The curriculum development process can be puzzling to new teachers. The process is often discussed in the literature as a blueprint for developing a curriculum that has applicability across a range of subjects (i.e., a macro view); however, it is also defined as the plan teachers adopt in the classroom for organizing learning activities (i.e., a micro view). Both interpretations of curriculum development are valid and helpful in conceiving and continually implementing successful learning activities for students. Having developed a conceptual framework and an understanding of the essence of curriculum design, it is important for aspiring teachers to become familiar with macro and micro level planning, learning theory, and student assessment/program evaluation.
Macro level curriculum planning in North America, whether highly centralized or decentralized, is often the result of task force reports and competing prescriptions of what should be taught in schools. The end products of such processes are interesting to analyze. The Commonwealth of Virginia (1992), for example, has produced a statewide technological education curriculum for its schools and school teachers. That curriculum has been carefully and professionally crafted, covers a specific band of the technological education curriculum spectrum, provides educators with excellent curriculum materials, and demonstrates one process for developing curriculum. An alternative approach has been adopted in the Province of Ontario, where only general learning outcomes are specified at the provincial level. Responsibility for the more detailed development of the curriculum has been embraced by school boards and systems of school boards. Both approaches to the development of a new curriculum-one centralized, the other decentralized-are valid and merit ongoing analysis and study.
Given the rapidly changing social needs and conditions facing North American school systems, it is difficult to imagine curriculum planning taking place only at the macro level. Pratt warns about the pitfalls of removing the planning process too far from the learner. He asserts, "in most schools, the programs offered reflect the areas of expertise and interest of teachers rather than an analysis of the needs of learners" (p. 52). Pratt (1989) is convinced senior educators act too arbitrarily on behalf of the many constituents served by schooling:
… the clients of the schools-parents, employers, taxpayers-are ordinarily excluded from curriculum committees. Nor are their views accessed by means of needs assessment. Curriculum development is a process carried out almost entirely by educators, and the need for client opinion is ignored. Also ignored is the need for empirical data, both from needs assessment before the curriculum is developed and from field testing after development. The approach therefore is almost entirely bureaucratic and political: the development of curriculum is viewed as a quasi-legislative activity of writing rules and regulations. (p. 308)
Curriculum planning that is guided or informed by some rational process would seem to merit the attention of all educators. Before curriculum can be formulated, the curriculum designer must take into account a combination of constituent needs-including community, schools, teachers, and students. Because communities and regions are very different, student groups vary, schools differ, and teachers are not all alike, the idea of one prescribed curriculum for everyone is limiting.
With respect to the individual learner, one observation is central to curriculum planning; learning is an interactive process. Constructivist learning theorists (Driver & Bell, 1985; Scott, 1987) may have a valid argument when they claim that learners have a base of experience through which new meaning can be constructed. They also may be right in assuming that people are purposive beings who set their own goals and control their own learning. In short, learning is best characterized as an adaptive process as articulated in principle number three, in which learners interact with their environment. The role of instructor is an intermediary one.
Another element in the curriculum planning process involves program evaluation. Few issues among education practitioners garner as much attention as assessment of student achievement and the relation of such assessment to program effectiveness. It is risky to make easy generalizations about the study and practice of program evaluation (macro or micro level). Measuring student achievement and determining the effectiveness of planned learning activities are, right or wrong, integral elements of schooling as it has evolved. Kramer (1990) provides an interesting perspective for consideration and a provocative illustration of how assessment of student achievement might be portrayed.
Kramer (1990) advocates that an evaluation scheme that (a) recognizes hard work, (b) provides opportunities for students to interact formally and informally, (c) promotes engagement between instructors and students, and (d) creates avenues for out-of-class use of skills. The object of curriculum planning, according to Kramer, is not to make an obstacle course. Schools and technology teachers would do well to consider Kramer's four rules of engagement:
A successful program would always feature or be characterized as having a hard working student body;
Students participating in a successful program talk a lot;
A successful curriculum would be one in which students and instructors were genuinely engaged; and
The context in which performance is usually assessed should reach beyond the school or institution (e.g., technological education students design a computer program for a hospital in which they are volunteers).
