Home⇛International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research⇛vol. 6 no. 1 (2025)

In-Depth Exploration of The Constraints Connected to Diverse Curriculum Designs on A Global Scale: A Literature Review

Md Shaoan | Thi Phan | Miracle Okafor | Ayu Lahinta | Punsadini Namayakkara

Discipline: social sciences (non-specific)

 

Abstract:

This literature review thoroughly examines the challenges associ-ated with diverse curriculum designs across various educational con-texts worldwide. The study identifies key constraints and elaborates on how design-based curricula effectively implement diverse educa-tional approaches. The global challenges of diverse curriculum de-signs arise from sociocultural disparities, fragmented policies, and unequal distribution of resources. Research indicates that rigid na-tional standards often conflict with local educational needs, limiting inclusivity and adaptability. Additionally, the review explores how these challenges impact educational outcomes and curricula, high-lighting those global benchmarks may marginalize indigenous knowledge systems and overlook the unique needs of refugee stu-dents. The findings emphasize the necessity for adaptive strategies and context-sensitive approaches to address these challenges and promote inclusive educational practices. Curriculum design should balance global competencies with local relevance. This review con-tributes to the broader discussion on global education reform by providing insights for policymakers, educators, and researchers who aim to enhance curricular diversity and tackle the barriers that hinder effective integration. Addressing these challenges is essential for fos-tering equitable education, promoting cultural preservation, and pre-paring students for an interconnected world.



References:

  1. Abulibdeh,   A.,   Zaidan,   E.,   &   Abulibdeh,   R. (2024).  Navigating  the  confluence  of  arti-ficial  intelligence  and  education  for  sus-tainable  development  in  the  era  of  indus-try   4.0:   Challenges,   opportunities,   and ethical dimensions.Journal of Cleaner Pro-duction, 140527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle-pro.2023.140527

Shaoan et al., 2025 /In-Depth Exploration of The Constraints Connected to Diverse Curriculum Designs on A Global ScaleIJMABER 223Volume 6| Number 1| January| 2025

