Quick answer: To write a strong 7PE646 curriculum development proposal report, pick one small change in your own setting, critique it against named curriculum theory, and use forum posts as evidence rather than decoration. Markers reward a clear line from problem to theory to proposal to evaluation, and a reflexive account of your own position.
This guide is for Masters students at the University of Derby working on the 3,500-word report for 7PE646 Curriculum Challenges in Contemporary Education, due in Autumn 2026. If you want to see the structure in action, read our 7PE646 curriculum proposal report sample (for reference only), see our education writing support page for the wider context, and the TEFL and TESOL support page for related coursework.
If you would rather talk the plan through with a subject specialist, you can send your requirements for a quote at any stage.
What does the 7PE646 report actually ask you to do?
The task has two halves that must read as one argument. First, you critically overview a proposal to improve a small piece of learning in your own organisation. That could be a single programmed lesson or one unit in an online module. Second, you review the theory on how curriculum is designed, put into practice, reviewed and managed, including the pressure that outside agencies bring.
Then comes the part many students underplay. You are expected to find and cite insights from the discussion forums, yours or your peers’, and to pull everything into one critical report. The limit is 3,500 words, give or take ten per cent, in Harvard style, checked through Turnitin.
The common mistake is to write two separate essays, one descriptive about the proposal and one theoretical, joined by a sentence in the middle. Markers notice. Decide early that every theory paragraph must change something about your proposal.
Where are the marks? A rubric map
The marking grid is published in the brief, so use it to budget your words. The table below translates each criteria area into what a marker is likely to look for. The word shares are a planning suggestion (illustrative), not a rule from the module.
| Criteria area | What earns higher bands | Suggested share of words (illustrative) |
|---|---|---|
| Subject knowledge | Accurate use of several curriculum models, with sources beyond the reading list | 25% |
| Argument, reflexivity and criticality | Stated rationale, positionality and assumptions; models compared, not listed | 30% |
| Application, originality and professional engagement | A specific proposal in a real setting, with forum insights used as evidence | 30% |
| Presentation and structure | Clear signposting, tables used only where they help | 5% |
| Referencing and academic integrity | Consistent Harvard, no unsupported claims, honest use of AI tools | 10% |
Step-by-step plan for a 3,500-word curriculum proposal report
- Choose a proposal that is genuinely small. One redesigned lesson or unit is easier to evaluate than a whole programme.
- Write one sentence stating the problem, the change and why you think it will help.
- List three or four theories that speak to that problem. Aim for disagreement between them.
- Mark which forum posts relate to each theory, and note who said what and when.
- Draft the proposal section first, in a table, then build the theory review around it.
- Add the reflexive account: who you are in the organisation, what you assume, and who might disagree.
- Write the evaluation plan with at least one measure that could show the change did not work.
- Write the introduction and conclusion last, once you know what the argument really is.
Product, process or praxis: how to compare curriculum theories
The brief asks for critical review, which means comparison. The three broad positions below give you a frame. Tyler (1949) is the standard source for the product model, Stenhouse (1975) for the process model and Grundy (1987) for praxis.
| Model | Core idea | Strength for a small proposal | Limit to discuss |
|---|---|---|---|
| Product (Tyler) | Start from objectives, then plan, deliver and measure against them | Clear outcomes and easy evaluation | Treats learning as predictable; can narrow teaching |
| Process (Stenhouse) | A curriculum is a proposal tested in practice by teachers | Fits action-oriented, small-scale change | Needs teacher time and research skills |
| Praxis (Grundy) | Decisions are judged by their effect on learners’ freedom and understanding | Raises questions of power and voice | Hard to turn into measurable outcomes |
Do not stop at the table. Say which position best explains your own proposal, which one you are quietly assuming, and what each would say about your evaluation plan. Biggs and Tang (2011) on constructive alignment, Kelly (2009) on the wider curriculum and Fullan (2015) on change give you the tools to extend the comparison.
If your context is language teaching, Richards (2001) and the Council of Europe (2020) are natural additions. If it is not, look for the equivalent standards bodies in your own field.
How do you use discussion forum insights in the report?
This is the part students ask about most, and the brief gives little detail. The safest approach is to treat a forum post like any other source. Quote or paraphrase it briefly, cite it in the Harvard format your module guidance asks for, and then say what it adds to the argument.
