810 Conceptions of Curriculum

Why some conceptions of curriculum continue to be used over time or are considered to be mainstream approaches, while others are not?

History has demonstrated how the idea of curriculum has emerged, and has continued to transform and adapt to the needs of stakeholders including governments, school trustees, school professionals, post-secondary academics, and the needs of society at large. On the continuum of ideas, there are many variations of ideologies, and oftentimes we see overlap in core ideas and philosophies that keep appearing throughout the ages. What is it that keeps some ideas repeating while others seem to “trend” and then disappear?

The development of cognitive processes (Eisner and Vallance, 1974) may have consistent staying power in the field since intellectual process and the development of the same, are consistent in the field of education and are not under the power of a political agenda with when governments change. Building the learner’s intellectual autonomy is hard to argue with, regardless of whatever bureaucratic interest may be in charge.

The critical-exploratory theorizers may have staying power because of relevancy and reflection. By looking at past directions and mistakes, they move forward, always considering intellectual and social contexts. (Al-Mousa, 2013). This type of theorist group considers social order or personal experiences through learning, influenced in part, by teaching professionals.

Another theory of curriculum comes from a humanist approach. Students are to determine who they are meant to be. Experiences can support the child through personal liberation, growth, and development. (Al-Mousa, 2013). One can see why, in an age of individualism, how a theory such as this might be relevant to the learner. This brings up the idea of agency and how people are interested in becoming who they are meant to be, by making autonomous decisions in their learning environment.

The theory of social transformation is similar to the social reconstructionism theory and is guided by the idea that students are given choice and thereby become the “agents” of change in society, that is constantly undergoing political and social shifts.

Not to be left out, prescriptive theorists support the idea that curriculum should be planned. This would be the most traditional of all theories. They are focused on the content.

We can see that these theories share many ideas and philosophies in common. I think that they have become mainstream largely because of the overarching idea that individuals should have the experience of becoming who they are, under the direction of professionals that present a variety of curriculum in a way that honors the differences that exist among students. These theories broadly apply to learners, regardless of the power structure that might exist in the government of the day. The ones that we have seen dropped (feminist pedagogy and self-actualization) may have been too narrow to withstand changes in government or societal shifts in ideological thinking of what curriculum should be for multiple stakeholders.

In addition, explain your interpretation of conceptions of curriculum and how you can use them as tools or frameworks to analyze planning, instruction, and assessment within your specific context of practice.

In my own professional context, I see the inherent value in many of the theories. When one considers the big idea from Eisner and Vallance (1974); “what can and should be taught to whom, when, and how?” I think about the fact that I am provincially mandated to cover the chosen curriculum BUT I am doing it in a self-directed environment, which essentially touches on many of the other curriculum theories even though mandated curriculum certainly falls under the prescriptive theories and the systemic curriculum.

Working with self-directed learners allows for the process oriented approach. In addition to the curriculum, students are encouraged to use their intellectual autonomy to guide the learning experience. It’s akin to the cognitive process approach in partnership with the prescriptive curriculum.

When planning, one obviously should take from the program of studies that certainly is subject centered, but that doesn’t mean the design of the instruction can’t focus on the learner and be more problem centered, thereby producing a better blend of progressivism, reconstructionism, and essentialism.

Instruction looks different in self-directed schooling. Students move through the pre-designed curriculum content and decide to come to teaching seminars of their choice based on their own needs. This certainly allows for more implementation of the cognitive and humanist theories as we guide students to address, assess, and choose their methods whereby they come to know curriculum. In this, they also learn a lot about themselves as learners as well as developing themselves as human beings. As curriculum practitioners, we become important in the initial process and then provide more in a guide position as the students design and move through their self-directed pathways to knowing.

Assessment takes the form of more of a traditionalist approach at times, although our social department is trying to shift this towards more formative assessment that is in balance with the summative assessment. We are provincially accountable to the grade 12 diploma examinations and thus I see that our ideas do shift in the favor of the scholar academic ideology which requires our students to know the provincially mandated outcomes as they are tested according to a provincial standard at the end of the year by the government.

Thoughts from the 810 community?

Sources:

Al Mousa, N. (2013). An examination of cad use in two interior design programs from the perspectives of curriculum and instructors, pp. 21-37 (Master’s Thesis).

Eisner, E., & Vallance, E. (Eds.). (1974). Five conceptions of the curriculum: Their roots and implications for curriculum planning. In E. Eisner & E. Vallance (Eds.), Conflicting conceptions of curriculum (pp. 1-18). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.

McNeil, J. D. (2006). Contemporary curriculum in thought and action (6th ed., pp. 1-13, 24-34, 44-51, 60-73). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2009). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (5th ed., pp. 2-9). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Shiro, M. S. (2008). Introduction to the curriculum ideologies. In M. S. Shiro, Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns (pp. 1-12). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sowell, E. J. (2005). Curriculum: An integrative introduction (3rd ed., pp. 37-51). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.