I actually believe that the curriculum should be centred on more qualitative attributes like critical thinking and social accountability. I think that if higher education curricula aim to develop these qualitative attributes, using disciplinary knowledge and skills as a framework, we're more likely to graduate students who are capable of addressing the complex problems in the world. It's no longer enough to be an expert in any particular domain of expertise. Modern graduates must be able to go beyond the knowledge and skills of their field if they want to have an impact in the world.

I don't think we need to choose either/or. Good teaching that combines content ( the how ) with context (the why) keeps the student interested. Telling the story behind the discipline makes the subject more interesting while providing real life examples of how other scientists/engineers think. A subject thought devoid of context is dry, context without the hard-won results is limiting. A good mix of inductive and deductive teaching provides both, critical thinking and disciplinary knowledge. JMHO.

I agree to the above, although the reason of learning something, i.e. the why, should usually be introduced before the method (how) and concrete examples (what). Apart from that, knowledge about facts might be important for several matters, but knowing methods often helps you much more. Required skills, competences, etc. relate to personal abilities to adopt and apply such methods (and partially factual knowledge) to new cases, or even to create new ones.

Over 10 years ago I heard the following:

- Under-graduates should know the facts.

- PhD student should know how to get the facts.

- Professors should know whom to ask for facts.

This is of course a bit of a caricature, but it provides a useful ground for discussions. I would say that this (if it ever applied) cannot be true in today's dynamically changing world. Thanks to the Internet and other modern technologies, we become exposed to so many facts that we cannot keep track any more, and we do not have to - as long as we know how to find it. On top of that, e.g. social networking eases us to contact others.

Bottom line: we need a bit of all, but certainly the awareness and training of skills and competences might deserve more consideration.

If we assume an outcomes based curriculum I think you can argue that the ability to deploy disciplinary knowledge and competence is evidence of the learning outcome. For me when a learner demonstrates their skills they are showing the ability to put the other two types of knowing into practice.

We also believe it should not be either/or situation. We found that certain fields of studies sometimes favour the one to the other.

During our research within the performing arts disciplines here in SA, there is a definite shift from employers favouring the broad-based knowledge student that has some specific discipline knowledge and skills (to understand their role in the overall context), to the one that is an expert in a focused area only. We also found that generic knowledge (for example sound systems) is more important than to know one or two specific sound systems very well. These future employees seem to more adaptable under new circumstances and therefore more valuable to the company.

For the performing and applied arts, we have combined a “liberal arts” Associate Degree with a conservatory approach during the third and fourth years. Hopefully this method may bear the results that would make the student more employable in the end and at the same time provide the skills for future career development.

Graduates of any programme need to be prepared to be fit-for-purpose of the duties and profession he/she are going to perform. So, any programme has be tailored in its educational goals, strategies, approaches, teaching/learning methodologies and assessment to fit the requirement of the job description of the newly graduated professional. This implies analysis of job duties by task analysis to come up with elements of knowledge application, skills and attitude organized around measurable competences that each student should be able to demonstrate upon graduation. These are known as the "graduate outcomes" or in old day known as "optimum competences". Each programme should have clear and measurable graduate outcomes that all the study years (courses, modules...etc) work towards achieving by the end of the study period. A sample of such outcomes for medical schools in Iraq is here attached. Above is a generic mechanism of curriculum design for any programme whatever science or art where the programme can adapt the graduate requirements based on future job or role in society. I can give you some examples for different professions if needed. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282662106_Graduate_Outcomes_of_Iraqi_Medical_Colleges

Research Graduate Outcomes of Iraqi Medical Colleges

In some cases by the time the student has been tailored for a job, the job no longer exists. For medical studies it is not the same, but in some highly specialized fields, if you stick too closely to the demands of one particular job you are at risk to find out that after 4 or 5 years the job market has changed.

Disciplinary knowledge will transform a learner into an expert. Generic/soft skills will transform a learner into a good leader, good professional, good communicator, good collaborator and so on. So, curriculum should focus on both disciplinary knowledge and skills.

Disciplinary knowledge will transform a learner into an expert. Generic/soft skills will transform a learner into a good leader, good professional, good communicator, good collaborator and so on. So, curriculum should focus on both disciplinary knowledge and skills.