Curriculum coherence as a process

Internationally, there is a movement toward more stringent accountability demands concerning the quality of teacher education (Hökkä et al., 2019; Murray et al., 2019), which is one of the reasons teacher education programs need useful frameworks to examine the quality of the learning experiences they provide (Hammerness & Klette, 2015). One way to approach the quality of teacher education programs is through the concept of curriculum coherence, which refers to the extent to which the various components within the teacher education curriculum are aligned (Hammerness, 2006). Herein, the curriculum is not reduced to the list of program courses. It includes the full range of aims, content, activities, and organizational aspects that are embedded within the educational program (Walker & Soltis, 1997).

A term that is very closely related to coherence is ‘alignment’. Derived from the definition of Canrinus and colleagues (2017), teacher education programs should address three types of alignment to be considered coherent: (1) alignment between courses and the program’s vision, (2) mutual alignment between courses, and (3) alignment between courses and field experiences of student-teachers. These types of alignment should not be regarded as ‘a fixed end-stage of curriculum development’, as curriculum coherence should be approached as a complex process of collaboration, compromise, and intense social interaction between faculty members (Cavanna et al., 2021; Richmond et al., 2019). This interpretation implies that alignment is not a finite process, but instead an ongoing one that requires consistent maintenance and sustained efforts from the team of teacher educators.

The potential role of program leaders

Together with a focus on the process-oriented and social nature of coherence in teacher education, there is an increasing recognition of the potential role of program leaders in striving for more curriculum coherence (Cavanna et al., 2021). This is not surprising, given that coherence seems to be situated in processes of collaboration and interaction and previous research has already demonstrated the importance of leadership in fostering these processes (e.g., Branson et al., 2016). Berdrow (2010), for example, states that developing and maintaining productive information flow and relationships between people in the department is one of the requisite skills of department chairs. Branson and colleagues (2016) even consider the pursuit of a deeper sense of relational connection and interdependence throughout the organization to be the most important leadership skill.

A closer examination of the literature regarding leadership in higher education reveals further connections with literature concerning coherence in teacher education. For example, Bryman (2007) found that having a ‘clear sense of direction/strategic vision’ has consistently been found to be an effective leadership quality in higher education. Interestingly, having a ‘clear vision of teaching and learning’ and ‘explicitly aiming for curriculum coherence’ are considered to be important for fostering curriculum coherence (Canrinus et al., 2019; Hammerness & Klette, 2015). In total, Bryman (2007) identified 13 forms of effective leadership behavior in higher education and at least four of these are conceptually connected to coherence in teacher education: (1) having a clear sense of direction/strategic vision, (2) preparing department arrangements to facilitate the direction set, (3) communicating well about the direction the department is going, and (4) creating a positive/collegial work atmosphere in the department (Cavanna et al., 2021; Hermansen, 2020).

Despite the recognition of the potential importance of leadership for curriculum coherence in teacher education, little is known about how program leaders aim to address curriculum coherence in practice (Cavanna et al., 2021; Hermansen, 2020). Therefore, this study considers the following research question: ‘How do program leaders in (secondary) teacher education foster curriculum coherence?’

In this multiple case study, six secondary teacher education programs were examined in depth through thematic analysis of interviews and complementary documents. These teacher education programs are based in Flanders and are classified at levels 6 (Bachelor) and 7 (Master) of the European Qualifications Framework (EQF; Ministry of Education and Training, n.d.). They are provided in two types of higher education institutions: universities of applied sciences and universities. Teacher education programs must consider some government guidelines when developing their curricula (e.g., ‘framework of teacher competencies’, Nusche et al., 2015), but overall, they are granted a relatively high degree of curricular autonomy. Data collection The data collection took place from January to June 2023. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in six teacher education programs for secondary education in six different higher education institutions; three universities (focus on academic education; EQF level 7) and three universities of applied sciences (focus on professional education; EQF level 6). This choice was made to ensure variation in program visions. For each program, interviews were conducted with program leaders and teacher educators in all curricular components: general education courses, subject didactics courses, field experiences, and the research component. In addition, documents were collected regarding the program's vision, quality assurance system, curriculum, and organizational structure. Data analysis The interviews and documents were coded in NVivo and analyzed using the thematic analysis method of Braun and Clarke (2006). This method consists of six steps: (1) becoming familiar with the data, (2) generating codes, (3) generating themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and (6) locating exemplars. The initial coding process was followed by the compilation of a case summary for each of the six programs. These summaries or ‘conceptually ordered displays’ provide a thematic overview of the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Each summary includes information about the program’s institutional context (e.g., the institution’s educational vision), the program’s vision, the program’s curriculum, practices aimed at fostering curriculum coherence, and influential contextual factors. Further analyses resulted in the identification of seven leadership practices aimed at enhancing curriculum coherence. The validity and reliability of the data and research findings were strengthened through triangulation. In each case, we included the perspectives of multiple participants: program leader(s) and teacher educators within various curricular components (data triangulation). In addition, we analyzed both interviews and documents to substantiate findings from various sources (method triangulation).

