Conflicts and Tensions When Departments Rethink Curriculum

My journey through education studies and technologies since 2011 has let me identify and scrutinise many curriculum practices along the way. With an interdisciplinary profile combining translation and interpreting studies with the educational sciences, I have encountered, in the English and translation departments I have worked in across the Arab context, many conflicts between colleagues over curriculum and didactic issues in translation, interpreting, literature and language teaching.

Before 2012 I had no critical, polished view of such practices. Over the last two or three years, though, I have come to understand that the claims made in the research literature on translator education, translator training and translation and interpreting programmes make sense. Valid and sound sense, I must say.

The University Is No Longer an Ivory Tower

Every department, college and university has its inherited practices, no doubt. Yet for national and international quality assurance and benchmarking, there is an urgent need to develop and, in many cases, transform those cultures to achieve the outcomes set by national frameworks. The university is no longer an independent ivory tower; it carries social and economic responsibilities. Translation and interpreting programmes, like others in the humanities and social sciences, have to deliver those socioeconomic outcomes. They are no exception.

Content Versus Competencies

My conclusion so far is that the vast majority of programmes, perhaps all of them to some degree, still practise the academic, theoretical model of curriculum. It is a curriculum practice that prioritises content and courses over competencies (knowledge, skills, and behaviours or values). Such curriculum philosophies focus on which courses to delete, add or merge, with no reference to the knowledge, skills and behaviours students must have acquired by the end of the programme to ease their entry into the workplace and society.

The alternative, competency-based curriculum design and development, requires knowledge and expertise in instructional design, or what some countries call ingénierie pédagogique, literally pedagogical engineering. It is not a conventional way of doing curriculum. Yet national and international frameworks are pressing universities to deliver more practical, market-oriented curricula. These practices rely on information gathered from a range of stakeholders before it is aligned and modelled inside the university.

Why Change Is So Hard

Attempting this at an early stage of change management in a university can produce chaotic results at every level of the institution, faculty level above all, unless there is bottom-up decision-making, rather than top-down, and the political will to support change gradually. It is especially difficult where the status quo at faculty level has never been challenged, and where faculty have never been asked to rethink their practices in light of changes in higher education, internationalisation, globalisation and the market's demand for employable profiles.

Competency-based curriculum practice begins its design phase by collecting data on specific themes tied to students' employability and sustainable abilities. Those elements are barely considered within the theoretical, academic model, where faculty take the leading role in deciding which "courses" or "content", rather than which "competencies", form the baseline of curriculum design. That is the fundamental point of disagreement in many departments that set out to rethink and reconceptualise their programmes after review.