Central to this TU Dublin Curriculum Shaper are learner-centred approaches, active pedagogies and facilitation of learning by educators (Priestley and Philippou’s, 2019). Technological innovation, coupled with the demand for a more highly skilled workforce, have changed higher education is delivered and accessed (Ashford-Rowe, Herrington and Brown, 2014). Learning now must be deep, contextualised and authentic to maintain relevance, to empower students to tackle the global societal challenges as well as positively contribute to industry. How learning is assessed has also changed in the context of this changing terrain. Learning, and associated assessment, must provide experiences which are (i) authentic, real-world and relevant, (ii) constructive and interlinked, (iii) command higher order processing from students, (iv) aligned with each other and the desired learning outcomes, and (v) provide appropriate challenge and motivation to learn (Meyers and Nulty, 2009). Interweaving authentic assessment, whereby students perform real-world tasks that demonstrate meaningful application of essential knowledge and skills, can make learning more active, useful and applied (Mueller, 2005). These real-world tasks can be problems which were replicated from, or analogous, to those of professionals in the field, or global issues that are societal challenges. This design principle encourages authentic learning and assessment; that when combined should be challenging, foster the development of transferable knowledge, allow for self-reflection, simulate and measure a real-world test of ability, include formally designed opportunities for feedback and opportunities to collaborate (Ashford Rowe et al., 2014).

Educational theories such as constructivism and social constructivism view learning and teaching as socially-situated, collaborative, and enacted through dialogue. They are evidenced in curricula which include problem-solving, a range of media to engage students in different ways, student research and discovery, peer teaching, authentic activities related to the real-world professions of graduates, and various forms of group
work and group assessment (Carlile and Stack, 2008). They imply approaches to curricula that are inclusive of all learners and different learning preferences and allow for collaborative approaches to teaching and learning.

A variety of curriculum conceptualisations exist but can be broadly characterised as Process or Product focused (O’Neill, 2015). A process orientation will tend to focus more on dialogue, experience, reflection, participation by students (Carlile & Jordan, 2008) and potentially a critical stance on education (Freire, 1996). A product orientation will tend to focus strongly on disciplines, disciplinary norms and culture (Toohey, 1999), threshold concepts (Meyer & Land, 2005), subject knowledge, and learning outcomes (Gosling, 2009). It is common to see elements of process and product in curriculum design and this suggests that it is possible to involve students in co-creating the curriculum, and/or specific teaching and learning activities in an inclusive and collaborative environment.

The inclusion of the student voice is critical in developing curricula that are both appropriate and engaging. Integrating the student voice promotes a discussion around staff assumptions around the learning and teaching process and it moves the curriculum design process from a staff centric activity to a more inclusive endeavour (Brooman, Darwent & Pimor, 2015). However, it is important that the inclusion of the student voice is not simply a ‘tick box’ consultative exercise; students should be equal, participative partners in all aspects of the process, not just the final approval stage (Seale, 2009). Students are the only stakeholders that experience an entire curriculum; their learning is shaped as much by the curriculum values as the actual syllabus. Including students as equal partners results in a co-created curriculum; one that all stakeholders, including students, have ownership of and responsibility for (Bovill et al., 2011). Examples of successful partnerships with students as designers of their own educational experiences have expanded in number in recent years (Healey, Flint & Harrington, 2014). Healey and colleagues note the pedagogical benefits of rich and meaningful partnerships with students and “the possibility for genuinely transformative learning experiences for all involved” (2014, p.7).

Central to this Curriculum Shaper is the importance of allowing space for the ongoing development of curricula in higher education institutions. Scholarly literature and practice suggest the value of making time and space; curricula are not fixed, stable entities. Staff need space for formal and informal, accredited and non-accredited continuing professional development (National Forum, 2016) in order to develop curricula and their own practice.

Researchers encourage us not to consider curricula as closed and fixed, but as open and dynamic (Hughes & Tan, 2012; Johnston et al., 2018). De Vries (2018) defined the idea of the semi-permeable curriculum as “an open-ended core curriculum with a firm base in evergreen content around which flexible elements about new content can evolve”. This reflects the world in which curricula are enacted whereby all professions these days deal with constant change. A flexible and considered approach to curriculum is essential in order to be able to appropriately refine and continuously adapt and is echoed by Hughes and Tan (2012), who coined the phrase “dynamic curriculum” to describe school-level flexibility and adaptability at school level. There is significant value in creating time and fostering an environment that encourages a coherent approach that focuses on key aspects of teaching and learning for all stakeholders. Fundamental to this is including students as learning partners, continuing professional development for staff, support from leaders and champions at senior level, as well as an ability to say no to activities that do not contribute to meaningful learning and teaching.