Curriculum Theory and Design - Assignment Example

 MCT 801: Curriculum Theory and Design National Institute of Education Question 1: “All definitions are part of arguments…All we can do in the final analysis is to proffer reasoned arguments in support of one definition over another”. – Jackson (1996), p. 12. Discuss this view with regards to the various definitions and conceptions of curriculum that you have come across in this course. What reasoned arguments can you offer for your favoured concept of curriculum? Introduction Curriculum is a broad concept, including all planned activities and the entire range of courses that are offered during the normal school days. After school planned-activities like societies and sports are also included in curriculum. This all takes place in an explicit system. It constitutes continuous assessing and planning to accompany and lead the child to adulthood, so that he can turn out to be a useful and successful citizen of the community. However, defining curriculum and reaching a general consensus in terms of it is a complex task (Carl, 2009, pp. 27). When it comes to defining the concept of the curriculum, all the writers have divergent opinions, or they have a different perception of the same concept within a different framework. In the light of the definition by Jackson (1996), I have discussed the five conceptions of curriculum put forth by Eisner and Vallance (1974) namely the cognitive processes approach, curriculum as technology, curriculum for self-actualisation and consummatory experiences, curriculum for social reconstruction and academic rationalism. Each orientation of the curricular thought will be examined and at the same time, I will also take a look at some of the curriculum theorists’ and their theoretical framework before putting forth my arguments for my preferred ideology of curriculum put forth by Eisner. 5 Conceptions of Curriculum Defining curriculum is not only essential but also vital, because it is necessary for curriculum designers to have excellent understanding of the basic concepts. It is also mandatory so that they can make the desired distinctions and also, are able to comprehend the important concepts. They can also contribute in improving the comprehension of the whole process of curriculum development. The term curriculum has a wide range of meaning as this concept is interpreted in number of ways. Hence, it is important to recognize the different views and how the curriculum theorists understand the curriculum. Eisner and Vallance (1974) described the five conceptions of curriculum as follows: “The cognitive process orientation to curriculum seeks to develop a repertoire of cognitive skills that are applicable to a wide range of intellectual problems. In this view subject matter, as typically defined, is considered instrumental to the development of intellectual abilities that can be used in areas other than those in which the processes were originally refined. For example, content in history or in biology is considered less important than the development of the student’s ability to infer, to speculate, to deduce, or to analyse. These abilities, it is argued, will endure long after the particular content of knowledge is forgotten or rendered obsolete by new knowledge.” (pp. 19)The cognitive process given by the Eisner and Vallance, is appropriate as the purpose of teaching is to embed the concepts in the mind of the students through different ways. Therefore, as a result, the possibility arises that the students might forget the taught content. However, the ability of evaluating the content remains in the student and they can use this ability in many other aspects of life. “The technological orientation to curriculum is on that is preoccupied with the development of means to achieve prespecified ends. Those working from this orientation tend to view schooling as a complex system that can be analysed into its constituent components. The problem for the educator or educational technologist is to bring the system under the control so that the goals it seeks to attain can be achieved.” (pp. 49) Though, it is true that through technology, schooling can become a complex system however, it can also not be over looked that with technological orientation of the curriculum, the ability to give life to the difficult concept appears and it makes learning easier. With reference to the curriculum as a self-actualization or consummatory experience, “Schooling is to become a means of personal fulfilment, to provide a context in which the individuals discover and develop their unique identities. Curriculum, in this view, is a pervasive and enriching experience with implications for many dimensions of personal development.” (pp. 105) It is true that schooling of a person helps to develop them their personality. Keeping this point in mind, the foundation of the school is based on the curriculum. Thus the concept that curriculum develops the personality of the individual is true. Therefore, the curriculum designers should design the curriculum in such a way that they can produce analytical generation for the society. “Social reconstructionists see schooling as an agency of social change, and they demand that education be relevant both to the student’s interests and to society’s needs. Curriculum is conceived to be an active force having direct impact on the whole fabric of its human and social context.” (pp. 135) Since through education, the personality of the individual is polished. Thus, it is evident that the positive application of the curriculum can help to develop a positive society which can serve as an independent and constructive nation. “The major goal of academic rationalists as far as curriculum is concerned is to enable students to use and appreciate the ideas and works that constitute the