Interpretations of Curriculum
In the world of education, there are many interpretations of curriculum that have been created, identified, and adopted by practitioners, disseminators, evaluators, advocates, developers, and theorists, as concepts, fields, principles, or ideologies. Upon reflection of these various approaches, deciding what is most suitable to utilize or follow as curriculum is perhaps often circumstantial and adopted or examined from a diverse viewpoints of what one decides is a quality education appropriate for all students and their needs in this changing world.
Regardless, the focus must always remain on the enhancement of student learning. Through our readings, I have gained a deeper understanding of the way a curriculum is defined by others and have put into motion further personal reflection on what styles resonate with me and what I choose to focus on with my students in my practice.
According to Sowell (2005), a conception of curriculum implies a particular of education with appropriate content and organization. There should always be an emphasis on subject matter, a purpose of transmitted cultural heritage, a focus on social aspect of preparing people for living in an unstable and changing world, whilst still taking into considering individual needs essential for developing individuals to their furthest potential. (Sowell, 2005). Many people may believe in one conception where others can believe in more than one, and others still believe that many concepts are not mutually exclusive (Moussa, 2013).
According to Pratt (as referenced in Moussa, 2013), in an ideal world, teachers would not adhere to only one perspective of curriculum but would adopt several concepts from various curriculum ideologies or conceptions in order to create a full commitment to a human being.
All this to say, that I support the idea that various ideas from different conceptions can be utilized in my choices of curriculum at any one given time. The primary conceptions that I will focus on are humanist, social reconstruction, academic rationalism, technology, and cognitive process which I have found through my readings can all be labelled using various terms.
The Humanistic Conception of Curriculum
The humanistic conception of curriculum is rooted in a progressive philosophy focused on putting the learner at the center of the curriculum. It has also been identified or given the title of self-actualization, individual fulfillment, or learner centred. The focus is on the needs, concerns, and interests of an individual (Schiro, 2008), with intentions to allow children to pursue individual choices through student oriented and child centred curricula.
Lessons are based on life experiences, allowing creative problem solving, active participation in learning and interest centers, and an emphasis on socialization through an education that demonstrates development of the whole child. (Ornstein and Hunkins, 2013). Learners are given the freedom to discover and construct meaning for themselves. (Eisner & Vallance, 1974; Schiro, 2008, Sowell, 2005).
This conception resonates with me as I strive in my classroom to find a balance between being the “resource center” (McNeil, 2009) providing teacher dominated and larger group learning and also but more often “providing warmth” and nurturing emotions (McNeil, 2009) which allow for socialization, cooperative learning, and a combination of independent and small-group learning.
Every child can develop to their fullest potential by giving them choices, a voice, and preference of how to learn. This concept believes that the curriculum should be a major factor in developing a child’s identity, to create opportunities of personal growth, freedom, and autonomy, and include activities that allow and recognize individuality (Eisner & Vallance, 1974; McNeil, 2006; Schiro, 2008, Sowell, 2005).
The Social Reconstruction Conception of Curriculum
The second curriculum that resonates with me is social reconstruction (also been labeled as social transformation or reconceptualist). Ornstein (2013) suggests that to some curriculum scholars, this approach is seen as extending the humanistic approach, and I suspect that is why it appeals to me as well. Curriculum scholars believe that subject matter should bring awareness to environmental, political, social, and economic issues, facilitating social change and a society that offers safety and satisfaction to all (Eisner & Vallance, 1974; McNeil, 2006; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009; Schiro, 2013, Sowell.2005).
Our role as educators would be to give students the tools to function and create a better society hence providing a curriculum that connects them to society and the knowledge with how to create change.
The Academic Rationalism Conception of Curriculum
Academic rationalism (also called scholar academic or cumulative tradition of organized knowledge) is the oldest and most traditional way of approaching curriculum (Eisner & Vallance,1974; Sowell, 2005). It identifies as the most mainstream approach of curriculum, focusing on more distinct subjects or disciplines and stresses the intrinsic value of comprehension and intellect. With a purpose to transfer the knowledge, theories, philosophies, and culture, of one generation to the next, the main mode of teaching is a focus on learning specific academic subjects (math, English, science, history, social studies) in school. (Eisner & Vallance,1974; McNeil, 2006; Schiro, 2008; Sowell, 2005).
