Professor Saloshna Vandeyar delivered a Curriculum Transformation live-stream lecture at the first instalment of the UP-Curriculum Transformation Lecture Series on the 13 August 2021. She shared with the University community initiatives and innovative ways and practices to realise the strategic objective of having a transformed curriculum that is inclusive, dynamic, and responsive to the changing educational contexts.  A curriculum aimed not only at preparing students for the future, but one that nurtures the humane element by addressing the dynamics of power and social, cultural, and cognitive justice education. Professor Vandeyar argued that the transformation of the curriculum should focus on race (in)equalities and all other kinds of inequalities that are produced and reproduced in educational spaces by educational processes, practices, and discourses.  

The University is a microcosm of the broader society and by extension the world. Thus the transformation of the curriculum cannot be viewed in isolation. A number of variables are at play. Professor Vandeyar claimed that curriculum transformation is framed by contexts such as, the historical, political, social, geographical, ideological and global context; by agents of curriculum delivery, namely academics; by the language and mode of instruction; by a diverse and heterogenous group of students; by institutional culture and a paradigm of power. Transformation of the curriculum has to be a university-wide initiative.

The praxis of institutional stakeholders should thus be responsive to these differing variables and should create conditions that democratise educational spaces; make room for both individual and group identities within the institutional context and create shared and negotiated understandings and practices while knowledge is being generated and disseminated.

Professor Vandeyar argued that educational change should address both first and second order changes. Transformation of the curriculum is a second-order change. She claimed that the curriculum should reflect and affirm diverse groups of people. It should be grounded in the lives of our students; be critical, multicultural, anti-racist, pro-justice and informed by an ethic of care and compassion.  She argued that transforming the curriculum is not a clinical process. It is characterised by a ‘messiness’ that not only embraces academic rigour but is culturally sensitive, participatory, experiential, hopeful, joyful, kind, visionary and incites a form of activism by creating agents of change for a better society and world.

Professor Vandeyar shared some practical and innovative ways of transforming the curriculum and the institution such as, addressing both first and second order changes; participating in experiential learning workshops that allow us to walk in the shoes of another; showcasing good practice in culture-rich institutions and embracing various schools of thoughts. Transforming the curriculum requires a critical consciousness of diversity and the adoption of an asset-based approach. Equality of cultural trade in conversations about the  broader pool of knowledge is important. It is imperative that we draw on evidence-based research on pedagogies and practices in working with diverse students.

Any attempt at transforming the curriculum that ignores changing mindsets will be futile. The will, agency and change in mindsets of the institutional stakeholders is key to transforming the curriculum and the broader context within which it operates.