The response of clinical practice curriculum in teacher education to the Covid-19 breakout: A case study from Israel
- PDF / 488,231 Bytes
- 14 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 75 Downloads / 169 Views
The response of clinical practice curriculum in teacher education to the Covid‑19 breakout: A case study from Israel Linor L. Hadar1 · Bracha Alpert1 · Tamar Ariav1
Accepted: 30 September 2020 © UNESCO IBE 2020
Abstract This case study explores how teacher education curriculum in a college in Israel responded to the Covid-19 outbreak. The article focuses on the clinical component of the preservice curriculum (practice teaching and methods courses). It reveals that curriculum became malleable in two major ways: there was (1) a shift to learner-centered wellbeing and social emotional learning (SEL); and (2) an adaptation of teaching methods. The Covid-19 shutdown imposed a restructuring of the content, sequence, and scope of the curriculum. While certain topics were omitted or reduced in scope, others—especially those related to digital instruction—were introduced or expanded. Pedagogy instructors also began to attend to their students’ well-being by introducing SEL contents and activities. This response during challenging times revealed teacher educators’ adaptability, resilience, and agency. The Covid-19 breakout transformed the curriculum from a traditional preplanned and structured syllabus to one that is more responsive, dynamic, and malleable. Keywords Curriculum · Teacher education · Coronavirus · Covid-19 · Social emotional learning Covid-19 has cast a wide shadow globally. It has impacted education at all levels, with schools closing and teachers scrambling to set up and disseminate new curricula online. In teacher education, academics face a new reality, yet lack the research to justify the pragmatic curricular changes they must make. To make matters worse, higher education curriculum, a subfield within the broader domain of education studies (Bovill and Woolmer * Linor L. Hadar [email protected] Bracha Alpert [email protected] Tamar Ariav [email protected] 1
Beit-Berl College, Beit Berl 4490500, Israel
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
L. L. Hadar et al.
2019), has received relatively little critical attention (Annala et al. 2016; Clegg 2011; Lindén et al. 2017), and those working in this area have widely divergent views about curriculum contents, scope, structure, and organization (Bridges 2000). Within the domain of higher education more generally, Fraser and Bosanquet (2006) have identified four conceptualizations of curriculum: (1) the structure and content of a course/unit (syllabus); (2) the structure and content of a program of study; (3) students’ experience of learning; (4) and dynamic and interactive processes of teaching and learning. In the first two, curriculum is seen as a product defined and documented by an instructor planning a course or program of study for students. In the third, curriculum is a context enabling student learning, and in the fourth, it is an emergent and collaborative process for student and teacher. Expectations of twenty-first century higher education curricula are that it will facilitate students’ engagement with powerful knowledge (Young 2013) and
Data Loading...