A forum insight earns marks when it does one of three jobs: it supports a point in your theory review, it raises a challenge your proposal must answer, or it shows a different context where the same idea played out. It loses marks when it is dropped in as a quote with no comment.
Keep a simple log as the weeks go by: post, author, date, and the one line it makes you think. When you write, you will have material to hand. The sample extract includes a short worked paragraph showing how the quote, the comment and the limit fit together. Check your handbook on how to treat peers’ posts, and ask permission where the guidance requires it.
Reflexivity and positionality: how to write them without padding
Reflexivity is not a confession. It is a short, specific account of how your position shapes the proposal. Say what role you hold in the organisation, what you helped create, and what you would like the result to be. Then name one or two assumptions you have not tested.
A good test is whether a colleague could disagree with your sentence. “I am passionate about learners” cannot be disagreed with and tells the marker nothing. “I wrote the current lesson plan and may defend it too quickly” is both honest and useful. Link each point to a step you will take, such as an observer, a learner survey or a review meeting.
What students struggle with in this module
Students on curriculum modules often say the same few things, and they are worth hearing. Many find it hard to choose a proposal that is both realistic and interesting. Some cannot see how much theory is enough. Others worry that their own workplace is too ordinary to critique.
Another common difficulty is balancing description of the proposal with criticism of it. Students describe what they plan to do for 1,200 words and leave 300 for analysis. Flip that ratio. A third pain point is AI. The brief allows it for research ideas, summaries and language editing, and not for producing the analysis, so keep a note of what you used it for.
Finally, many students leave referencing to the last evening. With forum posts, journal articles and books in the mix, that is where marks slip away quietly.
Common mistakes in curriculum development reports
- Proposing a change that is too large to evaluate within the report.
- Listing theories one after another without saying which one matters.
- Using the forums as a place for a single quotation rather than as evidence.
- Writing reflexivity as a general statement of enthusiasm.
- Treating outside pressure, such as regulators or funders, as background rather than as a factor in the design.
- Describing evaluation as “collect feedback” without saying how it would show failure.
- Going well over or under 3,500 words and losing control of the argument.
Mark-maximising checklist before you submit
- Does every theory paragraph change or test something in the proposal?
- Have you compared at least two curriculum models and chosen between them?
- Is there at least one forum insight in each major section, with a comment on its limits?
- Are positionality and assumptions stated plainly?
- Does the evaluation plan include a way to detect that the change did not work?
- Have you covered external agencies and the pressures they create?
- Is every source in the text in the reference list, and the other way round?
- Are you within 10 per cent of 3,500 words?
- Have you read the report aloud once for sense and once for referencing?
If time is tight, a second pair of eyes helps. Our proofreading and editing service can check structure and language, and you can read what past students say on the reviews page. For a fuller plan, our team can discuss assignment support options that fit your brief, with the student remaining responsible for how any model material is used under Derby’s rules.
Frequently asked questions
What is 7PE646 at the University of Derby about?
7PE646 Curriculum Challenges in Contemporary Education is a Masters-level module that examines how curricula are designed, put into practice, reviewed and managed. The assessment is a 3,500-word report that links a small improvement proposal in your own organisation to a critical review of curriculum theory.
How many words should the report be?
The target is 3,500 words with a tolerance of ten per cent either way. Plan your sections against that number before you start, and check your handbook for what the count includes, such as tables and reference lists.
What counts as a small-scale curriculum proposal?
It should be a change you could realistically try in your organisation, for example one programmed lesson or a unit within an online module. The smaller it is, the easier it becomes to evaluate it critically in the space you have.
How do I cite discussion forum posts in Harvard style?
Cite them like other sources, giving author, year, post title, forum name and platform, with date of access where required. Formats vary by institution, so follow the Derby referencing guidance and your module handbook, and think about whether the post’s author should stay anonymous.
Can I use AI tools for this report?
The brief allows AI for research ideas, summaries and language editing only. It must not produce your analysis. Keep a brief note of what you used and why, and be ready to explain it if asked.
Which curriculum theories should I include?
Include a mix that disagrees with itself. Tyler’s objectives model, Stenhouse’s process model and Grundy’s praxis model are a strong starting set, which you can extend with Biggs and Tang on alignment and Fullan on change. Choose the ones that actually bear on your proposal.
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, specialising in 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.