Curriculum Studies in the Area of Education - Case Study Example

Curriculum Studies in the Area of Education I. Introduction The design of an effective and valuable curriculum has been traditionally the basic target of governments and educational institutes around the world. The achievement of the above target does not seem however to be adequate for the development of the quality of education delivered internationally. In this context it has been noticed by Ediger (1999, 57) that in order ‘to attain an adequate self concept as an objective of instruction, students need to be successful learners; Feelings of failure in learning opportunities should be omitted while the objectives need to be achievable by students and the learning opportunities to attain each objective need to be meaningful, purposeful, provide for individual differences, and secure learner interests while the evaluation to ascertain what students have learned should be diagnostic, not punitive, to determine what needs to be taught so that students may successfully achieve sequential objectives’. Under these terms, the design of the curriculum is becoming a really challenging task especially if taking into account the constant changes that characterize the area of education. II. Curriculum design In a more analytical presentation, the design of the curriculum is depended on a variety of elements. At a first level, Alford et al. (1994, 372) state that ‘curriculum, by its very nature and function, is a national issue; because the national public uses the results of curricular processes, public policy issues cannot be avoided or obscured, since the compelling concerns question what is being taught, how well it is being taught and learned and, what should be adopted, adapted, modified, or altogether deleted; It follows therefore, that any approach to curricular design, in particular, creative curriculum, must eschew haphazard, simplistic approaches and, instead, incorporate systematic, developmental planning’. On the other hand, Ediger (1994, 636) considers the curriculum design as ‘an important factor when guiding optimal learner progress; how the curriculum is designed will make considerable difference in terms of th kinds and types of objectives to be emphasized, which learning opportunities to implement, as well as how pupils will be evaluated while the focal point of teaching and learning is the pupil and for this reason school administrators, teachers, and other workers in the educational setting must continually have the pupil in mind when making modifications and changes in the curriculum’. The close connection of curriculum with the persons (students and teachers) that participate in its application is also supported by Cullen (1994) who highlights the importance of the following three dimensions in the curriculum addressing especially the children: a) developmental, b) cultural and c) knowledge. In a similar approach Brooker (2003, 262) states that those working with the youngest children have to ensure that children’s learning is: ‘Child-initiated and child-centered Exploratory and open-ended Supportive of social interactions Supportive of positive learning dispositions Supportive of equal opportunities for children's individual needs’ However, the influence of cognitive growth on the design and the content of the curriculum does not seem to be significant. More specifically, it has been proved by Raban (2001, 34) that ‘along with the cognitive growth, social opportunities influence learning; Indeed, learners of all ages are more motivated when they can see the usefulness of what they are learning and when they can use that information to do something that has an impact on others; The importance of adult support in children's learning can be demonstrated by considering the question: how is it that children, born with no language, can develop most of the rudiments of story-telling during the first three years of life?’. The design of the curriculum has been represented in literature through the use of certain models that belong mostly to the following two categories: process models and product models. The first category (process models) focuses (Reigeluth, 1983, 227) on ‘the critical thinking and knowledge representation activities involved in articulating knowledge domains using different static knowledge representation tools, such as databases, spreadsheets, semantic networks, expert systems, and hypermedia construction proving that as students study phenomena, it is important that they articulate their understanding of the phenomena; moreover, modeling tools provide knowledge representation formalisms that constrain the ways learners think about, analyze, and organize phenomena, and they provide an environment for encoding their understanding of those phenomena’. The above models differ from the product models to the point that the latter refer mostly to the effectiveness of the curriculum used regarding the achievement of a specific educational target and they avoid an extensive reference to the methods used – as the product models do. More specifically it has been noticed by Reigeluth (1983, 222) that ‘a critical characteristic of meaningful learning is mindful activity in accordance with which in order for learners to be active, they must manipulate something (construct a product, manipulate parameters, make decisions) and affect the environment in some way; Activity theory describes the transformational interactions among the learner, the object that the learner is acting on, and the signs and tools which mediate that interaction’. The above theory which in practice represents a characteristic product model for the curriculum development it can be compared with another model of such kind, the elaboration theory which is ‘only intended for more complex tasks and it is based on the observation that complex cognitive and psychomotor tasks are done differently under different conditions, that each set of conditions defines a different version of the task, and that some of those versions are much more complex than others’ (Reigeluth, 1983, 435). The above theories can be combined in order to create a more complete and effective curriculum however the terms of their application have to be examined in advance for the existence of any possible contradiction. III. Concept of curriculum and reconceptualisation of the curriculum In general terms, Pinar (2004, 186, 187) stated that ‘Curriculum is a extraordinarily complicated conversation’ while when referring especially to the public curriculum he made clear that ‘the educational point of this curriculum is understanding, understanding the relations among academic knowledge, the state of society, the processes of self-formation, and the character of the historical moment in which we live, in which others have lived, and in which our descendants will someday live’. On the other hand, Ross (2000, 7) examined especially the contemporary curriculum and came to the conclusion that this curriculum is ‘very much like this: a preservation of cultural forms achieved through time-honoured processes, resistant to challenge or criticism; But these forms of curriculum, just as much as the baroque curriculum, the landscape curriculum and the utilitarian curriculum, are socially constructed, the result of competing claims to truth, of bargaining and negotiation; Very often this arbitration is unseen, even by those engaged in it’. The interaction of curriculum with the culture characterizing a specific educational site does not seem to be in accordance with the above view a secure standard for the evaluation of a curriculum. However, in many cases such a relationship can help the ‘designer’ of the curriculum to produce a more applicable ‘product’. To a similar approach Hargreaves et al. (1998, 28) found that ‘the view that the focus of the school curriculum should be on human development is one of several ideologies in the age-old education debate; similarly, the alternative views of education and curriculum proposed by those opponents must be recognised—and analysed—as ideological while in the postmodern age it has to be recognised that all knowledge is socially constructed, so that every value system is an ideology; the view that the curriculum should be developmental must be acknowledged, then, as one of these competing ideologies’. The interaction of curriculum with its social and cultural environment is in case intensive, however the results of this ‘cooperation’ cannot be evaluated in advance because of the ‘distinguished’ and ‘unique’ cultural and social characteristics of each educational site – especially when referring to different countries. IV. Curriculum development The stages and the level of curriculum development have been central points of the scientific research in the educational sector. In this context we can refer to the view of Hedges (2000, 16) who stated that ‘teaching in early childhood is a complex activity requiring a myriad of knowledge, skills, and capabilities and for this reason programs in early childhood education settings have often been based on a `developmental play curriculum' following Piagetian theories of children's cognition; Normative, sequenced and predictable descriptions of development made application to educational practice easy to identify, interpret, and plan for’. The development of the curriculum has been proved to be therefore a complex task which has to be examined thoroughly in advance in order to avoid any possible pitfalls during the application procedure. We should refer in this point in the study of Hamill et al. (1994) who found that there are certain questions that need to be addressed before proceeding to the development of the curriculum. These questions are: ‘(a) What educational purposes should the school seek to attain? (b) What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes? (c) How can these educational experiences be effectively organized? (d) How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?’ (Hammill et al., 1994, 5). On the other hand it is noticed that ‘ there is a definite order to curriculum development, and that pursuing such order would result in a more thoughtful and dynamically conceived curriculum while all curricula are composed of certain elements and she accepted the assumption of componentiality: not only could we define things in terms of their components, we could actually take these components apart and put them back together again’ (Hammill et al., 1994, 9). The above views seem to be in accordance with the one of Unruh (1975, 144) who stated that ‘curriculum development can be approached through countless points of entry while problems arise when developers rely on single or limited avenues and sources and ignore other significant dimensions of the culture; curriculum development must recognize the importance of both process and product-of the process of developing curriculum, of the curriculum plan being developed, and of the instructional processes to be generated’. According to the above, the completion of the relevant procedure (i.e. of the curriculum development) seems to be a difficult task which is influenced in most cases by the circumstances and the conditions relating with a specific educational site, however the use of standardized techniques can reduce the chance for the appearance of negative outcomes especially when a particular issue has been examined in another area of curriculum application (as in case of educational sites that belong to the same geographical area or the same organizational structure). V. Models and frames of reference The access of curriculum from the students has to be characterized by equality. This means that all pupils/ students have the right to access the curriculum applied in a specific educational site without any differentiation based on gender, race or colour. In this context, Ross (2000, 88) found that ‘the school inculcates, partly through the formal but particularly through the informal curriculum, not so much with particular and particularised schemes of thought as with that general disposition which engenders particular schemes, which may then be applied in different domains of thought and action; this cultural capital is used as a mechanism to filter pupils to particular positions within the hierarchy of capitalist society’. As to frames used when accessing the curriculum these have not be specified in certain ‘forms’ but they are schemes that are developed and applied in each particular educational site in accordance with its cultural and social characteristics. Certain general principles, like the right to equal access and the right to equal use are used in order to formulate the rules that will characterize the curriculum application in a particular educational site, however in many cases these principles are not applied not only by the participants