction?

(1) Many of you are already familiar with the Structure of Knowledge. By contrasting it with the Structure of Process in the diagram below, you can see how the elements of subject areas in the Structure of Process are organized by processes, strategies, and skill instead of topics and facts. Indeed, as you examine the outcomes of Topic 1.3 (Geographical Methods), you find that the learning goals and outcomes are written as things students need to do vs. content concepts they need to know. To move from the lower cognitive levels (of knowing facts and being able to execute skills) to a higher level of transferable understandings (generalizations), both the Structure of Knowledge and the Structure of Process are critical.

You need to consider generalizations in terms of the two Structures when designing curriculum of topics especially when we are thinking about integrating fieldwork experiences (extended or bite-sized) into your lessons. Clearly, a more content-heavy cluster like climate (Structure of Knowledge) also requires that students understand key processes (such as the sampling and collection of weather data). A more process-oriented (Structure of Process) topic on the other hand, such as Geographical Methods, requires students to understand key knowledge about the content concepts in the phenomenon being studied for example, the development of tourism destination. There is an interplay between the two Structures.

(2) Depending on the cluster or topic that you are teaching, one Structure may require more attention than the other so that the authenticity of the topic and learning experience is enhanced. For example, if the sub-topic on organization of neighbourhoods is fronted only with learning concepts of hierarchy, scale and features, essential understandings about how shapes and clusters are used in base maps as secondary data may be ignored.

The new upper secondary curriculum adopts a disciplinary approach to strengthening learning progression which emphasizes continuity from lower secondary to pre-university. Students’ are expected to acquire a more “sophisticated understanding of disciplinary concepts” and “being able to understand more rigorous fieldwork methods over time” (TLS, p 7). Crafting big ideas (or generalization) that reflect important understandings of the processes, strategies, and skills students are expected to perform is therefore imperative.

Using the topic of “How neighbourhoods are organized in Singapore?” in cluster one, you will notice that when the Structure of Knowledge is used together with the Structure of Process, the conceptual curriculum built around content in the Structure of Knowledge now gains depth in the practice and application of the topic. At the same time, having the Structure of Process layered upon the Structure of Knowledge adds salience to the learning of skills, moving it beyond the mere act of “doing” fieldwork to understanding the meaning and significance of fieldwork. 

Cluster 1: Geography in Everyday Life (Topic 1.4: How are neighbourhoods organized in Singapore / Topic 3.3 How to process and analyse data)

(3) So what then can we view professional development of teachers in this Concept-based journey? Erickson et al. (2017) describes four domains in which teachers may evolve:

·       Domain 1 Understanding Concept-based Curriculum and Instruction

·       Domain 2 Concept-based Unit Planning

·       Domain 3 Concept-based Lesson Planning

·       Domain 4 Concept-based Instruction

 

At Domain 1, gaining a sound understanding of CBCI is important and takes time. Teacher leaders can consider supporting colleagues with mentoring and peer coaching, deepening their knowledge with ongoing work and collaboration with experienced Concept-based practitioners. At Domain 2, gaining an understanding of the unit design process and the relationship between different sections of the unit template is critical. Domains 3 and 4 suggest that lesson planning and enactment are critical processes that actualise a natural flow of the many pedagogical considerations in planning and eventual pedagogical moves. These are critical processes that sustain learning even among aspiring and veteran teachers. Having thought through a plan, developed resources of high-quality lessons and getting skilled at facilitating students’ conceptual understandings, the concept-based teacher rounds up his/her learning and growth with self-reflection.  

References:

Erickson H. L., Lanning L. A. & French R. (2017) Concept-based Curriculum and Instruction, Corwin, Thousand Oaks

2023 Upper Secondary Geography Teaching and Learning Syllabus, CPDD, MOE.

https://corwin-connect.com/2016/11/need-know-structure-process/ (Last accessed 27 March 23)