The analyses confirm the role of program leaders in promoting curriculum coherence in teacher education programs. Across the six programs, program heads had a substantive role in the development and implementation of a coherent curriculum. Despite varying approaches, program visions, curriculum emphases, and institutional contexts, similar coherence-enhancing practices were identified. Program leaders employed the following practices to foster curriculum coherence: (1) establishing a clear and supported program vision, (2) leveraging the program vision, (3) investing in networks of partner schools, (4) facilitating curriculum-related communication and collaboration among teacher educators, (5) prioritizing a coherent curriculum design, (6) managing human resources to enhance curriculum coherence, and (7) involving students in promoting and evaluating curriculum coherence. These findings show that focusing on curriculum coherence does not only involve the initial development of a coherent curriculum structure and a clear program vision but also the work carried out by the program leader – and by extension also the team of teacher educators – once the initial development phase has passed. Managing human resources, involving students, leveraging the program vision, investing in networks, and facilitating communication and collaboration are all practices that require continuous attention. In other words, a coherent curriculum design and a clear program vision are a favorable foundation for a coherent curriculum, but a considerable portion of the effort lies in the continuous attention to coherence in daily curriculum implementation. Finally, it is interesting that various program leaders referred to the influence of contextual factors on their efforts to enhance curriculum coherence. For example, various program leaders indicated that the culture of autonomy among educators made a focus on curriculum coherence challenging. Future research could examine how the institutional context influences curriculum coherence and how program leaders could address this.

Berdrow, I. (2010). King among Kings: Understanding the Role and Responsibilities of the Department Chair in Higher Education. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(4), 499-514. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143210368146 Branson, C. M., Franken, M., & Penney, D. (2016). Middle leadership in higher education: A relational analysis. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(1), 128-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/174114321455857 Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 693-710. Canrinus, E. T., Bergem, O. K., Klette, K., & Hammerness, K. (2017). Coherent teacher education programmes: taking a student perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(3), 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1124145 Cavanna, J. M., Molloy Elreda, L., Youngs, P., & Pippin, J. (2021). How Methods Instructors and Program Administrators Promote Teacher Education Program Coherence. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119897005 Hammerness, K. (2006). From coherence in theory to coherence in practice. Teachers College Record, 108(7), 1241–1265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00692.x Hammerness, K., & Klette, K. (2015). Indicators of quality in teacher education: Looking at features of teacher education from an international perspective. In G. K. LeTendre & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), International Perspectives on Education and Society (Vol. 27, pp. 239-277). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-367920140000027013 Hermansen, H. (2020). In Pursuit of Coherence: Aligning Program Development in Teacher Education with Institutional Practices. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(6), 936–952. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1639815 Hökkä; P., Rautiainen, M., Silander, T., & Eteläpelto, A. (2019). Collective Agency-Promoting Leadership in Finnish Teacher Education. In J. Murray, A. Swennen & C. Kosnik (Eds.), International Research, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education (pp. 15-21). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01612-8 Ministry of Education and Training. (n.d.). Level of qualifications | What is the FQF? | The Flemish Qualifications Framework. Retrieved January 25, 2024, from https://vlaamsekwalificatiestructuur.be/en/what-is-fqf/levels-of-qualifications/ Murray, J., Swennen, A., & Kosnik, C. (2019). How lay theories (or mindsets) shape the confrontation of prejudice. In J. Murray, A. Swennen & C. Kosnik (Eds.), International Research, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education (pp. 1-13). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01612-8 Nusche, D., Miron, G., Santiago, P., & Teese, R. (2015). OECD Reviews of School Resources: Flemish Community of Belgium. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264247598 Richmond, G., Bartell, T., Carter Andrews, D. J., & Neville, M. L. (2019). Reexamining Coherence in Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(3), 188–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119838230 Walker, D. F., & Soltis, J. F. (1997). Curriculum and aims. Teachers College Press.