This mastery of knowledge is delivered through a tradition of tools like memorization, analyzing, classifying, and reconstructing of academics there are also intended to follow a set of academic standards and enable students to participate in the Western cultural tradition.
Academic thinkers believe knowledge is unified and unchanging so for consistency school should be structured to help repair needs and gaps in an individual’s understanding. The transmission of information should also be taught by teachers through verbal or written means (Pratt, 1994). Essentially, the curriculum helps individuals understand knowledge (skills, tools, concepts) needed to participate actively on their own and support their cultural needs (Eisner & Vallance, 1974; Sowell, 2005).
The Technology Conception of Curriculum
The technology conception of curriculum (also includes systemic, managerial, and behavioural ideologies) focuses on making learning efficient, by following a set of predetermined standards, aligning instruction with clear expectations and objectives, and identifying a goal of predetermined and specific outcomes, making the learning fairly controlled and predictable.
McNeil (1996) states, it “focuses on the effectiveness of programs, methods, and materials in the achievement of specified ends or purposes” (p. 57). All content, lesson plans, learning outcomes, and assessment measures are expected to align with these elements. (McNeil, 2009, Orstien & Hunkins, 2013).
According to Eisner & Vallance (1974), “the focus is less on the learner or even on his relationship to the material than on the more practical problem of efficiently packaging and presenting the material to him (p. 8). The predetermined, simple outcomes strategy is somewhat limited using words and symbols, using computer- assisted programs giving students immediate knowledge. (Sowell, 2005).
The Behavioural Approach of Curriculum
Ornstein (2013) explains that the Behavioral Approach was created with the intention of being a logical and prescriptive approach to curriculum. Originally based on the strategy that following a frame of reference containing objectives and learning outcomes would create efficiency, it came with consequences such as increasing numbers of students in the classroom and reducing teachers’ salaries, all while maintaining operational costs and expecting similar output results.
This oldest and still dominant approach to curriculum has evolved to include consideration of the complexities of human learning and individual student experiences. So, while still following a blueprint, the conception takes into account that learners are cognitive individuals that also function within a social context and therefore depending on their life experiences, will respond to curriculum and expectations in different ways (Ornstein, 2013).
The Systemic Approach of Curriculum
The systemic approach focuses on clear objectives and a standards based curriculum created by developers and delivered to educators with an expectation to follow the assessment criteria. Criteria for learning depends on the subject and the age of learners, using benchmarks to determine where students lie in abilities and help decide directions to take from there (McNeil, 2009).
McNeil (2009) states, more schools are now using technology and media to deliver curriculum. This has transformed the educator to facilitator versus imparter of knowledge using channels like pre-recorded lectures available for the convenience of the student. This definitely holds true today where the expectation is to ensure that all lessons delivered within the classroom also be available online for those students who cannot attend class on a given day.
The Managerial Approach to Curriculum
The managerial approach views the school as a collective arrangement where students, teachers, and administrators collaborate. “Interested in innovation and how curriculum specialists, supervisors, and administrators can facilitate change” (Ornstein & Hunkins, p. 3), educators also rely on this conception to develop their curriculum based on available space, schedules, and resources and equipment available. Depending on the mindset of the school administration, the school culture is created for change or stability and managers communicate the direction to teachers (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013).
The Cognitive Conception of Curriculum
The last approach I will cover is the cognitive process approach which can also include the social efficiency approach and relates to technology and self-actualization conceptions. All of these concepts focus on the development and refinement of the intellectual growth in learners.
“The essence of learners lies in their competencies and the activities that they are capable of performing” (Schiro, p. 5). According to Eisner & Vallance (1974), this process focuses on the “how” rather than the “what” of education, understanding how learning occurs in the classroom. The priority lies on the learner, the materials, and the learning process of teach individual and the belief that the learner will grow to be intellectually independent if presented with the proper set of intellectual skills developing the capability of utilizing these outside the classroom as well (Eisner & Vallance, 1974, Sowell, 2005).
The relationships of each conception and approach to the various curriculum designs
Kathryn Featherstone 