Meaningful learning experiences in school classrooms can be designed, presented, and shaped through a rational process. The importance of community input and support in that process cannot be overstated.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
The importance and place of curriculum theory
The principles upon which curriculum development practice has evolved date back to the early decades of this century. Bobbitt's (1918) view that schooling, like production processes in factories, could be reduced to an efficient technique was as commonly accepted by educators in that era as mass media is today. It was not until Tyler (1949) introduced a disciplined approach to instruction that the paradigm of curriculum-making that had prevailed for half a century changed. Educational psychologists, among others, gained substantial credibility in the 1950s and 1960s as behavioral objectives led the list of principles upon which the instructional process would be designed. Narrow preoccupations with discrete and abstract elements of the curriculum (e.g., objectives, teaching methods, and measurement) were the currency of choice in textbooks about contemporary instruction. The one exception to the emergence of what would now surely be called curriculum theory was voiced by Goodlad (1958) who called for a comprehensive and coherent framework for curriculum design. Schwab (1972) supported Goodlad's call for a conceptual system to guide curriculum decision-making. He blamed a reliance on theory for creating the unhappy state of curriculum study and practice. Progress, he claimed, would be by piecemeal improvement not by monolithic revolution and would start from a sophisticated understanding of existing practices and their effects. By the end of the 1970s, it was possible to say that curriculum design, if not curriculum theory, was on the threshold of emerging as a field of study.
There has been considerable debate in the education literature (Barrow, 1984; Goodlad, 1984; Pratt, 1994; Miller & Seller, 1985) about the importance and place of curriculum theory and curriculum design. Barrow provided a useful perspective on the debate:
Curriculum design is an otiose notion: we don't want curriculum designers in the sense of people adept at telling us formally how curricula should be set out, or laying down an invariant order of steps to be taken in formulating a curriculum. We want people to design particular curricula in intelligent ways. Much of the divergence between designers and between theories of curriculum design is essentially irrelevant, since it boils down to quibbling about how best to start tackling the problem, and how best to make an impact, rather than arguing about what a coherent curriculum proposal should involve. (p. 67)
The author's view, as reflected partly in the curriculum principles which follow, is that curriculum is necessarily a complex concept that lends itself awkwardly, with equal challenge and passion, to theory and practice. To best address that complexity, teacher education programs may need to reassess their priorities with respect to the importance and place of curriculum theory. Well conceived notions about how curriculum theories guide educational change are, as Apple (1990) and Goodson (1991) point out, too simplistic. Often what appears on the surface to be a very coherent and rational argument for a curriculum policy direction in schools may never materialize, or if it does, the final result differs from what was envisioned. Whether one adopts Goodson's (1991) notion that curriculum theory, to be of use, must begin with studies of schools and teaching, or Apple's (1990) view that our ability to illuminate the interdependence and interaction of factors associated with curriculum reform is limited by political and cultural forces deeply embedded in the schools, the end result is the same.
Because curriculum and curriculum change are complex, the investigators in the University of Western Ontario teacher development project considered both curriculum and curriculum development as teacher- and school-level phenomena that require an eclectic and applied approach. Technological education curriculum ideology in the above context has, until recently, been an ignored subject/program area (Layton, 1993). The work of Zuga (1993) and Herschbach (1992) is particularly helpful in charting the technological education curriculum theory and design terrain. Herschbach contends that "conceptual inconsistency has been a characteristic mark of the movement [technical/utilitarian or competency-based curriculum design variations in technology education]" (p. 25). In his opinion, the curriculum design pattern (academic rationalism, technical/utilitarian, intellectual processes, social reconstruction, or personal relevance) that should underlie technology education is open to debate. Competencies, in Herschbach's view, need to be defined more broadly than "the ability to manipulate tools, use material and apply mechanical processes. Problem solving, critical thinking skills, ordered ways of working-these are competencies that can also be identified" (p. 26). In contrast to Herschbach's desire to see technology education develop a "process design pattern," Zuga (1993) advocates a diversity of theories. While recognizing the need to modify Kliebard's (1992) categories (social efficiency, human development, social meliorism) to encompass the emergence of a post-modern philosophy, Zuga argues that technology education programs, for the most part, exemplify the social efficiency paradigm:
I believe that our theory needs to diversify. A problem is the positivist notion of one truth, one right way, one theory, one unified profession. Positivist theoretical underpinnings in the social efficiency theory never serve the diverse needs of a diverse population; rather, positivist theory attempts to force everything into a homogeneous blend… . I see no reason for a single curriculum theory underpinning technology education. (p. 62, 63)
In the author's opinion, technological education leaders, in Canadian schools and universities at least, have never contemplated how one theory might have power over another for explaining program evolution or a need for change. It is only in recent years that universities with a technological teacher education program have begun to examine the role of theory in curriculum development policy and practice. What remains to be seen is how competing and complementary curriculum theories will inform our understanding of this emerging field.
The premises for establishing guiding principles for curriculum development practice in such a context are crucial. First, a conceptual framework within which to plan learning activities and design curriculum may be a more significant element in a teacher's preparation than is currently acknowledged (Feiman-Nemser, 1990). The teacher education literature has not given curriculum design the attention it deserves (Haughey, 1992; Pratt, 1994; Sanders, 1990). Second, aspiring technology teachers should have an opportunity to reflect on their own attitudes and beliefs about learning (Hansen, 1995). The understanding gained by having some way to conceptualize personal attitudes and beliefs about learning, according to Feiman-Nemser, is a crucial element in a teacher's development. This is especially so in technological education because of the eclectic nature of the belief systems held by technologists/technicians with business and industry backgrounds or ideological tendencies. Third, there is a need to explore an epistemological foundation for technological education. The "technological method" (Savage & Sterry, 1990) notwithstanding, the difference between knowing and doing in the building of an epistemological and pedagogical rationale for technological education is important for education practitioners to understand. Fourth, the curriculum development process needs to be more clearly understood, fully appreciated, and consistently applied at all levels in school systems. The task analysis method of developing curriculum (Fryklund, 1970) has been an integral part of technological teacher education for years. Despite the outdatedness of task analysis, more needs to be done to expose the lineage of scientific curriculum making (Kliebard, 1992) and test its applicability in today's technocentric society. Lauda (1994), while he does not use the term technocentric, refers to the need for a global understanding which rightly has the study of technology at its core. Finally, and perhaps most salient, is the premise that aspiring teachers need to understand the political realities associated with curriculum development work. Politics in education is a field of study that is overlooked in the teacher education curriculum. It is least understood and discussed, and yet it is critical to the successful adoption of curriculum.
The structure of this paper conforms to the five premises articulated above. Each premise is explored and a principle for improving practice in curriculum design is developed. While each principle is described as a separate entity for emphasis and clarity (somewhat like a literary sketch), the reader may make useful connections between and among them. The guiding principles articulated above (i.e., the need for a conceptual framework, opportunities to reflect on attitudes and beliefs, exploration of the epistemological foundation of the subject, an understanding of the curriculum development process, and an understanding of the political realities) represent signposts from which bearings, related to curriculum study and practice, may be charted.
The experiential base for this paper was a technological teacher development project completed recently at The University of Western Ontario. The project involved a program modification that altered the way technological education teachers were recruited, prepared, and placed in the school systems of southern Ontario. One result of the action research component of the project was a critical look at the teacher development process in technological education. Among several areas identified for study and reflection, helping technology teachers become curriculum writers was paramount
There has been considerable debate in the education literature (Barrow, 1984; Goodlad, 1984; Pratt, 1994; Miller & Seller, 1985) about the importance and place of curriculum theory and curriculum design. Barrow provided a useful perspective on the debate:
Curriculum design is an otiose notion: we don't want curriculum designers in the sense of people adept at telling us formally how curricula should be set out, or laying down an invariant order of steps to be taken in formulating a curriculum. We want people to design particular curricula in intelligent ways. Much of the divergence between designers and between theories of curriculum design is essentially irrelevant, since it boils down to quibbling about how best to start tackling the problem, and how best to make an impact, rather than arguing about what a coherent curriculum proposal should involve. (p. 67)
The author's view, as reflected partly in the curriculum principles which follow, is that curriculum is necessarily a complex concept that lends itself awkwardly, with equal challenge and passion, to theory and practice. To best address that complexity, teacher education programs may need to reassess their priorities with respect to the importance and place of curriculum theory. Well conceived notions about how curriculum theories guide educational change are, as Apple (1990) and Goodson (1991) point out, too simplistic. Often what appears on the surface to be a very coherent and rational argument for a curriculum policy direction in schools may never materialize, or if it does, the final result differs from what was envisioned. Whether one adopts Goodson's (1991) notion that curriculum theory, to be of use, must begin with studies of schools and teaching, or Apple's (1990) view that our ability to illuminate the interdependence and interaction of factors associated with curriculum reform is limited by political and cultural forces deeply embedded in the schools, the end result is the same.
