THE PROBLEM
A curriculum consists of a varying scope that defines the desired learning experiences that an educational institution desire to inculcate to their students. A curriculum, therefore may be a unit, a sequence of courses, or the school’s entire program of studies which may take place inside or outside of class or school when directed by the faculty member or personnel of the school.
It encompasses the total opportunities for learning provided by the educational institution. A curriculum is designed to teach a variety of subjects, giving students access to an education that is not exclusive but open to all mediums of understanding and knowledge. It is a plan that focuses and guides classroom instruction and assessment A curriculum is important in education because it develops the many areas of the students’ minds and it prepares students for their chosen career.
Students need equal access to high-quality instruction. The importance of a curriculum is to provide teachers a structure for instruction so that they can balance the often competing forces of standards, tests, textbooks, and programs. The curriculum provides the structure for management of teaching and learning as well as staff development.
The College of Hotel and Restaurant Management of St. Paul University Iloilo, in line with its mission of providing future Paulinian Hotelier and Restauranteur to become globally competitive, equipped with knowledge and skills, a mature Christian immersed with gospel values and generous to share the good news and enterprise of their fellow men, has structured a 215-unit Bachelor of Science in Hotel and Restaurant Management Curriculum that is based on the Commission on Higher Education’s (CHED) model as prescibed in the CHED Memorandum Order No. 30, series of 2006.
The BSHRM curriculum of St. Paul University Iloilo is divided into 7 cores or subject divisions namely: General Education Courses, Business Core, Tourism Core, Specialized subjects, Practicum/Work-integrated learning, PE & NSTP and Religious Education. In higher education there is currently an emphasis on students becoming more engaged in the learning process (Carini et al, 2006). Indeed, there are suggestions that students should become active co-creators of learning (SFC, 2008; SFC, 2006).
This has led to some suggestions for greater student participation in designing specific elements of courses such as assessment (Nicol, 2008). There have also been a handful of specific calls for students to become active participants in the design of the curriculum. Aside from being a requirement for clearance to get our salary, the purpose of this undertaking is to find out the assessment of 4th year BSHRM students and faculty members on the currently utilized 2010-2011 BSHRM Curriculum.
This is important to school administrators of St. Paul University Iloilo and members of higher education as point of reference or benchmark information in curriculum updating and planning for other hospitality courses. Statement of the Problem The main problem of this study was: What is the perception of the 4th year BSHRM students and Teachers on the BSHRM Curriculum 2010-2011 of St. Paul University Iloilo as to objectives, contents and methods? Specifically, the study sought to answer the following questions:
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of the BSHRM curriculum 2010-2011 as identified by the respondents?
- Is there a significant difference between the perception of the 4th year BSHRM students and faculty on the BSHRM curriculum 2010-2011?
The study is beneficial to the following: Commission on Higher Education. To provide data on the perception of students and teachers of SPUI on the BSHRM curriculum based on their model thus providing feedback which can be used as basis for curriculum reviews. This can enhance the relevance of programs or curriculum being offered in the Higher Educational Institutions for the purpose of improving the employability of graduates to match the need of the hospitality industry.
School Administrators of St. Paul Univeristy Iloilo. To provide benchmark information in assessing the current BSHRM 2010-2011 Curriculum in terms of its objectives, contents and methods. Future Researchers. To give them additional literature/source on the Perception or Assessment of students and faculty on the BSHRM Curriculum. Scope and Limitations This is a study on the perception of the 4th year BSHRM students and Teachers on the BSHRM Curriculum 2010-2011 of St. Paul University Iloilo as to objectives, contents and methods.
The respondents are all the regular 4th year BSHRM students of school year 2013-2014 and the BSHRM faculty of SPUI. The study investigates the assessment of 4th year BSHRM students and faculty members on the strengths and weaknesses of the 2010-2011 curriculum as to objectives, contents and methods. The study also determines whether there is a significant difference between the perception of the 4th year BSHRM students and faculty on the BSHRM curriculum 2010-2011. Definition of Terms Assessment. A judgment about something based on an understanding of the situation.
In the study, it refers to the evaluation done by the 4th year BSHRM students and Faculty on the 2010-2011 curriculum regarding its objectives, contents and methods. Course. A program of study or training, especially one that leads to a degree or certificate from an educational institution. (Microsoft Encarta, 2007) In the study, it refers to the BSHRM program offered by St. Paul University Iloilo Curriculum. The course offerings of an educational institution. Decisions about what a school should teach are usually made by school administrators and faculty.
