Introduction
This paper explores two models of curriculum and how they interrelate with Hong Kong’s schooling system. Through the paper, Tyler and Stenhouse’s process models will comprehensively discuss the Hong Kong education system. Ralph Tyler designed Tyler’s curriculum model in 1949, focusing on assessment and evaluation (Hlebowitsh, 2021). It contains four key components: objectives, learning experience choice, planning of learning experience, and evaluation, as seen in Figure 2. On the other hand, the Stenhouse process suggests that curriculum embodies the intentions that a particular society embraces concerning the type of individual involved. The reason for choosing the topic is because Hong Kong has been having challenges in implementing its curriculum due to globalized society that may require review of the learning experience and outcome for students. The other reason is to combat the risk of producing learners who may not have undergone the appropriate school system relevant to their skills and capabilities by using contextual analysis of the two models.
There is a presence of visional knowledge, educator role, and process of education where the responsibilities of teachers are essential in elaborating and implementing the curriculum. Hong Kong’s schooling system resembles the English one and calls for compulsory education for children aged 6-15 (Coniam & Falvey, 2018). The system is known for its rigorous testing and is one of the top-ranked systems in the world. Hong Kong has primary, secondary, vocational, and tertiary education levels as seen in Figure 1. The system has shown significant competitiveness, although the curriculum has dropped mandatory primary and junior secondary examinations.
Discussion
Background of the Topic and Contribution of Important Scholars
Both Tyler and Stenhouse’s process models in the curriculum impact education due to the powerful ideas and objectives incorporated in the two. Various scholars have emphasized on the importance of this model, which the Hong Kong schooling system can employ to achieve a milestone when it comes to the implementation of school programs. Hlebowitsh (2021) says that this model applies philosophical and psychological criteria whereby the philosophy of a given school should pave the way for the emergence of criterion that allows a curriculum expert to weigh the essentiality of any objective related to the education system. Tyler’s model is concerned with four key issues as follows;
- The educational accomplishment the school seeks to achieve
- Educational experiences that can be offered to attain the key objectives
- The organization of the educational experiences to attain efficacy
- The determination of whether or not the purpose is attainable
Part of the topic is the Stenhouse process model of curriculum that Hong Kong can use in its school system. The fundamental reason why this model was developed was to ensure that every student receives relevant learning outcomes that may be helpful toward their academic growth. Elliott (2019) identifies the ideas that make the model important for a schooling system,. They say the curriculum has flexibility, openness, creativity, and innovation since educators play a key role in developing learning experiences. By reflecting on this model, Hong Kong has employed various elements, such as research based on what educators offer learners.
In the Hong Kong education system, professional development has been perfected by educators, which aligns with this model. The system recommends that teachers ask about the kind of students they are forming and the futuristic significance in the community (Coniam & Falvey, 2018). The compulsory learning based on age means education has been perceived as the core driver towards changes expected in society. These factions are evident under Stenhouse and Tyler’s models of curriculum. Still, there is a lot that needs to be changed due to dynamic variations in demographics, environment, and structure of frameworks that schools in Hong Kong have witnessed.
The main focus is the Hong Kong schooling system which means the models’ subjects must be reviewed under the consideration of this region. It is important to note that the literacy level in Hong Kong is 94.6%, where more than 1.04 learners have enrolled in various education levels (Coniam & Falvey, 2018). Education in Hong for the public sector is free, and students are enrolled through Primary One Admission System (POAS) for primary education. Pre-school education has been payable, but subsidy from the pre-primary education voucher scheme (PEVS) has facilitated education. There has been the realization that the Hong Kong schooling system has not been effective due to various reasons (Coniam & Falvey, 2018). For instance, the system has channeled learners into a classified band of students based on academic excellence while overlooking the special or specific skills that should be nurtured. Additionally, schools have been floating silently at the expense of society, where the integral factor has been missed in transforming the community through new culture, innovation, and social stratification.