  1. Arkorful,  V.  E.,  Basiru,  I.,  Anokye,  R.,  Latif,  A., Agyei,  E.  K.,  Hammond,  A.,  &  Abdul-Ra-haman, S. (2020). Equitable access and in-clusiveness   in   basic   education:   Road-blocks to sustainable development goals.International  Journal  of  Public  Ad-ministration. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1627554
  2. Beane, J. A. (1997).Curriculum integration: De-signing  the  core  of  democratic  education. Teachers College Press.
  3. Bray,  M.  (2009).  Confronting  the  shadow  edu-cation  system:  What  government  policies for  what private  tutoring?  Paris:  UNESCO International   Institute   for   Educational Planning (IIEP).
  4. Brown,  A.  H.,  &  Green,  T.  D.  (2019).The  essen-tials   of   instructional   design:   Connecting fundamental  principles  with  process  and practice. Routledge.
  5. Burton, L. (2010). Subject-centered curriculum. In Kridel C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of curricu-lum studies. Los Angeles, USA: Sage.
  6. Chen, P., & Schmidtke, C. (2017). Humanistic el-ements  in  the  educational  practice  at  a United States sub-baccalaureate technical college.International     Journal     for     Re-search in Vocational Education and Train-ing,4(2), 117-145.
  7. Cook, K. E., Han, Y. L., Shuman, T. R., & Mason, G. (2017).  Effects  of  integrating  authentic engineering   problem-centered   learning on student problem-solving.International Journal  of  Engineering  Education,33(1), 272–282.
  8. Cullen,  R.,  Harris,  M.,  &  Hill,  R.  R.  (2012).The learner-centered  curriculum:  Design  and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
  9. Deng, Z., & Luke, A. (2008). Subject matter: De-fining   and   theorizing   school   subjects. Sage.
  10. Dewey,   J.   (2008).The   Later   Works   of   John Dewey, Volume 16, 1925-1953: 1949-1952, Essays,  Typescripts,  and  Knowing  and  the Known(Vol. 16). SIU Press.
  11. Dinc,  E.  (2019).  Prospective  teachers'  percep-tions of barriers to technology integration in   education.Contemporary   educational technology,10(4), 381–398.
  12. Ding, H., Tasara, I (2024). The perceived impact of PISA on student learning in schools in a local    Chinese    context.Educ    Asse    Eval Acc36, 453–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-024-09440-x
  13. Eryaman, M. Y. (2010). Frameworks in curricu-lum development. In C. Kridel (Ed.). Ency-clopediaofCurriculumStudies.SagePubli-cations. http://explora-tion.osu.edu/fields-of-study[accessed 24-01-2023].
  14. Gay,  G.  (2002).  Culturally  responsive  teaching in special education for ethnically diverse students:  Setting  the  stage.International Journal  of  Qualitative  Studies  in  Educa-tion,15(6), 613–629.
  15. Grant,  J.  (2018).  Principles  of  curriculum  de-sign.Understanding   medical   education: Evidence, theory, and practice, pp. 71–88.
  16. Hadar, L. L., & Tirosh, M. (2019). Creative think-ing  in mathematics  curriculum:  An  ana-lytic framework.Thinking Skills and Crea-tivity,33, 100585.
  17. Hargreaves, A. (2003).Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. Teachers College Press.
  18. Hassan, E., Groot, W., & Volante, L. (2022). Edu-cation  funding  and  learning  outcomes  in Sub-Saharan    Africa:    A    review    of    re-views.International    Journal    of    Educa-tional Research Open,3, 100181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2022.100181
  19. Henriksen,   D.,   Richardson,   C.,   &   Mehta,   R. (2017).  Design  thinking:  A  creative  ap-proach  to  educational  problems  of  prac-tice.Thinking   Skills   and    Creativity,26, 140-153.
  20. Hmelo-Silver CE (2004). Problem-based learn-ing: What and how do students learn? Educational  Psychology  Re-view    16(3):    235–266. https://educa-tionalresearchtech-niques.com/2014/06/24/types-of-cur-riculum-design-broad-fields/[accessed 25-01-2023].
  21. Hoidn, S., & Reusser, K. (2020). Foundations  of student-centered  learning  and  teaching. InThe  Routledge  International  Handbook of  student-centered  learning  and  teaching Shaoan et al., 2025/In-Depth Exploration of The Constraints Connected to Diverse Curriculum Designs on A Global ScaleIJMABER224Volume 6| Number 1| January| 2025in higher education(pp. 17-46). Routledge.https://doi.org/10.5525/gla.the-sis.83632
  22. Jacobs,  J.  A.,  &  Frickel,  S.  (2009).  Interdiscipli-narity:  A  critical  assessment.Annual  Re-view of Sociology,35, 43-65.
  23. Kambouri, M. (2016). Investigating early years teachers'  understanding  and  response  to children's preconceptions.European Early  Childhood  Education  Research  Jour-nal,24(6), 907–92.
