Question
Compartmentalization
and inflexibility not withstanding the subject matter curriculum remain a true
custodian of academic excellence discuss using related example
The term curriculum
refers to the lessons and academic content taught in a school or in a specific
course or program. In dictionaries, curriculum is often defined as the
courses offered by a school, but it is rarely used in such a general sense in
schools. Depending on how broadly educators define or employ the
term, curriculum typically refers to the knowledge and skills
students are expected to learn, which includes the learning standards or learning objectives they are expected to meet; the units
and lessons that teachers teach; the assignments and projects given to
students; the books, materials, videos, presentations, and readings used in a
course; and the tests, assessments,
and other methods used to evaluate student learning. An individual teacher’s
curriculum, for example, would be the specific learning standards,
lessons, assignments, and materials used to organize and teach a particular
course.
When the terms curriculum or curricula are
used in educational contexts without qualification, specific examples, or
additional explanation, it may be difficult to determine precisely what the
terms are referring to—mainly because they could be applied to either all or
only some of the component parts of a school’s academic program or courses.
In many cases, teachers develop their own curricula, often
refining and improving them over years, although it is also common for teachers
to adapt lessons and syllabi created by other teachers, use curriculum
templates and guides to structure their lessons and courses, or purchase
prepackaged curricula from individuals and companies. In some cases, schools
purchase comprehensive, multigrade curriculum packages—often in a particular
subject area, such as mathematics—that teachers are required to use or follow.
Curriculum may also encompass a school’s academic requirements for graduation,
such as the courses students have to take and pass, the number of credits
students must complete, and other requirements, such as completing a capstone project or
a certain number of community-service hours. Generally speaking, curriculum
takes many different forms in schools—too many to comprehensively catalog here.
It is important to note that while curriculum encompasses a
wide variety of potential educational and instructional practices, educators
often have a very precise, technical meaning in mind when they use the term.
Most teachers spend a lot of time thinking about and analyzing curriculum, and
many educators have acquired a specialist’s expertise in curriculum
development—i.e., they know how to structure, organize, and deliver courses in
ways that facilitate or accelerate student learning. To noneducators, some
curriculum materials may seem simple or straightforward (such as a list of
required reading, for example), but they may reflect a deep and sophisticated
understanding of an academic discipline and of the most effective strategies
for learning acquisition and classroom management.
Among the many functions curriculum plays
in the schools beyond a representation of the approved culture and perspectives
adopted by the state and the groups that are in power within the state is that
it is the sanctified content to be taught and as such, becomes the platform for
subsequent testing. But as we shall see, testing does not isomorphicallysimply
follow the designation of curriculum content. Often, tests have content of
their own apart from what may be in the curriculum. So tests are never neutral
tools, as the examples and content
in
them are loaded with forms of sanctified cultural capital.
Thus, in this sense, a curriculum is a particular form of
specification about the practice of teaching. It is not a package of
materials or a syllabus of ground to be covered. ‘It is a way of
translating any educational idea into a hypothesis testable in practice.
It invites critical testing rather than acceptance’ (Stenhouse 1975: 142).
Second, and associated with the above, given the uniqueness
of each classroom setting, it means that any proposal, even at school level,
needs to be tested, and verified by each teacher in his/her classroom (ibid:
143). It is not like a curriculum package which is designed to be
delivered almost anywhere.
Third, outcomes are no longer the central and defining
feature. Rather than tightly specifying behavioural objectives and
methods in advance, what happens in this model of curriculum theory and
practice is that content and means develop as teachers and students work
together.
Fourth, the learners in this model are not objects to be
acted upon. They have a clear voice in the way that the sessions
evolve. The focus is on interactions. This can mean that attention
shifts from teaching to learning. The product model, by having a
pre-specified plan or programme, tends to direct attention to teaching.
For example, how can this information be got over? A process approach to
curriculum theory and practice, it is argued by writers like Grundy (1987),
tends towards making the process of learning the central concern of the
teacher. This is because this way of thinking emphasizes interpretation
and meaning-making. As we have seen each classroom and each exchange is
different and has to be made sense of.
However, when we come to think about this way of approaching
curriculum in practice, a number of possible problems do arise. The first
is a problem for those who want some greater degree of uniformity in what is
taught. This approach to the theory of curriculum, because it places meaning-making
and thinking at its core and treats learners as subjects rather than objects,
can lead to very different means being employed in classrooms and a high degree
of variety in content. As Stenhouse comments, the process model is
essentially a critical model, not a marking model.
