CBT as a model of curriculum development

Abstract

Subproject #4 focused on the effects of CBT on curriculum. In all, seven major findings arose out of the empirical data collected. First, it was found that many respondents had some general difficulty in separating the influence of CBT from other influences. Some components of current curriculum practice are closely identifiable with CBT and provide a basis to make judgements about its worth. Other components are part of the ‘CBT movement’ and are associated with implementation and concerns about containment of costs and flexibility of access (e.g. self-paced activities, individualised learning arrangements). So in reaching conclusions about the impact and efficacy of CBT it is necessary to consider those factors most central to CBT, those associated with it and those that are not part of the ‘CBT movement’. Secondly, the two states studied had different bases for the uniform introduction of CBT. At that time different antecedent conditions existed between states and sectors. For example, an instructional system that is analogous to CBT was reported as being in use in the trade areas in Victoria since the early 1980s, while in Queensland, respondents reported little knowledge of CBT prior to its implementation in that state. Consequently, the transformations brought about by CBT for the two states and the two sectors were different. Overall, however, comparisons between teachers’ activities prior to and after the implementation of CBT suggest that many teacher activities have not been changed by CBT. Thirdly, it was found that changes to curriculum intents and content, and the introduction of the VET market, have fostered closer relationships between providers and enterprises. However, the findings on the quality of negotiations suggest they are rather one-sided, with a principal focus on the needs of enterprises. Fourthly, the data suggest that greater uniformity has not been achieved through CBT. Beyond interpretative concerns, which refer to usage of materials and their interpretations, it was found that because industry standards vary from situation to situation, the prospect for uniformity is illusory. Moreover, there is no effort being made to determine uniformity of assessment through, for example, moderation processes, which are usually regarded as a means to secure reliability in assessment. Indeed, it is claimed that the level of contacts between vocational institutions has declined. Competition has encouraged this isolation. However, greater uniformity seems to have been achieved in assessment across both industries and both states. Fifthly, these findings suggest that current vocational arrangements meet some enterprise needs in terms of the skills they require. Knowing about, and being able to meet enterprises’ needs, as well as and those of individuals, is one of the most significant reasons why CBT is to be valued. But it is uncertain whether this satisfaction stems from CBT itself or associated initiatives. Sixthly, there is evidence of CBT improving competitiveness, but mostly for enterprises, rather than individuals or industries as a whole. The curriculum processes that aided competitiveness have been categorised as work-based learning and improved access to training. It is also proposed that the market-based provisions have been useful in enhancing

Cite this paper

@inproceedings{Billett2017CBTAA, title={CBT as a model of curriculum development}, author={Stephen Richard Billett}, year={2017} }