While looking at the Hong Kong education system, the Stenhouse process can make it lack a competency-based curriculum (CBC). Although the model does not fully embrace CBC, it calls for unanimous consent in terms of the coherence of the teaching process minding the essence and impact on a learner (Elliott, 2019). For instance, massive ranking witnessed in the system means the methodology may segregate a few students who may be above average while sidelining others who might have the potential for excellence elsewhere. Elliott & Austin (2019) say that the curriculum evaluation process in Stenhouse offers guidance on the way forward regarding the learners’ experience with education. Educators should evaluate dynamics in the curriculum rather than results. As a result, Hong Kong might realize the lapse in dividing learners in terms of their academic potential.
There are many thoughts that the two models have when it comes to curriculum planning. For instance, there is a call for reforming the educational structure to the benefit of the public through particular stimuli. Wood (2018) suggests that schools should determine students’ behavior to develop a curriculum that favors each subset of learners without discriminatory teaching methods. There is little embracing of realistic teacher’s insights into the Hong Kong education system, which has centered pupil excellence on testability (Coniam & Falvey, 2018). The advantage of applying the Stenhouse process is that education professionals can change the planning depending on observed changes and develop acceptable teaching procedures, as seen in Figure 3.
Importance of the Topic to Curriculum and Learning
Incorporating both Tyler and Stenhouse models in curriculum planning is of high importance. The reason is that there are learning opportunities that engage students. Hence, a teacher can discover the skills of every person they handle (Hlebowitsh, 2021). In this way, curriculum development can be developedum to fit all the classes of pupils by inviting technical and non-technical subjects that can define someone’s future career path. Additionally, the topic enables learners to choose an effective experience without the pressure of existing uncertainties such as failure (Cho, 2017). Although these two models do not invalidate the academicians in class, they suggest that a prior engagement before revealing the course of action should be considered to ensure no learner is left out due to the teacher’s ignorance in navigating their learning experiences.
Using the two models is beneficial in curriculum and learning. There is the determination of specific goals instead of generalizing objectives that do not lead to effective learning opportunities. For instance, by applying the Stenhouse process model, Hong Kong educational experts can discover the gaps in fostering quality education for learners, such as primitive measures to control students’ academic excellence (Cho, 2017). Stenhouse process model is a gradual provision in planning curriculum whereby institutions can focus on the loopholes by employing a holistic view such as taking each learner with their drawbacks whereby there is no assumption that some learners are more capable than others. Wood (2018) says that the Tyler model observes the student and analyzes the need, interests, and goals. Thus, the Hong Kong education system can be set in that the society’s life and the community’s needs could be priorities while planning for the curriculum.
However, the empirical analysis must be undertaken to avoid any liability, and that is why it is important to check the feasibility by forming task forces that navigate the discrepancies in society and ways to address them by offering opportunities in schools for students to perfect that. For instance, there could be the realization that most older people in Hong Kong have fallen prey to drug abuse during their grief moments (Gao, 2020). By that observation, the curriculum can be set by prioritizing learning experiences that are more therapeutic training to handle tough situations. That applies to social sciences, and this mannerism may control the traits seen as adverse in the community.
Specific disciplines such as science and mathematics must be learned by applying concepts evident in life, such as technological advancement, financial metrics in modern society, and changes in proficiency in fields such as research and development. There should be no imposition and authoritarianism in the Hong Kong school system because the autonomy of the education pathway should hinder these drawbacks (Gao, 2020). Thus, both Stenhouse and Tyler’s models in curriculum development can change educational experiences by offering up-to-date perspectives that shall take care of the community by altering the methodologies of approaching issues through education.
The Idea in Question and Real-life Application in Hong Kong Schooling System
Stenhouse and Tyler’s models in curriculum development can be applied in various ways depending on the context of the Hong Kong educational system. It is important to note that Hong Kong has been facing challenges whereby students are being taught concerning passing tests without emphasizing the globalized world (Kennedy, 2022). For instance, there is success in business for a person who has skills in managing and planning for monetary resources. This individual may not be effective in passing examinations or showing prowess in discharging cognitive ability when it comes to class work.
Hong Kong has been facing education challenges whereby many parents have started taking their children to schools abroad. There is a lack of articulation of the primary needs a student must have regarding their potential in life. There is high demand for a private international schooling system in Hong Kong (Kennedy, 2022). The forceful measures that require students to memorize information verbatim are dragging the concept of globalization. For instance, someone can make many reference points regardingtechnical problem they may face in their lines of work. Following Tyler’s model, Hong Kong educators must evaluate the current framework of curriculum (Hlebowitsh, 2021). That will enable stakeholders in education to see if it abides by the globalized world and whether or not it corresponds to the principles and objectives of learning.
There should be a fresh determination of educational purposes and objectives. For instance, the experts can propose an objective that calls for developing a student to have basic cognition that can help them in ordinary ways of getting income through whatever venture they indulge in (Zhang, 2020). That means a comprehensive revision of the current curriculum must be done and the adoption of policies that bar job openings from checking candidates based on academic merit. The reason is that current society looks for skills more than intelligence. Under the model, Hong Kong must identify experiences related to the objective above (Zhang, 2020). For instance, it could be to abolish national examinations that are perceived as the standard measure of one’s educational background. This way, it will be easy to evaluate the process if everything is aligned with specific current ideas applied under Tyler’s model.
Hong Kong can apply the Stenhouse process model of the curriculum in regards to changing the current setting. In this case, there must be keen to combine all the core interacting systems in education, such as pedagogy, assessment, and curriculum. The process that is required for the three themes is checking learners’ substantive interests and the possible impact of new educational experiences (Law, 2017). The process’s main idea would be to underpin the teaching outcomes that embrace exposure to learning fields rather than theoretical knowledge. If Hong Kong keenly follows the model, educators can discover contemporary structures and thoughts in the minds of students and learners. For instance, the process must review whether the accuracy of educational knowledge is transferrable to real working zones.
Recommendations and Conclusion
Knowledge of the application of Tyler and Stenhouse models can impact a teacher’s proficiency. The reason is that there is a change in perception between classwork and success outside classwork. Knowing the need to identify the problem and interests of every student enables educators to frame a curriculum that allows fixing of elements that change with time due to a globalized society (Wood, 2018). For example, planning for an education curriculum in technical subjects must allow the incorporation of future changes due to technology, more so robotic capability in many fields. It would be illogical to teach a student how to reconcile and amends financial reports for an institution when there are applications that can auto-compile that when an audit is run (Kennedy, 2022). The key focus should be teaching the students how to configure the systems to capture all the elements and how similar systems can run parallel to ensure there is tallying of results.
Recommendations are that educators should plan a curriculum that paves the way for future creative innovation and one that links a learner’s capability with their chances of getting a rich opportunity. The other recommendation is that there should be task forces in Hong Kong to monitor, analyze and compare the progress of the curriculum in line with achieving the objective of competency-based individuals in the future. Tyler’s model specifies objectives, identifiesing the required educational experie, and organizeszing the experiences to achieve the purpose. Stenhouse’s model is concerned with the process that covers learning and teaching concerning knowledge and skills required in the real world.
References
Cho, M.-shook. (2017). Pressure groups and educational policy in Hong Kong. Open Dissertation Press.
Coniam, D., & Falvey, P. (2018). Background to the Hong Kong education system. High-Stakes Testing, 3(4), 37–46. Web.
Elliott, J. (2019). Quality criteria for lesson and learning studies as forms of action research. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 9(1), 11–17. Web.
Elliott, J., & Austin, L. (2019). The conceptualization and impact of a post-graduate course in lesson and learning study. Educational Action Research, 27(4), 460–480. Web.
Gao, X. (2020). Education in Hong Kong: Problems and solutions. The Borgen Project. Web.
Hlebowitsh, P. (2021). Ralph Tyler, the Tyler Rationale, and the idea of educational evaluation. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education, 4(3), 2–12. Web.
Kennedy, K. (2022). Why an overhaul of Hong Kong’s education system is long overdue. South China Morning Post. Web.
Law, E. H.-fai. (2017). Developing distributed curriculum leadership in Hong Kong schools. Education and Pedagogy, 12, 4–23. Web.
Wood, K. (2018). The many faces of lesson study and learning study. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 7(1), 2–7. Web.
Zhang, W. (2020). Policy research on introducing talents from Hong Kong and Macao to Higher Education Institutions in Guangdong-hong kong-macao greater bay area. 2020 International Conference on Educational Training and Educational Phenomena (ICETEP2020), 4(5), 2–17. Web.