Conceptions of Curriculum

 My idea of curriculum has always been in regard to what we are teaching, not how.  It has always been about interpreting the list of items that students must learn, and thinking of creative ways to teach them. Ornstein & Hunkins define curriculum more broadly as “a plan for achieving goals” and “dealing with the learner's experiences”, they also say that “[b]y this definition, almost anything planned in or outside of school is part of the curriculum.” (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013, p. 8) . Exploring the various concepts of curriculum this week brought up an abundance of questions and thoughts, but most prevalent was a feeling of frustration toward the lack of change in our modern schooling system since the twentieth century. One quote from the authors Ornstein & Hunkins has continued to echo in my head, and has bubbled its way into my conversations with colleagues, friends and family over the last few days. That quote is this 

The behavioral approach started with … the scientific management theories of Frederick Taylor, who analyzed factory efficiency in terms of time-and-motion studies and concluded that each worker should be paid on the basis of his or her individual output, as measured by the number of units produced in a specified period of time… Ensuring efficiency in schools often meant eliminating small classes, increasing student teacher ratios, hiring fewer administrators, reducing teacher salaries, maintaining or reducing operational costs, and so on, and then preparing charts and graphs to show the resultant cost reductions. (2013, p. 2)

It angered me. It confused me. But most of all, it intrigued me. These articles lit a fire of curiosity within me that made me question the Western schooling system. It made me think about all of the leaps and bounds that British Columbia has made in regard to a new curriculum, and brought up the question: can big changes really be made when we are still basing our students’ fundamental skills on a framework that once trained people to become better factory workers? 

As I read, I found it easier to organize my thoughts into a slideshow to summarize the 4 main types and what they entail. Here it is:

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE SLIDESHOW

These thoughts aside, below are my explorations of the various types of curriculum.

INDIVIDUAL

Beginning with the curricular guideline that I agree with most, learner-centred, self-actualized or humanistic curriculums have an emphasis on “learner autonomy and growth” (Sowell, p. 42). This conception views students holistically, and believes that “[s]chools should be enjoyable places where people develop naturally according to their own innate natures. (Schiro, p. 6). This type of curriculum has not always been popular, as curriculum developers have had changing goals for the students of the future. For example, when the goal of school was to train students to be more efficient and disciplined factory workers, they would not have wanted to teach autonomy or individualism. The goals of schools are dynamic and changing, and this type of curriculum is more aligned with our present day values of creative and critical thinking, differentiation in assignments and educational plans that cater to various students’ abilities and areas for growth. The humanistic approach is one that brings the most success and growth to students, but is usually the most labour-intensive for teachers. That being said, it can be used as a guideline when planning, implementing and assessing to ensure that all students are being heard, challenged and assisted where required. This type of curriculum ensures that all students are finding success in areas that they have innate abilities or inclinations toward.

SOCIETAL

Social-Reconstructive curricular frameworks are based upon the idea that the main purpose for education is to teach students how to better our society as a whole. Through this framework, students may “be confronted with the many severe problems that humankind faces” and become “conscious of the problems of our society and the injustices done to its members, such as those originating from racial, gender, social, and economic inequalities.” (McNeil, 2009, p. 7), (Schiro, 2013, p. 6). This concept for curriculum may not be considered a mainstream approach because of wide variance on views toward societal reforms. This framework is “[m]ore interested in theory than practical applications,”, a view that would seem to be taking a step backward from the more hands-on and experiential-based learning that takes place today. (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013, p. 8). In regard to my own practice, I am most interested in how to implement this curriculum effectively and in an unbiased way. Many societal issues are so controversial that I often avoid them altogether. That being said, I strongly agree with the core goal of this framework which highlights that “overall goals of education are dealt with in terms of total experience, rather than using the immediate processes which they imply.”, and would like to implement these core values in my classroom more effectively (Eisner & Vallance, 1974, p. 10).

TECHNOLOGICAL

Judging this framework by the name, I figured that a technological focus in curriculum meant digital technology. After examining further, I learned that it refers to technology as the method by which curriculum is delivered. This ideology makes “little or no reference to content, it is concerned with developing a technology of instruction.” (Eisner & Vallance,  p. 7). It seems that the trends for modern curriculum are either one of two routes: focused on the learner, or focused on preparing the learner for the real-world; this framework seems to focus on neither. Although there is definitely a digital technology focus in today's education, this framework’s sole focus is more about instant positive and negative feedback, and efficient delivery methods rather than more student-centred ideas. In my own practice, I don’t focus as much on the “right” delivery method, but rather just ensuring that my students are getting exposure to a variety of lesson delivery through digital, collaborative, self-guided and teacher-led learning. I do, however, have a strong digital technology focus in my practice which is how I connected with this conception of curriculum the most closely.

ACADEMIC

This conception of curriculum is by far the most prevalent in our Western educational system, and what I view as the most “old-fashioned” approach to curriculum. This is the well-known idea that “[t]he purpose of education is to help children learn the accumulated knowledge of our culture: that of the academic disciplines.” (Schiro, 2013, p. 4). It is through this curriculum that we teach students to work hard for good grades, to achieve high scores on standardized tests, and to aim for a post-secondary education in an academic field. It is through this type of curriculum that a hierarchy exists with the most “well-educated” being at the top, aiming for more degrees and letters in front of names. This type of curriculum works wonderfully for students with a high academic inclination, but is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Students are judged by the same standards for their different skills, leaving many to feel inadequate and unworthy. Thankfully, I have observed a large shift away from assessment of  learning and toward assessment as  and for  learning, and have been trying to incorporate these different assessment methods in my own practice. We are centering our lessons more around our students, and recognizing the many different types of intelligence that exist. Although our school systems are generally based on this concept, many of the core components have changed and adjusted toward a more Humanistic perspective on learning. The question that seems difficult to answer is the level of Academia that should remain in education in order for students to learn necessary life skills, but also have autonomy over their learning and learning a wide range of topics. Where is the happy medium?

Takeaways and connections

After reading through the New Zealand Curricular Framework, it reminds me of the direction that British Columbia's ministry has taken with our new curriculum. In my opinion, the curriculum has almost gone so far in the direction of being open-ended that it leaves teachers slightly loss. In the words of Brown, the New Zealand curriculum "contains multiple competing and possibly incompatible conceptions within its pages. Elements of humanistic, social reform, technological, academic, and processes conceptions are available such that the NZCF means to all teachers fundamentally whatever they want it to mean" (p. 3). I look forward to learning about how I can incorporate my learnings into my practice at the independent school I work at. The school is very innovative and open to new ideas, and I would love to be able to present ideas that move us away from the traditional "academia" curriculum, and more towards a humanistic approach with essences of societal topics, academic goals and technological deliveries. A humanistic approach is one that most values the learner, which makes it the most effective mode of delivery. Perhaps I will be proved wrong, or perhaps I will learn more ways in which this is true. Either way, I look forward to exploring more throughout this course and documenting it on this blog!

Thanks for reading,

Jen

References

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).

Brown, G. T. L. (2006). Conceptions of curriculum: A framework for understanding New Zealand’s Curriculum Framework and teachers’ opinions. Curriculum Matters

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

McNeil, J. D. (2009). Contemporary curriculum in thought and action (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2013). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Schiro, M. S. (2013). Introduction to the curriculum ideologies. In M. S. Schiro, Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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

Vallance. (1986). A second look at conflicting conceptions of the curriculum. Theory into Practice.