Because curriculum and curriculum change are complex, the investigators in the University of Western Ontario teacher development project considered both curriculum and curriculum development as teacher- and school-level phenomena that require an eclectic and applied approach. Technological education curriculum ideology in the above context has, until recently, been an ignored subject/program area (Layton, 1993). The work of Zuga (1993) and Herschbach (1992) is particularly helpful in charting the technological education curriculum theory and design terrain. Herschbach contends that "conceptual inconsistency has been a characteristic mark of the movement [technical/utilitarian or competency-based curriculum design variations in technology education]" (p. 25). In his opinion, the curriculum design pattern (academic rationalism, technical/utilitarian, intellectual processes, social reconstruction, or personal relevance) that should underlie technology education is open to debate. Competencies, in Herschbach's view, need to be defined more broadly than "the ability to manipulate tools, use material and apply mechanical processes. Problem solving, critical thinking skills, ordered ways of working-these are competencies that can also be identified" (p. 26). In contrast to Herschbach's desire to see technology education develop a "process design pattern," Zuga (1993) advocates a diversity of theories. While recognizing the need to modify Kliebard's (1992) categories (social efficiency, human development, social meliorism) to encompass the emergence of a post-modern philosophy, Zuga argues that technology education programs, for the most part, exemplify the social efficiency paradigm:
I believe that our theory needs to diversify. A problem is the positivist notion of one truth, one right way, one theory, one unified profession. Positivist theoretical underpinnings in the social efficiency theory never serve the diverse needs of a diverse population; rather, positivist theory attempts to force everything into a homogeneous blend… . I see no reason for a single curriculum theory underpinning technology education. (p. 62, 63)
In the author's opinion, technological education leaders, in Canadian schools and universities at least, have never contemplated how one theory might have power over another for explaining program evolution or a need for change. It is only in recent years that universities with a technological teacher education program have begun to examine the role of theory in curriculum development policy and practice. What remains to be seen is how competing and complementary curriculum theories will inform our understanding of this emerging field.
The premises for establishing guiding principles for curriculum development practice in such a context are crucial. First, a conceptual framework within which to plan learning activities and design curriculum may be a more significant element in a teacher's preparation than is currently acknowledged (Feiman-Nemser, 1990). The teacher education literature has not given curriculum design the attention it deserves (Haughey, 1992; Pratt, 1994; Sanders, 1990). Second, aspiring technology teachers should have an opportunity to reflect on their own attitudes and beliefs about learning (Hansen, 1995). The understanding gained by having some way to conceptualize personal attitudes and beliefs about learning, according to Feiman-Nemser, is a crucial element in a teacher's development. This is especially so in technological education because of the eclectic nature of the belief systems held by technologists/technicians with business and industry backgrounds or ideological tendencies. Third, there is a need to explore an epistemological foundation for technological education. The "technological method" (Savage & Sterry, 1990) notwithstanding, the difference between knowing and doing in the building of an epistemological and pedagogical rationale for technological education is important for education practitioners to understand. Fourth, the curriculum development process needs to be more clearly understood, fully appreciated, and consistently applied at all levels in school systems. The task analysis method of developing curriculum (Fryklund, 1970) has been an integral part of technological teacher education for years. Despite the outdatedness of task analysis, more needs to be done to expose the lineage of scientific curriculum making (Kliebard, 1992) and test its applicability in today's technocentric society. Lauda (1994), while he does not use the term technocentric, refers to the need for a global understanding which rightly has the study of technology at its core. Finally, and perhaps most salient, is the premise that aspiring teachers need to understand the political realities associated with curriculum development work. Politics in education is a field of study that is overlooked in the teacher education curriculum. It is least understood and discussed, and yet it is critical to the successful adoption of curriculum.