various intellectual and artistic disciplines. Academic rationalists argue that ideas within various disciplines have a distinctive structure and a distinctive set of contributions to make to the education of man. Indeed, acquisition of these structures is largely what education is about.” (pp. 161) The concept of academic rationalists for the curriculum to appreciate the work through various intellects can help the individual to have a better education. This better type of education can help the students become more result oriented and help them develop better form of ideas independently. Curriculum Theorists John Dewey Dewey, in “The child and the curriculum”, discusses the child-centred approach and defines the influence of curriculum on the child. He says that at home, the children live in a narrow world and when they come to school, a wide world is available to them. Likewise, suddenly from a surrounding known by them, they are shifted to a complete unknown environment and in this way, the horizon of the child increases. Here, if the children are provided with a child-centred approach in the curriculum, then they will be positively influenced by it. Additionally, the children make new bonds of affection and undergo a variety of experiences with the help of activities (Dewey, 1902, pp. 2). In the view of Dewey, the development of curriculum should be done in such a way that reduces the gaps of the environment and enables to learn more through personal experience. Dewey’s approach and ideologies are formidable. Students, teachers, school contexts will vary and differ dramatically from one to another hence recognising that teaching is indeed far more complex piece of art that requires greater depth of study. Although his progressive educational view was persuasive, it has not taken flight to its peak in the American educational scene as it was more theoretical than practical in the classrooms (Eisner, 2002, pp. 14) John Franklin Bobbit In ‘The Curriculum’, Bobbitt’s curriculum development has scientific as well as theoretical approach reached its peak in the period of efficiency-driven society in the thirties. The required skills were carefully recognized by him and he divided those skills into sub-units. He wanted teachers to organize these units into experience and provide it to their students. In order to design the curriculum, Bobbitt has listed 160 major educational objectives which range from “Ability to use language in all ways required for proper and effective participation in community life to develop, to the ability to entertain one’s friends and to respond to entertainment by one’s friends.” Similarly, Pendleton has also listed around1800 social objectives for English and arithmetic. Billings, also having the same stance, has prescribed 888 generalizations for social studies (Eisner, 1967, p 252). However, it is difficult for the teachers to manage these objectives. As every child participates equally in his educational program, their learning outcome does not match with the theoretical views. In later years, further studies have been done by specialists to analyze this dimension. Problem with this type of curriculum design was “Educational objectives should be stated in behavioural terms.” However, despite all the efforts, educational objectives were still not taken seriously by the teachers (Eisner, 1967, p 253). It seemed as if educational objectives were not considered as a useful tool by the teachers. The reason that is deduced from it is that there might not be something wrong with the teachers, but rather with the theory itself. It is also reasoned that in the class, the outcomes of the instructions are far too complex and numerous for educational objectives to tackle. The interactions among the students in the class make the learning outcomes unpredictable. The other limitation that is associated with educational objective was when students are learning subjects like mathematics, languages and sciences; it is easy to comprehend the behaviour of the students that they are likely to perform. In subjects like arts though, such comprehension is not possible (Eisner, 1967, p 254). Ralph W. Tyler The rationale provided by Tyler has developed a highly reasonable framework for the development of the curriculum. The rationale inculcates the warring extremes and skirts the pitfalls, which makes the subject inflexible. The points that are provided in the Tyler’s rationale are kind of imperishable and will stand as the model of curriculum development for those who are convinced that the curriculum is the tool that is used for the transformation of the children, from the raw material to a useful product (Kliebard, 1970, p 270). The rationale proposed by Tyler has particularly focused on the judgement, deliberation, and it considers a variety of alternative concepts and ideas. However, Tyler’s Rationale has been criticised on the grounds that it is a linear model which requires the stating of objectives, content planning and methods before moving on to the evaluation of measurable outcomes discounting the role of the students in the interactive learning process altogether. However, Tyler’s Rationale was largely well-received and applied across curriculum reforms because of its conceptual features. The clear specification of intended outcomes allows precise measurement of progress and efforts. As a resulting consequence, people can also be held accountable for the outcomes which can also secure objectivity, rigour and precision in assessment (Eisner, 2004, pp. 298) On the other hand, such an approach can narrow the curriculum as it is clear that what has to be assessed needs to be included in the syllabus. Test scores and benchmarks may become the defining priorities in schools and as a consequence marginalised the students’ learning and teachers’ professionalism. Joseph Schwab In addition, Schwab has also rejected Tyler’s emphasis on the objectives and has developed a plan that is practice-centred. He has shown his concerns for the maintenance and the improvement of the schooling. Since, practice-centred curriculum is preferred, he has emphasized on the curriculum that can identify the problem and formulate it. He also encourages the elements of discussion and deliberation within the curriculum (Schwab, 1969, pp.7). Schwab has said that any curriculum whose decision is based on practicality, has to consider four commonplaces; subject matter, learner, teacher and milieu. Subject matter has been given an equal importance because the decision of the curriculum is based only on the subject matter (Schwab, 1983, pp. 241). In the educational surrounding, there must be someone who knows the learners, who are receiver of the curricular operation. Milieu is referred as a community. It is the third body; this body should be represented in making of curriculum group. These milieus include classrooms and schools in which the process of learning takes place. The teachers are also among the common places; they are evaluated on how flexible they are and how likely they are to learn new materials (Schwab, 1973, pp. 503-504). Among these four places, the balance must be maintained so that neither of the group is over dependent on the other group. Since no individual can be fully aware of these four commonplaces, therefore Schwab advocates that these four stakeholders should be divided into smaller groups. This division will help them to work together on practical problems. According to him, stakeholders should include teachers, scholars, parents, and principals. The call for an emphasis on deliberation for sustained school improvement in Schwab’s Practical gave rise to a new interest in the wake of curriculum reform movement on the pronounced importance of how students interacted with the curriculum. This has greatly impacted on the designs of student programmes giving them more choice and say in what they study or how they study or both (Flinders and Thornton, 2004, pp. 119-120). When the students are given more choices about the way they study, there is a possibility that the chosen way by the students is not appropriate and in the end, they have to suffer with the results. At the same time, the other possibility that can arise is the adopted way by the students whereby they learn more and develop better understanding about the concept. Therefore, as this concept has both positive and negative impact on the education of the students, hence the process must be adopted after an extensive research. Elliot W. Eisner Many theorists have given the guideline about the designing of the curriculum. However, the most comprehensive aspect of the curriculum was given by Eisner which is my preferred concept of curriculum. According to his approach, the parents and schools are the entities that shape the curriculum and the teachers enact it on the students. Finally, the students experience it. Through this layout, the teachers work as a gatekeeper. However, this is the most appropriate plan, as here the children are able to experience the knowledge and can transform it as well. According to Eisner, the most educational and valuable development is more than inventiveness, curiosity, and insight that can be described in poetic and metaphoric terms. The other point that he makes in the educational objectives is that the image of the educational person has given a high self-esteem and it not amendable to standard measurement. Therefore, the point being emphasized by Eisner is that the curriculum theories see the educational objectives as a standard and overlook those modes of achievement that are incapable of measurement. Eisner agrees with Dewey over the function of criticism and believes that it has implications for the curriculum theory. In his viewpoint, the students are the product and teachers are critic. He states that the task of the teacher would be to reveal the qualities of the child. Moreover, the teachers must appraise the changes in the children and also, look into the room of improvement that can be worked upon. (Eisner, 1967, pp.259) In the curriculum planning by the Eisner, he has discussed the literary artists at length. He says that the process of learning is highly personal. According to his planning, the curriculum developers, teachers, students and all the people that are involved in the ongoing process, are either bringing meaning to their own lives or conveying it to others. The positive side of the curriculum designed by the Eisner is that it focuses more on the medium of the student’s own perception, and the children are free to choose their own meaning from a particular concept (Marsh, pp. 125). Eisner’s model sees the school as an institution that has the responsibility to transmit the culture to the students. He believes that the education in schools will enable the students to acquire the skills that will help them utilize and amend the works of their ancestors and help the culture to be developed in a better way (Eisner, 2005, p 33). He has discussed two types of educational objectives: instructional objective and expressive objective. Instructional objectives are related to behaviour of the student and it is used in the predictive model of the curriculum. The second objective is proposed by Eisner (2005, pp.34), it handles the educational encounter: the situation in which children work, the problems which they have to cope, and the task they have to complete. This proposed educational objective gives room not only to the students but also to the teachers to explore, focus, and defer on the issues they are interested in. According to Eisner (2005, pp.35), such explorations give more sense to the students, as