It can never be directed towards an examination as an
objective without loss of quality, since the standards of the examination then
override the standards immanent in the subject. This does not mean that
students taught on the process model cannot be examined, but it does mean that
the examinations must be taken in their stride as they pursue other
aspirations. And if the examination is a by-product there is an
implication that the quality the student shows in it must be an under-estimate
of his real quality. It is hence rather difficult to get the weak student
through an examination using a process model. Crammers cannot use it,
since it depends upon a commitment to educational aims. (Stenhouse 1975:
95)
To some extent variation is limited by factors such as public
examinations. The exchange between students and teachers does not float
free of the context in which it arises. At the end of the day many
students and their families place a high premium on exam or subject success and
this inevitably enters into the classroom. This highlights a second
problem with the model we have just outlined – that it may not pay enough
attention to the context in which learning takes place (more of this later).
Third, there is the ‘problem’ of teachers. The
major weakness and, indeed, strength of the process model is that it rests upon
the quality of teachers. If they are not up to much then there is no
safety net in the form of prescribed curriculum materials. The approach
is dependent upon the cultivation of wisdom and meaning-making in the
classroom. If the teacher is not up to this, then there will be severe
limitations on what can happen educationally. There have been some
attempts to overcome this problem by developing materials and curriculum
packages which focus more closely on the ‘process of discovery’ or
‘problem-solving’, for example in science. But there is a danger in this
approach. Processes become reduced to sets of skills – for example, how
to light a bunsen burner. When students are able to demonstrate certain
skills, they are deemed to have completed the process. As Grundy
comments, the actions have become the ends; the processes have become the
product. Whether or not students are able to apply the skills to make
sense of the world around them is somehow overlooked (Grundy 1987: 77).
Fourth, we need to look back at our process model of
curriculum theory and practice and what we have subsequently discussed, and
return to Aristotle and to Freire. The model we have looked at here does
not fully reflect the process explored earlier. In particular, it does
not make explicit the commitments associated with phronesis. And it is to
that we will now turn.
References
Aristotle (1976) The Nicomachean Ethics (‘Ethics’),
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Barnes, J. (1976) ‘Introduction’ to Aristotle The
Nicomachean Ethics (‘Ethics’), Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Barrow, R. (1984) Giving Teaching back to Teachers.
A critical introduction to curriculum theory, Brighton:
Wheatsheaf Books.
Blenkin, G. M. et al (1992) Change and the
Curriculu,, London:
Paul Chapman.
Bobbitt, F. (1918) The Curriculum, Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Bobbitt, F. (1928) How to Make a Curriculum, Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical.
Education, knowledge and action research, Lewes: Falmer Press
Cornbleth, C. (1990) Curriculum in Context, Basingstoke: Falmer Press.
Curzon, L. B. (1985) Teaching in Further Education.
An outline of principles and practice 3e, London: Cassell.
Dewey, J. (1902) The Child and the Curriculum, Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education, New York: Macmillan.
Eisner, E. W. (1985) The Art of Educational
Evaluation, Lewes: Falmer Press.
Foreman, A. (1990) ‘Personality and curriculum’ in T.
Jeffs. & M. Smith (eds.) (1990) Using Informal Education. An
alternative to casework, teaching and control? Milton
Keynes: Open University Press. Also in the archives.
Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed,
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Grundy, S. (1987) Curriculum: product or praxis?
Lewes: Falmer Press.
Jackson, P. W. (1968) Life in Classrooms, New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
Jeffs, T. & Smith, M. (eds.) (1990) Using
Informal Education. An alternative to casework, teaching and control?
Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Jeffs, T. J. and Smith, M. K. (1999) Informal
Education. Conversation, democracy and learning, Ticknall: Education Now.
Kelly, A. V. (1983; 1999) The Curriculum. Theory
and practice 4e, London:
Paul Chapman.
Stenhouse, L. (1975) An introduction to Curriculum
Research and Development, London:
Heineman.
Newman, E. & G. Ingram (1989) The Youth Work
Curriculum, London:
Further Education Unit (FEU).
Taba, H. (1962) Curriculum Development: Theory and
practice, New York:
Harcourt Brace and World.
Tyler, R. W. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum
and Instruction, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
TY COMPUTER
07064961036
No comments:
Post a Comment