MODULE 1 - CONCEPTIONS OF CURRICULUM

WHAT IS CURRICULUM?

Authors have defined curriculum variously as “What should be taught? To whom? When and How” (McNeil, 1996, p.1); “a plan for achieving goals”, (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013, p.8); and “the essence of any subject taught in an educational setting… [to guide] the world of teachers and educations” (Marsh and Wills (2007).  According to Pratt (1994), curriculum is “never a final draft; revisions are always ongoing for purposes of improvement” (Al Mousa, 2013, p. 21).

The development and popularity of curriculum can be linked to shifting social, political, and cultural beliefs.  Conceptions of curriculum which have reached the mainstream are those which both reflect and serve the needs and values of society at a given time.

Several authors note this connection.  For example, Ornstein and Hunkins link the growth of the humanistic approach during the 1940’s and 1950’s to developments in child and humanistic psychology, notably ego identity (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013, p.7).  They explain how it regained popularity during the 1970’s following the free-thinking era of the 1960’s, but weakened in popularity in later decades due to a “demand for educational excellence and academic productivity”(p.7).

Similarly, Sowell (2005) notes a shift in favour of the science during the post-Sputnick era, followed by an emphasis on standard-based curriculum in the 1990’s due to social-conservative pressures (Sowell, 2005, p.40).

Writing amidst these same social-conservative forces in 1986, Vallance abandons the self-actualization curricular conception, noting it had lost “its saliency to the changes of society becoming increasingly practical and job orientated in its demands on the curriculum” (Vallance, 1986, p.26).  Ironically, a generation later, and in a different social environment, self-actualization has returned as one of the most popular conceptions - renamed, or absorbed, under the humanist conception.

DEFINING THE FRAMEWORKS

Al Moussa (2013) combines the conclusions of the aforementioned writers into four overarching conceptions of curriculum: Individual, Societal, Technology, and Academia.

Individual (self-actualization, critical-explanatory, humanistic, individual fulfillment, personal success and commitment)

This student-centred conception is concerned with the ‘whole-child’, beyond just a cognitive dimension.  Personal growth and actualization is emphasized, and failure is considered a stepping-stone to success.  Schiro states that “it is the job of educators to carefully create those contexts, environments, or units of work, which will stimulate growth in people as they construct meaning (and thus learning and knowledge) for themselves” (Schiro, 2013, p.6).

While this personalized-learning conception is perhaps the most time- and labour-intensive of the conceptions, I’ve found that the end results are often deeper and more meaningful to the students themselves.  Currently, humanist techniques such as practicing mindfulness and identifying mental health struggles have become more important due to pandemic-related mental health concerns.

Societal (social reconstruction-relevance, descriptive/critical-exploratory, social transformation)

According to Ornstein and Hunkins (2013, p. 8), “reconceptualists focus on education's larger ideological issues. They investigate and influence society's social, economic, and political Institutions.” Society is the focus, not the individual.  This conception seems particularly linked to the prevailing socio-political landscape.

Social awareness and social justice is a prominent concept today in both the public sphere and the classroom.  Human and gender rights, climate change, AIDS awareness and drug education are all examples of social issues that have gained attention.  Recently, the discovery of mass graves at residential schools has brought the Indigenous crisis into the public awareness, and schools are in the process of re-evaluating the most effective ways to address this timely issue.

McNeil (2009, p.27) notes that “the social reconstructionist curriculum…has no universal objectives and content.”  In my own experience with the social-reconstruction approach (as a student, colleague and parent), all too often a teacher’s individual bias drives the content, and I have experienced teachers over-stepping their role as educators and taking on a proselytizing/parental role.

Technology (technology/cognitive processes, systemic)

This systemic approach is concerned with how to teach (efficiency) rather than what to teach.  The development of the internet has bolstered its prominence.  Technology’s role in our lives will only continue to grow, with its pros (efficiency) and cons (depersonalization).  The COVID pandemic provided an opportunity for many of us to update our technology skills, and introduced many excellent platforms and programs into our daily classroom learning (eg, Google, Kahoot, FlipGrid).

