IntroductionUniversity programs, especially those spanning three-five years, typically include a large number of discrete courses, often taught across several faculties and commonly allowing considerable student freedom in course selection. In this context, for program designers of professional education programs such as teacher education, achieving program is problematic. Fostering for students such outcomes as knowledge integration, deep understanding and development of professional identity becomes highly elusive. Buchmann and Floden (1991, p. 65) put challenge thus:In terms of intellectual how can one create a web of beliefs composed of subject matter understandings, concepts from foundations, and situated, strategic knowledge of teachers? How can different kinds of learning, located in different institutions (university, training college, workplace), and offered by different people (academics, student supervisors, teachers) be made to work together in practice?....There is a prevailing assumption that answers may be found in bringing together concept of with that of programme.In addition to this hope that may solve problems of fragmented curricula and a lack of transfer of university learning into practice (see, for example, Buchmann, 1987; Lortie, 1975), curriculum designers of professional degrees struggle with tension between conveying content (subject matter) and teaching thinking (generic cognitive competencies). They typically value the idea that curriculum should focus more on competencies such as learning to learn, interactive skills, communication skills, information processing, problem-solving and reflective skills (Tilemma, Kessels & Meijers, 2000, p. 266). In case of non-professional courses (e.g., women's studies), there can also be a search for curriculum in order to realise goals of these programs (Salley, Winkler, Celeen & Meck, 2004).Important work has been done at school level. Newmann, King and Youngs (2000) and King, Ladwig and Lingard (2001) identify five interacting organisational elements that build school capacity and lead to better student learning for all students. A key element among these is program which Newmann, King and Youngs (2000, p. 263) define as the extent to which a school's programs for student and staff learning are coordinated, focused on clear learning goals, and sustained over a period of time.In United Kingdom, Rudduck and Harris (1994, p. 198) address of broader term coherence, urging for a form of coherence that is about meaning and not bureaucratic commonality, consistency or tidiness. It is, say, significance of for students that matters and researchers fail if they do not set out to understand how students experience They argue (p. 198) that:Coherence is actively constructed rather than passively received. Students bring with them their own resource of experience and understanding, and represents linking of new insights, knowledge and with that resource. Thus, is about - how new curriculum experiences can be meaningfully taken on board by individual students.At its basic level, connectedness conveys idea of joining things together and it may refer to links between individual courses or between courses and out-of-school life. Taken in sense of linking curriculum content and processes to student experience outside school, this notion of connectedness has been identified as a key element of effective pedagogy by work done in United States (Newmann & Associates, 1996). Follow-up work (Lingard & Ladwig, 2001) that verifies and extends these results has been conducted in Queensland, as part of development of Education Queensland's (2001) New Basics curriculum. Subsequently, work done in New South Wales (New South Wales Department of Education and Training, 2003) has modified pedagogical model. …
Read full abstract