but – in certain cases – also by the supervisors of the application process (e.g. teachers). VI. Concept of lifelong learning The design and the application of any curriculum have to be in accordance of the cultural and social characteristics of a specific region. At a next level, the curriculum must contain certain elements that will ensure its use as a tool of personal development. In this context, it has been stated by Unruh (1975, 270) that ‘the following characteristics of the long-range shift must be considered in the context of systems approaches to curriculum development: a) the growing quantity and complexity of knowledge and ignorance, b) the growing demands for a skilled labor force and a sophisticated citizenry, increasingly raising the minimum level of functional literacy and c) the social and technological change, increasingly requiring lifelong learning and unlearning’. The above issues have to be addressed by any curriculum in order to ensure that its application will be proved valuable for the pupils/ students not only on a short term but also on a long term basis. VII. Curricula and new technology The interaction between curricula and technology has been always intensive. However, it has been found by Czubaj (2004, 677) that ‘the computer, one form of technology, has met with resistance by educators; their resistance to use the computer within their classrooms prompted researchers to study educator concerns regarding cyberspace curricula while the researchers of these studies and the authors of articles dealing with educator concerns regarding cyberspace curricula reported five major categorical concerns experienced by educators regarding cyberspace curricula: insufficient teacher training, insufficient educator involvement in the technology development processes, insufficient funds for cyberspace curricula within school budgets, educators' reluctance to replace traditional paper-based assessment practices with newer, computer-based assessment strategies, and problems involving the students' attitudes toward learning when computers are employed in schools’. It seems that the use of technology in all the processes that are related with the curriculum faces significant obstacles. On the other hand, in accordance with a study presented in 1992 (THE Journal, 23) it has been found that ‘at middle and elementary schools, efforts to reform curricula have included a desire to take advantage of video, CD-ROMs, multimedia, graphics, and animation to enhance instruction and improve learning; for higher education, the most significant offering from textbook publishers may well be student versions of leading software packages such as Lotus 1-2-3, Borland's dBASE IV, and Autodesk's AutoCAD; student editions offer documentation and pricing tailored for students and are packaged with a book for classroom use’. The above analysis prove that the use of technology is absolutely necessary for the design of an effective curriculum while in the stages that follow this initial one, technology is valuable in order to ensure the equal access of the students and the quality of the material delivered. VIII. Conclusion The design and the development of an effective curriculum is not an easy task. On the other hand, when referring to a region or an educational site with several ‘particular’ social and cultural characteristics, the development of a curriculum can face significant obstacles. In order to avoid such a case, the ‘designer’ of the curriculum has to ‘foresee’ the conditions that will follow the application of the specific curriculum although such an effort can often fail. However, the application of a general accepted scheme can ensure the applicability of a specific curriculum in a specific area (or in a greater region) but only when the format of the specific curriculum will allow its ‘customization’ in accordance with the needs and the characteristics of a specific educational site. The role of the teachers/ professors has to be extended in this case incorporating the authorization for ‘interventions’ of such nature which will be examined in any case as of its accordance with the aims of the curriculum under examination. The common problem of the curriculum, the absence of specific quality assurance, will be therefore resolved through the existence of a general framework (incorporated in the curriculum) that will describe the borders of the particular scheme and the borders for differentiation from the specific material. References Alford, A., Anyanechi, M., London, C., Parris, R. (1994). ‘A Critical Perspective of Multiculturality as a Philosophy for Educational Change’ Education, 114(3): 368-379 Brooker, L. (2003). ‘Integrating New Technologies in UK Classrooms: Lessons for Teachers from Early Years Practitioners’ Childhood Education, 79(5): 261-267 Cullen, J. (1994) ‘Why retain a developmental focus in early education’. In E.J. Mellor & K.M. Coombes (eds) Issues in Early Childhood Services: Australian Perspectives. Dubuque, ID: William C. Brown, 53-64 Czubaj, C. (2004). ‘Literature Review: Reported Educator Concerns regarding Cyberspace Curricula’ Education, 124(4): 676-688 Ediger, M. (1999). ‘Social Development and the Curriculum’ Education, 120(1): 53-59 Ediger, M. (1994). ‘Designing the Curriculum’ Education, 114(4): 636-638 Hammill, P., Hunkins, F. (1994). ‘Beyond Tyler and Taba: Reconceptualizing the Curriculum Process’ PJE. Peabody Journal of Education, 69(3): 4-19 Hargreaves, L., Moyles, J. (1998). ‘The Primary Curriculum: Learning from International Perspectives’ Routledge. London Hedges, H. (2000). ‘Teaching in Early Childhood: Time to Merge Constructivist Views So Learning through Play Equals Teaching through Play’ Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 25(4): 16-22 Pinar, W. (2004). ‘What Is Curriculum Theory?’ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ Raban, B. (2001). ‘Learning, Progression and Development Principles for Pedagogy and Curriculum Design’ Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 26(2): 31-35 Reigeluth, C. (1983). ‘Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory’ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hillsdale, NJ Ross, A. (2000). ‘Curriculum: Construction and Critique’ Falmer Press. London THE Journal (1992) ‘Curricula for a Changing World’, 20(3): 18-23 Unruh, G. (1975). ‘Responsive Curriculum Development: Theory and Action’ McCutchan. Berkeley, CA. Read More