they critically evaluate the context and develop the sense of assessing things around them. The concept of exploring ideas by Eisner has given a new dimension to the learning. This is because since the students learn something by critically analysing it, they unearth more answers of the given question thus making the concept more comprehensible for them. By the help of such critical analysis, they will be able to broaden their ideas and acquire the ability to learn new things. This act can make the students develop and gain insight to critically evaluate the things not only in their personal life but also in the society. Conclusion To define curriculum is not an easy task. Conceptions and definitions of curriculum remain to be complex, context-dependent and inherently value-laden. However, according to Kelly (1999): “Any definition of curriculum, if it is to be practically effective and productive, must offer much more than a statement about the knowledge-content or merely the subjects which schooling is to ‘teach’ or transmit. It must go far beyond this to an explanation, and indeed a justification, of the purposes of such transmission and an exploration of the effects that exposure to such knowledge and such subjects is likely to have, or is intended to have, on its recipients – indeed it is from these deeper concerns…that any curriculum planning worthy of the name must start.” (pp.3) Therefore, it must be stressed that for any analysis of curriculum conception or definition, the predominant purpose is to seek conceptual clarity in thinking about the curriculum to ensure overall coherence between theory and practice. Many theorists have proposed different philosophies and frameworks for the development of the curriculum branching off from the sociological, psychological and other perspectives. Therefore the study of curriculum demands a deep understanding of wide-ranging of theories and their vision and insights. But all that said and done, we must also not ignore the crucial role of educators in the successful curriculum development and implementation. As Kelly (1999) puts forth: “What we must note here, however, is that the teachers have a ‘make or break’ role in any curriculum innovation…. The practice of education cannot be mechanical, largely mindless activity; it requires constant decisions and judgements by the teacher, and these he or she cannot make properly without fully appreciating and accepting the underlying rationale of any activity. Teaching, interpreted in a purely technicist sense, may be undertaken in a mechanistic manner. If however, our concern is with education, in the full sense, much more than this is required, since education is essentially an interactive process.” (pp. 9) Thus, it is of paramount importance to be able to sieve through these ideas, theories, and insights by curriculum designers to resolve conceptual gaps and create overall coherence from theory to practice. Curriculum planning is not a simple matter. To make a decision on the choice of one or an amalgamation of curriculum models is the premise in which one begins curriculum work and must be justified for that final choice after careful consideration of all alternatives in the light of educational purpose, function and ideology. We must also come to bear in mind that whatever decisions made, according to Eisner (2002): “These decisions are, of course, decisions bearing on the curriculum; they influence the kind of opportunities for learning and experience that children will have” (pp. 126) In short, curriculum choices give rise to opportunity cost in terms of learning. One should not fret over definitions or conceptions of curriculum but rather to examine the current curriculum theory and design and question its relevance, currency and sphere of impact across all levels. References Carl, E. A. (2009). Teacher Empowerment through Curriculum Development: Theory into Practice. Juta and Company Ltd. South Africa. Accessed on 23 March 2011 from http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KHck3QIyu0kC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq =cons+of+curriculum+definition+by+tanner&source=bl&ots=fKt50TFHvO&sig =xqnVcozXO6gLPKJeMfkVdeJNmNY&hl=en&ei=f46LTf6QKoi4rAf1m4HEDg &sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ6AEwADgK#v=one page&q&f=false Dewey, J. (1902). The Child and the Curriculum. The university of Chicago press. Chicago. Eisner, W. E. (1967). Help or Hindrance. The School Review. (75). 3, Pp. 250- 260. Eisner, W. E. (2002). The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs. 3rd Edition. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Eisner, W. E. (2005). Reimagining schools: the selected works of Elliot W. Eisner. Eisner, W. E. (2004). What Does It Mean to Say a School is Doing Well? In [Flinders, David J. and Thornton, Stephen J. (2004). The Curriculum Studies Reader. 2nd Edition. RoutledgeFalmer. New York]. Eisner, W. E. and Vallance, E. (1974) Conflicting Conceptions of Curriculum. McCutchan Publishing Corporation Flinders, David J. and Thornton, Stephen J. (2004). The Curriculum Studies Reader. 2nd Edition. RoutledgeFalmer. New York. Kelly, A.V. (1999). The Curriculum: Theory and Practice. 4th Edition. Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd. Kliebard, M. H. 1970. The Tyler Rationale. Chicago Journals. (78). 2. Pp. 259- 272. Marsh, J. C. 2009. Key Concept for Understanding Curriculum. Library of Congress. New York. Marsh. Critical-Exploratory Theorizers. Understanding curriculum in Terms of What has been is, and Might Be. Schwab, J. J. 1969. The Practical: A Language for Curriculum. (78).1. Pp.1-23. Schwab, J. J. 1973. The Practical Translation into Curriculum. (81),4. Pp.501-522 Schwab, J. J. 1983. The Practical 4: Something for Curriculum Professors to Do. (13). 3. Pp. 239-265. Read More