The structure of this paper conforms to the five premises articulated above. Each premise is explored and a principle for improving practice in curriculum design is developed. While each principle is described as a separate entity for emphasis and clarity (somewhat like a literary sketch), the reader may make useful connections between and among them. The guiding principles articulated above (i.e., the need for a conceptual framework, opportunities to reflect on attitudes and beliefs, exploration of the epistemological foundation of the subject, an understanding of the curriculum development process, and an understanding of the political realities) represent signposts from which bearings, related to curriculum study and practice, may be charted.
The experiential base for this paper was a technological teacher development project completed recently at The University of Western Ontario. The project involved a program modification that altered the way technological education teachers were recruited, prepared, and placed in the school systems of southern Ontario. One result of the action research component of the project was a critical look at the teacher development process in technological education. Among several areas identified for study and reflection, helping technology teachers become curriculum writers was paramount
curriculum
Curriculum is the study of what should constitute a world for learning and how to go about making this world. What is the good life? What is a good person? What is the good society? (Macdonald, 1978)
Curriculum is the ambiguous outcome of a complex interplay between certain social conditions and prevailing conceptions of how schools are supposed to function...affected by social, political, economic and intellectual forces. (Kliebard, 1992)
Curriculum is not a concept; it is a cultural construction. That is, it is not an abstract concept which has some existence outside and prior to human experience. Rather, it is a way of organizing a set of human educational practices. (Grundy, 1987)
Empowerment through curriculum inquiry is a deeply personal process of meaning making within particular historical, cultural and economic contexts. When students share the burden of the classroom dialectic, classrooms become incubators in which ideas are germinated, shared, nurtured, argued, acted upon, and often transformed by teacher and students alike. (Sears & Marshall, 1990)
In the final analysis, objectives are matters of choice, and they must therefore be the considered value judgments of those responsible for the school. (Tyler, 1949)
The term curriculum tends to orient us away from the young person toward structures and phases of study at an institution. The term pedagogy by contrast tends to bring out the human or personalistic elements of education and childrearing. Pedagogy must be found not in abstract theoretical discourse or analytic systems, but right in the lived world. (van Manen, 1991)
A curriculum can become one's life course of action. It can mean the paths we have followed and the paths we intend to follow...The more we understand ourselves and can articulate reasons why we are what we are, do what we do, and are headed where we have chosen, the more meaningful our curriculum will be. (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988)
Live as if your life were a curriculum for others, and balance that principle by realizing that every life you meet could be a curriculum for you if you perceive with sufficient perspective. (Schubert, 1986)
Curriculum is the ambiguous outcome of a complex interplay between certain social conditions and prevailing conceptions of how schools are supposed to function...affected by social, political, economic and intellectual forces. (Kliebard, 1992)
Curriculum is not a concept; it is a cultural construction. That is, it is not an abstract concept which has some existence outside and prior to human experience. Rather, it is a way of organizing a set of human educational practices. (Grundy, 1987)
Empowerment through curriculum inquiry is a deeply personal process of meaning making within particular historical, cultural and economic contexts. When students share the burden of the classroom dialectic, classrooms become incubators in which ideas are germinated, shared, nurtured, argued, acted upon, and often transformed by teacher and students alike. (Sears & Marshall, 1990)
In the final analysis, objectives are matters of choice, and they must therefore be the considered value judgments of those responsible for the school. (Tyler, 1949)
The term curriculum tends to orient us away from the young person toward structures and phases of study at an institution. The term pedagogy by contrast tends to bring out the human or personalistic elements of education and childrearing. Pedagogy must be found not in abstract theoretical discourse or analytic systems, but right in the lived world. (van Manen, 1991)
A curriculum can become one's life course of action. It can mean the paths we have followed and the paths we intend to follow...The more we understand ourselves and can articulate reasons why we are what we are, do what we do, and are headed where we have chosen, the more meaningful our curriculum will be. (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988)
Live as if your life were a curriculum for others, and balance that principle by realizing that every life you meet could be a curriculum for you if you perceive with sufficient perspective. (Schubert, 1986)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
