For information and reference only – not to be submitted as your own work.
This extract shows one way to structure a critical curriculum proposal report of the kind set in 7PE646 Curriculum Challenges in Contemporary Education at the University of Derby. The setting is invented and labelled illustrative. It is not a complete submission, and the figures and forum posts are examples only. If you want the wider context first, see our education writing support page, and for planning advice read the matching guide on how to write a 7PE646 curriculum development proposal report. Reports of this type sit within our report writing support.
What this sample covers
- A short context section that places a small course change inside a real organisation.
- A critical theory review that sets product, process and alignment models against each other, and adds external pressures and change management.
- A proposal table linking each problem to a change, a reason and an evaluation method.
- A worked example of how forum insights can be cited in Harvard style.
- A reflexivity paragraph on positionality and assumptions.
- An implementation and evaluation plan, and a brief conclusion.
The table below shows where a marker is likely to look for evidence. It maps the published criteria areas to the sections of this extract.
| Criteria area | Where it shows in the extract |
|---|---|
| Subject knowledge | Theory review, with named models and sources |
| Argument, reflexivity and criticality | Comparison of models, positionality paragraph, stated assumptions |
| Application, originality and professional engagement | Proposal table, forum insight, implementation plan |
| Presentation and structure | Signposted headings and a clear line from problem to evaluation |
| Referencing and academic integrity | Harvard citations throughout and a reference list |
Model answer extract
1. Introduction and context
This report critically examines a proposal to redesign one six-lesson online unit on academic paragraph writing. The unit is taught to adult learners preparing for university study at a private language centre (illustrative). Learners arrive at roughly B1 to B2 on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). The centre has a small team of five teachers and no dedicated curriculum lead.
The current unit was written several years ago as a sequence of grammar-led tasks. Learner feedback and teacher notes suggest that students complete the tasks but struggle to transfer the skills to a full paragraph (illustrative observation). The proposal replaces two isolated grammar lessons with drafting and peer review cycles, and adds a short rubric that learners help to interpret.
The report first reviews the theory that frames this decision, then evaluates the proposal against it, and closes with an implementation and evaluation plan. Throughout, the aim is to show why each choice was made, not only what was chosen.
2. Critical review of curriculum theory
Tyler (1949) set out a rational, objectives-led model in which a curriculum starts from aims, selects experiences, organises them and then evaluates whether the aims were met. Its appeal for a language centre is practical: outcomes are explicit, and a unit can be audited. Its weakness is also practical. Learning is treated as something that can be fully specified in advance, which sits awkwardly with writing development, where progress is uneven and often unpredictable.
Stenhouse (1975) challenged this view. For him a curriculum is a proposal to be tested in classrooms, and the teacher is a researcher of their own practice. A process model of this kind suits the proposal here because the redesign is small and the teaching team can observe the effects directly. However, it asks a lot of teachers’ time, and a part-time team may not have it.
Grundy (1987) adds a third position, praxis, in which curriculum decisions are judged against emancipatory interests as well as outcomes. This helps with a question the other models skip: who decides what counts as a good paragraph, and whose English is treated as the standard?
Biggs and Tang (2011) offer a more applied tool. Constructive alignment asks that intended learning outcomes, teaching activities and assessment tasks point the same way. In the current unit the outcome says learners will “write a coherent paragraph”, yet the assessment only checks sentence-level accuracy. That mismatch is the strongest argument for change, and it can be shown directly in the proposal table.
Kelly (2009) reminds us that curriculum is never only a plan. It is also what learners experience and what is hidden in the way a course is run. A rubric that learners can read and question addresses part of that hidden curriculum.
2.1 External agencies and pressures
Language curricula rarely belong to one organisation alone. The CEFR and its Companion Volume (Council of Europe, 2020) give level descriptors that centres use to describe progress, and they are increasingly used by sponsors and partner universities. They are helpful for shared language, yet they describe what learners can do in general terms. They do not tell a teacher how to sequence a six-lesson unit (Richards, 2001). Awarding bodies, agents and visa-related reporting add further pressure to show measurable gains (illustrative for this context).
Fullan (2015) argues that change is rarely blocked by a bad idea. It is more often blocked by weak shared understanding, limited time and a lack of support for the people who must carry it out. For a five-teacher centre, that points to a pilot, a short shared meeting before launch and a clear owner for the unit.