  24. Kazis, R., Callahan, A., Davidson, C., McLeod, A., Bosworth, B., Choitz, V., & Hoops, J. (2007). Adult  Learners  in  Higher  Education:  Bar-riers to Success and Strategies to Improve Results.  Employment  and   Training   Ad-ministration.    Occasional    Paper    2007-03.Jobs for the Future.
  25. Kim, J., Lee, H., & Cho, Y. H. (2022). Learning de-sign  to  support  student-AI  collaboration: Perspectives  of  leading  teachers  for  AI  in education.Education and Information Technologies,27(5), 6069–6104.
  26. Kim,  N.  J.  (2017).Enhancing  students'  higher-order  thinking  skills  through  computer-based scaffolding in problem-based learn-ing. Utah State University.
  27. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (Eds.). (2016).Hand-book of technological pedagogical content knowledge (tpack) for educators. Routledge.
  28. Lange, A. (2018).The design of Childhood: How the   material   world   shapes   independent kids. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
  29. Musengamana,  I.,  Rhaman  Shaoan,  M.  M.,  Na-manyane,    T.    M.,    Chineta,    O.    M.,    & McNamara,  P.  M.  (2024).  Teachers'  Per-ceptions  Towards  Decision-Making  Pro-cesses: A Case Study of Secondary Schools in  Rwanda.American  Journal  of  Qualita-tive Research, 8(2), 136-152.https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/14397
  30. National  Research  Council,  Division  on  Earth, Life  Studies,  Board  on  Life  Sciences,  & Committee  on  Key  Challenge  Areas  for Convergence. (2014). Convergence: Facil-itating transdisciplinary integration of life sciences,  physical  sciences,  engineering, and beyond.Ndzinisa, N., & Dlamini, R. (2022). Responsive-ness   vs.   accessibility:   pandemic-driven shift to remote teaching and online learn-ing.Higher Education Research & Develop-ment,41(7), 2262-2277. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.2019199
  31. Nunan,  J.S.R.  (2024).  Curriculum  in  the  Global Culture:  Globalisation  and  Education  Re-form  for  Social  Justice:  South  Africa.  In: Zajda,  J.  (eds)  Fourth  International  Hand-book  of  Globalisation,  Education  and  Pol-icy Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-67667-3_41
  32. Nwigwe,  O.  E.,  Shaoan,  M.  M.  R.,  Igweani,  C.  C., Ouattara, C. A. T., & Okagbue, E. F. (2024). University   Students'   Intentions   to   De-velop   Competences   and   its   Influencing Factors:    A    Nigerian    Context.Academic Journal  of  Interdisciplinary  Studies,13(4), 697.https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2024-0147
  33. Ojugo, A. A., Odiakaose, C. C., Emordi, F. U., Ejeh, P. O., Adigwe, W., Anazia, K. E.,  & Nwozor, B.    (2023).    Forging    a    learner-centric blended-learning framework via an adap-tive content-based architecture.Science in Information  Technology  Letters,4(1),  40-53. http://pubs2.ascee.org/in-dex.php/sitech
  34. Olowe,  M.  O.  (2024).  Curriculum  Development in  Business  Education:  Challenges  in  En-hancing    the    Implementation.European Journal of Training and Development Stud-ies,11(1), 52–60. https://eajour-nals.org/ejtds
  35. Pak, K., Polikoff, M. S., Desimone, L. M., & Saldí-var  García,  E.  (2020).  The  adaptive  chal-lenges  of  curriculum  implementation:  In-sights   for   educational   leaders   driving standards-based  reform.Aera  Open,6(2), 2332858420932828. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584209328
  36. Parsons,  S.  A.,  Vaughn,  M.,  Scales,  R.  Q.,  Gal-lagher,  M.  A.,  Parsons,  A.  W.,  Davis,  S.  G., Pierczynski, M., & Allen, M. (2018). Teach-ers’ Instructional Adaptations: A Research Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 205–242.
  37. Shaoan et al., 2025 /In-Depth Exploration of The Constraints Connected to Diverse Curriculum Designs on A Global ScaleIJMABER 225Volume 6| Number 1| January| 2025 https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317743198
  38. Peters,  O.  (2020). Distance  teaching  and  indus-trial  production*  A  comparative  interpre-tation  is  in  the  outline.  InDistance  educa-tion(pp. 95–113). Routledge.
  39. Prince,  M.  J.,  &  Felder,  R.  M.  (2006).  Inductive teaching  and  learning  methods:  Defini-tions,    comparisons,    and    research    ba-ses.Journal of Engineering Educa-tion,95(2), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x
  40. Roberts-Mahoney,  H.,  Means,  A.  J.,  &  Garrison, M.  J.  (2016).  Netflixing  human  capital  de-velopment:   Personalized   learning   tech-nology and the corporatization of K-12 ed-ucation.Journal of Education Policy,31(4), 405–420.
  41. Rogan, J. M., & Grayson, D. J. (2003). Towards a theory    of    curriculum    implementation with  particular  reference  to  science  edu-cation   in   developing   countries.Interna-tional journal of science education,25(10), 1171–1204.