In the study, it refers to the 2010-2011 BSHRM curriculum currently utilized by St. Paul University Iloilo. Faculty. The teaching staff for a particular university division. (Microsoft Encarta, 2007) In the study, it refers to all BSHRM faculty members of St. Paul University Iloilo who are also respondents of this research. HRM Students. They are individuals who study at a school, college or university majoring in Hotel and Restaurant Management. (Alan Price and HRM Guide Network contributors, 1997)
In the study, the HRM students are all the regular 4th year BSHRM students of school year 2013-2014 of St. Paul Univeristy Iloilo who are also respondents of this research. Perception. An attitude or understanding based on what is observed or thought. (Microsoft Encarta, 2007) In the study, it refers to the evaluation done by the 4th year BSHRM students and Faculty on the 2010-2011 curriculum regarding its objectives, contents and methods. Subject. A branch of learning that forms a course of study. (Microsoft Encarta, 2007) In the study, it refers to all the subjects encompassed in the 2010-2011 BSHRM curriculum of SPUI.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
A quality educational program must be consistent with its institution’s mission, have clearly defined outcomes it intends to produce, use the best combination of learning experiences to help each learner achieve these results, include an assessment process that shows whether the results are being achieved, and use the findings of assessment to improve program effectiveness.
An approach to continuous program improvement that asks the right questions can provide academic administrators, faculty members, and others with the information they need to develop an appropriate, effective, and efficient academic program. The focus here is on undergraduate programs, but identical principles apply to curricula at the graduate level as well. Student Participation in Curriculum Review Calls for student participation in the curriculum go back as far as Dewey (1916) at the beginning of the 20th century.
Others have concurred with Dewey’s views that students should share responsibility for curriculum planning (Aronowitz, 1994, 1981; Shor, 1992; Pinar, 1981; Rogers and Freiberg, 1969). Within more recent mainstream higher education literature, there are a handful of specific calls for students to become active participants in the design of the curriculum. These include, for example, those teaching courses that have an explicit remit to promote active, responsible citizenship (Fisher, 2005; Scandrett et al, 2005; Grudens-Schuck, 2003; Wilkinson and Scandrett, 2003), and those involved in language teaching (Breen and Littlejohn, 2000).
Within the literature, there is a range of rationales for students participating in curriculum design. More generally, active and participatory approaches are thought to enhance and support learning (Kahn and O’Rourke, 2005; Reynolds et al, 2004; Ivanic, 2000; Brownet al, 1989; Kolb, 1984). Some authors within higher education make greater claims and suggest that active student participation changes students’ lives and through this transformation they maybecome active and critical citizens who can change their communities (Crowther et al, 2005; Scandrett et al, 2005; Wilkinson and Scandrett, 2003).
In common with findings from the first year curriculum design project, in the literature, authors argue that active student participation in curriculum design is essential to support learning through, for example: students engaging in authentic, relevant and meaningful learning; breaking down the power differential between staff and students; and students experiencing the freedom to become critical thinkers and critical beings in the world (Barnett and Coate, 2005; Rice, 2004; Freire 2003; Taylor et al, 2002; Mezirow, 2000; Rogers and Freiberg,1969).
Active student participation in curriculum design also enhances student choice, contributing to learners taking more responsibility for their own learning (Hooks, 1994; Rogers and Freiberg,1969). However, Reynolds et al (2004) caution that we do not know enough about what is meant by participation. They suggest that there is widespread use of the term participation, partly because it is often viewed as unquestionably positive.
Despite the justifications for pursuing active student participation outlined above, there are also a number of possible drawbacks to active student participation in curriculum design outlined in the literature. Active student participation can be threatening to students who have come through an education system where teachers have dominated the classroom and students may resist new approaches (Shor,1992; Rogers and Freiberg 1969).
Students may also be sceptical of participatory approaches if they have previous experience of tutors claiming to use participatory techniques in which they have been manipulated to create an impression of involvement for the tutor’s benefit (Reynolds et al 2004). Participatory approaches have also been criticised for reifying the views of the less powerful – in this case the students (Reynolds et al 2004; Cooke and Kothari, 2001). This often means that an uncritical value is placed on the views of students, whatever their views are.