3. The proposal
| Current issue | Proposed change | Rationale | Evaluation method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome asks for a coherent paragraph, but assessment checks sentences | Replace the sentence test with a drafted paragraph and a short rubric | Restores alignment between outcome, activity and assessment (Biggs and Tang, 2011) | Compare rubric scores before and after for one cohort |
| Two lessons of isolated grammar drills | Convert them into drafting and peer review cycles | Gives learners practice in transferring skills; treats the unit as a proposal to test (Stenhouse, 1975) | Teacher observation notes and short learner survey |
| Learners do not understand marking criteria | Open one lesson to rubric discussion using anonymised examples | Responds to the hidden curriculum and to learner voice (Kelly, 2009; Grundy, 1987) | Learner reflections collected at the end of the unit |
| Little shared ownership among teachers | Hold a briefing before launch and a review meeting after lesson six | Addresses the conditions for change (Fullan, 2015) | Meeting minutes and a short teacher questionnaire |
4. Insights from the discussion forums
The module asks you to use forum insights as evidence. The key is to treat a post as a source, not as decoration. In the following illustrative paragraph, a peer’s post on assessment alignment is quoted, interpreted and then connected to the proposal.
One peer, writing about a vocational course, noted that learners “only started to take feedback seriously once the criteria were written in their own words” (Participant A, 2026). This is consistent with the argument for a rubric discussion lesson. It also raises a limit: the observation comes from a different level and sector, so it supports the direction of the change but cannot confirm its effect in an EAP setting. For that reason the proposal includes its own evaluation measures.
The reference-list entry for such a post would follow the pattern: Participant A (2026) ‘Re: Aligning outcomes and assessment’, 7PE646 discussion forum, University of Derby virtual learning environment, 14 October. Available at: University of Derby virtual learning environment (Accessed: 20 October 2026). This format is illustrative only, so check your module handbook and the Derby referencing guidance for the version your marker expects, and follow any rules on anonymity and permission for quoting peers.
5. Reflexivity and positionality
I teach in the centre I am proposing to change, so my position is not neutral. I designed one of the lessons I now criticise, and I may be defensive about it. I also assume that more writing practice leads to better writing, an assumption that learner interviews could test but that I have not yet tested. My seniority among part-time colleagues could make agreement look stronger than it is. To limit this, the pilot invites a colleague to observe a lesson and to record disagreements in the review meeting.
6. Implementation and evaluation plan
The pilot runs with one cohort over the six lessons (illustrative timeline). Before launch, teachers meet for 45 minutes to agree the rubric. During delivery, each teacher keeps brief notes on what learners did with feedback. After lesson six, learners complete a short survey and submit a reflection. The team then compares rubric scores for the pilot cohort with the previous cohort (illustrative comparison), noting that different learners limit what can be claimed.
Review is planned at three points: after lesson three, after lesson six, and one term later. The first checks that the cycle is workable, the second weighs evidence, and the third asks whether the change has lasted or faded. Responsibility for the unit sits with a named lead, which answers the weak ownership identified in section 2.
7. Conclusion
The proposal is modest, and it should be judged as such. Its strongest justification is the mismatch between outcome and assessment, and its main risk is teacher workload. A process-minded pilot, tested against alignment and informed by a critical reading of who sets the standard, gives the centre evidence to decide whether to extend the approach to other units.
Further help
If you are planning a similar report, our TEFL and TESOL assignment support covers lesson design, course planning and reflective writing. You can also read answers to common questions on our FAQs page before you decide.
About the expert
Sarah Chen holds an MA Education (TESOL), the Cambridge CELTA and a PGCE. She has nine years of experience as an international school head of department and online TEFL course developer, with a focus on lesson planning, CLIL, task-based learning and online teaching design.
References
- Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2011) Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does. 4th edn. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
- Council of Europe (2020) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment – companion volume. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
- Fullan, M. (2015) The new meaning of educational change. 5th edn. New York: Teachers College Press.
- Grundy, S. (1987) Curriculum: product or praxis? London: Routledge.
- Kelly, A.V. (2009) The curriculum: theory and practice. 6th edn. London: SAGE.
- Richards, J.C. (2001) Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Stenhouse, L. (1975) An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.
- Tyler, R.W. (1949) Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.