  42. Romiszowski,  A.  J.  (2016).Designing  instruc-tional systems: Decision making in course planning and curriculum design. Routledge.
  43. Şahin,  U.  (2020).  Curriculum  Design  Ap-proaches  of  Pre-Service  Teachers  Receiv-ing  Pedagogical  Formation  Training. In-ternational Journal of Progressive Educa-tion,16(4), https://doi:10.29329/ijpe.2020.268.12
  44. Santori, D. (2024). Geographies of School Quan-tification.  InThe  Quantified  School:  Peda-gogy, Subjectivity, and Metrics(pp. 51–80). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
  45. Savery  JR  (2006).  Overview  of  problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. In-terdisciplinary  Journal  of  Problem-Based Learning 1(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1002.
  46. Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2016). Self-efficacy theory in education. InHandbook of    motivation    at    school(pp.    34-54).
  47. Routledge.Shaoan,  M.  M.  R. (2021).  A Comparative Inves-tigation  of  Bangladesh  and  African  Sub Continent  Countries  Pre-Primary  Educa-tion.International Journal of Research and Innovation   in   Social   Science,5(3),   102-107. https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2021.5306
  48. Shaoan, M. M. R. ., Jamil, B., Namanyane, T. ., Arif, M. ., & Mahamud, A. . (2024). Bangladesh's national    education    policy    for    English teaching:  Policy  direction  and  gaps  over the  last  decade. International  Journal  of Education    and    Practice,    12(4),    1319–1338. https://doi.org/10.18488/61.v12i4.3912
  49. Shaoan,  M.  M.  R.,  &  Namanyane,  T.  (2022).  A systematic literature evaluation on Defini-tions,   Attitudes,   and Pedagogical   Chal-lenges.A  systematic  literature  evaluation on  Definitions,  Attitudes,  and  Pedagogical Challenges,112(1), 18-18. https://doi.org/10.47119/IJRP10011211120224090
  50. Shaoan, M. M. R., McNamara, P. M., & Lafferty, N. (2023). A Case Study from the Perspective of  Rural  Areas  in  Bangladesh  Concerning "Additional  Financial  Aid"  and  "Support for   Students."Asia   Social   Issues,16(6), e263004-e263004. https://doi.org/10.48048/asi.2023.263004
  51. Song, J. (2023).Assessing for learning in middle school   English   language   classrooms   in China(Doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow).
  52. Teräs,  H.  (2016).  Collaborative  online  profes-sional development for teachers in higher education.Professional development in ed-ucation,42(2), 258–275.
  53. Ünsal, S.& Korkmaz, F. (2017). Eğitim Program TasarımıTercihlerineYönelikÖğret-men  Görüşleri  (Teachers'  Opinions  on Curriculum  Design  Preferences). Journal of  Mersin  University  Faculty  of  Education, 13(1), 275-289.Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978).Mind in soci-ety:  Development  of  higher  psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  54. Walker,  D.  F.,  &  Soltis,  J.  F.  (2004).Curriculum and aims. Teachers College Press.
  55. Warr,  M.,  &  West,  R.  E.  (2020).  Bridging  aca-demic  disciplines  with  interdisciplinary Shaoan et al., 2025/In-Depth Exploration of The Constraints Connected to Diverse Curriculum Designs on A Global ScaleIJMABER226Volume 6| Number 1| January| 2025project-based   learning:   Challenges   and opportunities.Interdisciplinary  Journal  of Problem-Based Learning,14(1).
  56. Williams,  M.  (2018).  The  curriculum  needs  to be added to physics problem-solving edu-cation. Science  &  Education,27(3),  299–319.
  57. Woodcock, S., Sharma, U., Subban, P., & Hitches, E. (2022). Teacher self-efficacy and inclu-sive     education     practices:     Rethinking teachers' engagement with inclusive prac-tices.Teaching  and  teacher  education,p. 117, 103802.World  Bank.  2019.  "Achieving  Broadband  Ac-cess  for  All  in  Africa  Comes  With  a  $100 Billion Price Tag". https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2019/10/17/achieving-broadband-access-for-all-in-africa-comes-with-a-100-billion-price-tag
  58. Zguir, M. F., Dubis, S., & Koç, M. (2021). Embed-ding  Education  for  Sustainable  Develop-ment (ESD) and SDGs values in the curric-ulum: A comparative review on Qatar, Sin-gapore,    and    New    Zealand.Journal    of Cleaner Production,319, 128534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle-pro.2021.128534
  59. Zhang,  W.,  &  Bray,  M.  (2020).  Comparative  re-search   on   shadow   education:   Achieve-ments,     challenges,     and     the     agenda ahead.European Journal of Educa-tion,55(3), 322–341 

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic