Institute of Lifelong Learning
College Park
Queen’s University Belfast
Belfast BT7 1NN
Northern Ireland
United Kingdom
To Mr. Rob Mark
Report of Group 2. of Grundtvig Project ALPINE
Group title:
Group Convenor:
Group members:
15. 05. 2002.
The Curriculum and Adult Education
Mr. Balázs Németh, Univeristy of Pécs, nemethb@human.pte.hu
Ms. Mary Claire Halvorson, Goldsmith University,
m.c.halvorson@gold.ac.uk
Dr. Daryl Bibby, University of Coventry, EDU047@coventry.ac.uk
Prof. Ted. Thomas, University of Bristol,
e.j.thomas@bristol.ac.uk
Progress Report on Workshop2 for the LUND meeting:
The Group 2. of Grundtvig Project ALPINE dealt with the following issues referring to
Curriculum and Adult Education in the first four months of 2002:
Having debated the notion and modern understanding of Curriculum, the classical definition
of Taba1, and the implication of his seven particular elements, listed below, make us rethink
the definition and open up new grounds of how curriculum planning and its related processes
help develop participation in AE.
1.
Analysis of claims of the society;
2.
Clear set of goals and patterns;
3.
Identification of content;
4.
Organisation of content;
5.
Plan of learning-related plans;
6.
Applicable methods and strategies;
7.
Plan of Assessment.
1
Taba, H. (1962) Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. Harcourt, Brace and World. New York.

What do we mean by Curriculum:
Mary-Claire Halvorson pointed out in her latest writing that the adult learner-centred use and
reconsideration of content and aim of both curriculum and assessment would help raising
participation in adult education. Instead of talking about curriculum in higher education, she
points out, it is useful to distinguish between the planned, the delivered, the received and the
used curriculum. But, as Ms. Halvorson states, it is more logical to use the term created
curriculum instead of delivered curriculum, (it is not like delivering a letter in the post) and,
to rethink the notion of received curriculum so as to use the term the understood curriculum
and so to keep the adult learner at the centre of our considerations. What is taught by the tutor
is not what the learner receives, for we know that new information is processed and
understood in relation to the adult learners’ own mental structures.
When ALPINE scrutinises the issue of Quality „the implication is that where the quality of
learning is being judged, then evidence needs to be provided showing what has been learned
(the understood curriculum) and then evidence of what was created by the tutor, and what had
been planned.” (MC Halvorson) We may plan to teach you how to whistle, and then we may
teach you *BUT* this does not mean that you have learned how to whistle, until we hear
you!
Ms. Halvorson also refers to the importance of used curriculum according to the contribution
of understood curriculum to life „beyond the undergraduate or traditional educational
experience. These contributions may be in the workplace or as citizens (See ALPINE’s
interest in having to react on the European debate on active citizenship!), parents, care-takers,
or neighbours. Ms. Halvorson’s crucial question is: „ Is education in tune with societal needs,
broadly understood?”2
It is important to see the relation and interdependency between successful learning and proper
assessment processes as being the part of the same intellectual environment when influencing
understood curriculum. Ms. Halvorson recommends that „we suggest that assessment has
considerable power to shape adult learning.” She also underlines that „good curriculum
cannot contain bad assessment but bad assessment can poison good, planned and created
See Edmund C. Short’s article on Knowledge and the educative functions of a university: designing the
curriculum of higher education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 2002, Vol. 34. No. 2, 139-148.
Look for his elaboration on general education referring to citizenship!
2
curricula.” and that „ to examine the quality and quantity adult participation in HE need to be
sensitive to the quality of assessment arrangements within the curriculum.”
The whole approach involves quality centredness in curriculum-analysis that other groups of
ALPINE may use as well when reflecting upon major issues, recommendations on key EU
documents on LLL.

Dr. Darry Bibby, while sharing views on having to concentrate on adult learning and
social responsibility, points out that issue of how to engage more and more adults in
learning is a key point. It refers to the marketing-role well-constructed curricula and their
relation to adult learners. Dr. Bibby is more concerned of the implementation, rather to
say, on the doing of Adult Education and its curricula so as to get more adult learners
involved. (See the problems of application of knowledge, integration of new ideas
(APEL), contradictions of the structure and content of teaching materials and manuals,
contradictions between
adult learning processes and curricula structures, effect of
different life stages in AE) According to one of the sources Dr. Bibby has brought into
the debate, „the curriculum designer must know whether the concepts or ideas will be in
concert or in conflict with the learner”.3

Balázs Németh, as group convenor, has participated the analysis of curriculum
development of MA in Cultural Management and MA in HRD of Institute of Adult
Education of the University of Pécs. That certain domain in AE and the implication of
findings in further papers combined with some new approaches on assessment criteria
and process-planning will appear by the of May, 2002. Also, the group convenor points
out the importance of research in AE Curriculum and its relation to LLL, as the Cape
Town Statement of UNESCO identifies that „ LLL is regarded as an important and
legitimate research are.” (Cape Town Statement - UNESCO, January 2001.)
Prof. Eedward J. Thomas has been involved in the assessment of the Progress Reports of
Group1 on Participating Countries for the last couple months.
3
Ron and Susan Zemke, Innovation Abstracts Vol. VI, No. 8, March 9, 1984.
Additional Report on the Work Group2 of ALPINE referring to the Working Group
Session on 04. 05. 2002. :
Participants: Dr. Darryl Bibby, Coventry University, d.bibby@coventry.ac.uk
Daiva Dumciuviene, Kaunas University of Technology,
daiva.dumciuviene@cr.ktu.lt
Mary Claire Halvorson, Goldsmith College, University of London,
m.c.halvorson@gold.ac.uk
Balázs Németh, Institute of Adult Education, University of Pécs,
nemethb@human.pte.hu
Group2 started the session by deciding upon a clear commitment to set up a frame of New
Structural Framing of Curriculum in AE in order to be able to incorporate new approaches
that may improve participation in AE.
This new model is going to reflect a student-centred understanding of AE curriculum referring
to formal learning and will be set for the homepage of ALPINE/Group2 by Dr. Bibby (See
Link to Group2 of ALPINE web-site!).
Members of Group2 shared a common view that the adult learner’s motivation is the key of
learning and that this motivation is focused on value(s) based upon the claims either of factors
of employability(external) or of self-development(internal).
Therefore, a newly understood and labelled curriculum must be recognised, as the learner can
only reach fulfilment if the following aspects are clearly set: affordability, Accessibility,
Content, Delivery-style, Achievability, Commitment, Timing.
Also, HE must use an obvious system of assessment and evaluation of learning and
competence.
Group members will elaborate on the model of AE Curriculum and analyse related issues, like
assessment, institutional constraints etc. indicated at the links of the Group2 of ALPINE website!
Balázs Németh
Group Convenor
Group2 of Socrates Grundtvig ALPINe Project
15. 05. 2002.
Pécs -Hungary