This is potentially flawed in the same way the traditional reification of the tutor’s stance is flawed. Curriculum of Hospitality Industry Courses In Hospitality Education, the term curriculum encompasses the total opportunities for learning provided by the educational institution. Doll defined the curriculum of a school as the formal and informal content and processes through which learners gain knowledge and understanding, develop skills and attitudes, appreciation, and values under the auspices of the school (Arafin, 1998).
One of the most basic needs of Hospitality Education is to provide a sound curriculum, which not only provides for the well being of each individual, but also provides a curriculum, which makes a unique contribution to the total education program. When designing curriculum hospitality educators need to provide students with experiences in which students will acquire the skills needed to perform the job. Curriculum appears to be a perennial issue.
What is taught, to whom, when, where and why are questions, which have not always been carefully posed or resolved in education (Arafin, 1998). If hospitality education is to provide students with meaningful and lasting experiences, the curriculum must provide students with learning experiences which give them the opportunity to acquire the necessary skill, attitudes and insights, thereby enabling them to meet the problems they are likely to face in their lives. Curriculum must be an ongoing process, always adjusting to change.
Often teachers and courses, instead of leading the changes, are not up-to-date with the newest happenings and changes (Farkas, 1993). Existing curriculum has to be reviewed periodically to keep abreast of the trends, otherwise old and outdated knowledge and processes will be passed onto the students without realizing that they are outdated. Purcell, 1993) advocated that curriculum should be written with the realization of the changes that have taken place in the past and the changes that are likely to take place in the foreseeable future.
With careful planning, the hospitality curriculum can provide such experience, which can contribute to personal growth, innovative leadership, and self-confidence. Farkas, (1993) in his research has found that hospitality education has changed from being concerned about it’s customers and business oriented in the 1980’s to not meeting customer needs and poor service in the early 90’s. Wolff in his research found that hospitality education in the late 90’s addresses the fast changes in the industry by accommodating dynamic changes in the academics as quickly as the industry changes.
In turn, Purcell, (1993) found that the hospitality industry now has started to perceived that generic business management skills and general business degrees are becoming more important than the hospitality specialist undergraduate degree. The issue seemingly raised for hospitality educators is to review what curriculum elements are now passe or not meeting the needs of their students and industry (Lewis, 1993) states: “Hospitality educators should be leading the industry and discipline it serves and not well following behind it”.
Today researchers note that existing hospitality educational programs are directed towards the hospitality educational system’s past history of producing technically orientated students with marginal management skills that filled a demand for entry level management (Davies, 1995). Research of Dittman, (1993) and Devau, (1991) both note that hospitality education has spent the majority of the past ten years focusing on meeting the rapidly growing demand for entry level management without regards to future upper management needs. Official Government Standards for BSHRM Curriculum
The CMO was signed on June 28, 2006, and was to take effect during the first semester of school year 2007-2008. This set of curricula by CHED on their CMO No. 30, series of 2006 has the following features: This set of curricula has the following features:
- Common core. All the programs share a set of common core. Under the general umbrella of Tourism, graduates of these programs possess a common set of core and specific competencies developed from the general education, business and tourism/hospitality subjects.
- Competency-based. Job readiness of the graduates is the focus of the curricula. Competencies are matched with the competency standards required by of the industry based on the job positions that the graduates will eventually occupy upon graduation.
- Industry-driven. Industry participated in the identification of job entry positions and development of competencies standards.
- Curriculum design. Professional subjects in the first two years are procedural, and the last two years are supervisory. Implicitly, the curriculum design enables the students to leave school after completing the first two years and take on entry- level positions in accommodation, food and beverages, travel agencies, government or non-government agencies. The last two years will hone the students’ supervisory competency to prepare them for supervisory positions as they progress with their careers.
- Orientation. This set of policies and standards consolidates all programs in tourism, hospitality management and related fields into a rational structure with two orientations: the macro and the micro.
- Flexibility. Mindful of the ever-changing landscape within which the tourism and the hospitality sectors operate, the curricula leave room for innovation and enhancement. Schools are encouraged to think global and act local, scan their milieu, understand their clientele and develop subjects to respond to the needs of their environment. Curriculum Outline of CHED Hereunder is the outline of the curriculum for each of the three programs of study.