Academia (academic rationalism, prescriptive (planned) cultural transmission, cumulative tradition of organized knowledge)

This tradition-bound framework emphasises the cultivation of “the child's intellect by providing him with opportunities to acquire the most powerful products of man's intelligence”(Eisner & Vallance, 1974, p.12). Clear content goals, standards, programs, and instructional materials are followed by tests to assess mastery.  According to Eisner and Vallance, this conception possesses a preoccupation with “the importance of what rather than with how students study.” (p.15)  McNeil notes that some groups admire the efficiency and effectiveness with which this framework delivers content (McNeil, 2009, p.52). It continues to be preferred by many educators (Al Moussa, p. 24), although it tends to be spoken of pejoratively as ‘old-fashioned’.

Most recently, the academic conception has been seen in the “No Child Left Behind” and “Race to the Top” education reforms of the Bush and Obama political administrations in the United States.  In BC, the literacy and numeracy Foundation Skills Assessments taken by students in grades 4, 7 and 10 are current examples.

APPLICATION and TAKEAWAYS

Examining these conceptions and their history in detail brought to mind many discussions I’ve had over my career with my colleagues.  Schiro’s words rang true: “when educators have perspective on and understand the range of philosophical beliefs that colleagues can hold, this can enable them to better understand the nature of curriculum disagreements that inevitably take place in schools, be more accepting of others, and more effectively work with people of differing opinions” (2013, p.3).

The New BC curriculum hinges around three curricular competencies (Personal and Social Responsibility, Communication, Critical and Creative Thinking).  From my observations, the current curriculum leans more heavily toward the Individual (humanist) and Society conceptions than previous curricula.  ‘Big Ideas’ take precedence over specifics, and process trumps product.  One could say that social and emotional learning, rather than academic transmission, lies at the centre of the new BC curriculum.  This is similar to the New Zealand curriculum analysed by Brown, in which “the only conception not mentioned… is the academic traditional-content-focused orientation”(Brown, 2006).

In my experience, some teachers appreciate the open-ness and autonomy it provides, while others struggle with its lack of specificity.  For example, the words mastery or memorize are absent from the math curriculum, and measurable outcomes are harder to find than in past iterations.  I sympathize with the concern that the absence of a clear scope and sequence could provide obstacles for new teachers.

Some teachers find aspects of the new BC curriculum somewhat idealist – Utopian, even – as it demands high-level thinking of all students.  Inquiry-based learning, for example, opens the door to great revelations for some students, while leaving others woefully confused.  I have used the analogy of dropping a bunch of children onto a deserted island (I’m not alluding to Lord of the Flies here!) and observing how they tackle the concept of survival.  Some students’ ingenuity will lead them to make great discoveries and forge paths to success; some will find a way not to starve; and some will just sit down and cry, unsure where to start!

FRAMEWORK FUSION?

Schiro’s Curriculum Ideologies Inventory showed that I value both the Academic and Individual frameworks more than the Technology and Society conceptions.  This wasn’t surprising to me.  I believe structure and content have strong merits, and I believe one of my most important jobs is to prepare students for the content and challenges of the next grade.

However, I found myself disagreeing with the narrowness of the academic framework – possibly due to the learning experience of my own four children (all homeschooled).  My eldest two children whizzed through the academic subjects, while my third struggled.  Watching with horror as she began to see herself as ‘dumb’ really caused me to reevaluate my own emphasis on academics.  At the end of the day, while I still want her to have the requisite skills to be successful, her feelings of self-worth are far more important to me than her recall of math facts.  This has made me think a lot about my own teaching practice, and impressed on me the multiplicity of intelligences.

I still have high standards for my students, but what I want most is for them to reach their full potential.  Pratt’s ideal resonated with me: “…in an ideal world, teachers would not adhere to only one perspective of curriculum; they adopt concepts from the different curricular conceptions to fulfill commitment to human well-being” (Pratt, 1994, in Al Mousa, p.29).

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, 2, 164-181.

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.

Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2013). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. pp. 1-8.

McNeil, J. D. (2009).  Contemporary curriculum in thought and action (7th ed.).  Hoboken, NJ:  John Wiley.  Pages 1, 3-14, 27-39, 52-60, 71-74.

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

Schiro, M. S. (2013).  Introduction to the curriculum ideologies.  In M. S. Schiro, Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns (2nd ed., pp. 1-13). Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage.

Vallance. (1986). A second look at conflicting conceptions of the curriculum. Theory into Practice, 25(1), 24-30.