Systematic review reveals the curriculum can drive rural economic development in Zimbabwe, suggesting community-based learning frameworks.
This systematic review explores the potential of transforming the rural secondary school curriculum into a strategic framework for promoting rural economic development in Zimbabwe. The purpose is to synthesize extant literature to identify effective curriculum constructs and strategies that can promote sustainable economic growth in rural spaces. The research adopted the Zimbabwean case and deployed the community-based learning lens to interrogate the transformative potential of the secondary school curriculum as a tool for the resilient and sustainable development of rural economies. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple academic databases, namely Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Scopus, and Freefullpdf.com. The inclusion criteria focused on studies that explored curriculum reforms, educational interventions focusing on rural contexts, and their impacts on rural economies. Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria. Using content analysis, data were extracted and analyzed thematically, identifying recurring patterns, themes, and best practices. The study found encouraging evidence for a paradigm shift to a context-sensitive community-based learning framework to address the unique developmental particularities of Zimbabwean rural communities, thus contributing to a more sustainable future. The paper reveals that the curriculum cannot be viewed as merely academic content but as a tool to stimulate economic diversification, reduce rural-urban disparities, and promote sustainable rural livelihoods through enhanced student participation in economic development. By exploring how the secondary school curriculum can contribute to the Zimbabwean rural economic development narrative, the study contributes to the broader conversation on rural ecological sustainability, equity, and economic viability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mufanechiya et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: