Four Traditional Types Of Curriculum Theory

The body of literature that identifies itself as curriculum theory or is so obviously like self- confessed curriculum theory as to be clearly of the same genre is not overwhelmingly large. The first mention of the two terms curriculum and theory in the same phrase that I encountered was in Boyd Bode’s Modern Educational Theories (1927); he titles a section “theories of Curriculum Construction.” I did not find the phrase in Bobbitt, Charters, or Dewey. It does not appear in Caswell and Campbell’s monumental textbook (1935) nor in the accompanying book of readings. Ralph Tyler and Virgil Herrick organized a conference in 1947 with the theme “Toward Improved Curriculum Theory.” In the introduction to the published version of the papers Herrick reports that all assembled agreed that curriculum theory had shown lamentably little progress in the preceding twenty-five years.

The recent spate of self-confessed curriculum theory, since about 1960, has as antecedents, therefore, primarily a few classic documents later identified as curriculum theory. These amount to perhaps fifty books and twice as many articles. I use this body of work to define the boundaries of my initial survey of curriculum theory. Then, I supplemented this with other writing that seemed to me quite clearly to have the same purposes and form whether or not the authors had adopted the label curriculum theory.

I found I could distinguish in this body of work four types of curriculum theories. One type rationalizes curriculum programs. An early example of this type of theory is the plan W.T. Harris put forward after the Civil War. Historian Lawrence Cremin characterizes Harris as “the leading figure of (the) postwar generation of schoolmen” (1971, p. 207). As superintendent of the St. Louis school system, Harris proposed and implemented a plan that called for systemic instruction based upon textbooks which would ensure coverage of all the accumulated wisdom of mankind, both that having to do with nature and with man. Teachers would conduct recitations to ensure that students mastered the material. Student performance would also be monitored by system-wide written examinations which would objectively grade and classify students as they progressed through the system. Cremin comments that Harris’s plan was “unique in its time…. (for its) comprehensiveness, detail, and theoretical coherence” (p. 210). If the plan sounds familiar, it may be because Harris’s plan has been adopted as the prevailing pattern of schooling, displacing the oral pattern of instruction and recitation by each individual teacher without outside examinations and with no textbooks in the modern sense that Harris introduced.

This first type of curriculum theory proposed content, aims, and approaches to education – in short, it proposes a program. It describes the program in detail and justifies it by giving reasons why it would be good and should be adopted.

Curriculum theory as program rationalization is one of the oldest and most honored senses of the term. With hindsight, we can identify Plato’s Republic, the part of it that pertains to education, as this type of curriculum theory. The writings of the sophists, of the traditional luminaries of the Western educational tradition – Bacon, Erasmus, Locke, Pestalozzi, Herbart, Herbert Spencer, and so on- insofar as they address curriculum questions do so in this way. Among recent writers, prominent clear examples of this type of curriculum theory include Phillip Phenix, whose Realms of Meaning makes a case for a curriculum based upon the six modern disciplines of academic knowledge; Benjamin Bloom, whose mastery learning program aspires to bring all students to levels of academic achievement otherwise attainable only by the most gifted students; Jerome Bruner, whose ideas about the structure of knowledge and the importance of discovery in learning were so influential in the post-Sputnik reforms of science education; and Paolo Freire, whose program of literacy training for peasants is based upon a curriculum theory that emphasizes the importance of dialog and the development of critical consciousness. These are but a few prominent instances selected mainly for notoriety and to illustrate the variety of work within this type.

A second type of curriculum theory rationalizes procedures for curriculum construction or curriculum determination, rather than rationalizing the program itself. The first clear example of this type that I encountered was Franklin Bobbitt’s The Curriculum (1918), followed in 1924 by How to Make Curriculum, a title that might well stand as a label for the entire tradition. Bobbitt drew from scientific management (popularly called time-and-motion study) the idea that an ideal curriculum could be determined by studying the best performances of the most educated people and adopting these as standards for all people. This was exactly the procedure followed in the rationalization of occupations. If bricklaying were under study, for example, the bricklayer with the highest output of good quality work would be identified on the basis of records and observations of performance. He would then be studied in minute detail to discover how he accomplished his feats, and other workers would be trained to follow his method.

Since Bobbitt, a great many curriculum writers have developed step-by-step procedures for every aspect of curriculum planning, development, and evaluation. The most influential by far of these writers if Ralph Tyler, whose rationale poses the four now-classic questions he urges all curriculum developers to raise as a means of building curriculum programs:

· What purposes should the school seek to attain?

· How can learning experiences be selected to help attain these?

· How can learning experiences be organized for effective instruction?

· How can learning experiences be evaluated?

More detailed and specific step-by-step procedures have become prominent in certain circles within the curriculum field, notably those theorists interested in applying science and technology to curriculum work.

A third type of curriculum theory conceptualizes curricular phenomena. This type is more removed from the immediate task of curriculum making. It sets out to advise those who directly address curriculum problems on helpful ways of thinking about the work. John Dewey’s most influential writing on the curriculum takes this form. For example, in his essay, “The Child and the Curriculum” (1902), he sets out to resolve the apparently opposing curricular demands of the child’s nature and the accumulated wisdom of the culture. Children, ignorant of the culture and what it offers, may ignore or despise material they will later wish they had learned. The culture, oblivious to the needs and characteristics of the individual child, may be imposed upon the child in an arbitrary, authoritarian, and counterproductive way. Dewey, characteristically, treats these competing considerations as needing to be peacefully reconciled. From the culture we curriculum planners gain an inventory of what is available to be taught. From the child we learn when, how, ad where to attempt to teach which particular items from this inventory if we are to be most effective form the viewpoint of both the child and the culture. The essay contains not specific recommendations for either program or procedure. Rather, it presents a way of thinking about some matters likely to be important to anyone building a program.

A fourth type of curriculum theory, closely related to the third but importantly more scholarly, attempts to explain curricular phenomena. The dominant concern of the first three types is to improve the curriculum. The third type begins to distance itself from this aim in favor of seeking increased understanding. The fourth type frankly pursues understanding, leaving the application of the ideas to practice for others.

The most common variant of this type seeks explanations for curriculum change. What accounts for the transformation of the school brought about in the progressive era in the U.S.? How do we explain curricular fads and reform movements? What factors in the society influence curriculum change? Other variants seek to explain achievement test score differences between different populations receiving different programs. The concern is always to create scholarly or scientific accounts which relate the curriculum to other things, either as explicans or explicandum, as dependent variable or as independent variable. The theorist of this type has no program to rationalize, no procedure to put forward, and seeks to go beyond mere conceptualization. Ong (1971) has developed some fascinating explanations of the disappearance of rhetoric as a school subject in the eighteenth century. Since the renaissance, rhetoric had been the dominant school subject. It declined, says Ong, because it was essentially oriented to the demands of an oral culture, one in which those in power argued face-to-face and therefore had need for the skills rhetoric supported. With the invention and spread of print, written expression became much more important, and many of the demands formerly made upon speakers to remember verbatim, to organize thought on the spur of the moment, were no longer essential. More generally, Ong maintains that the content of schooling interacts with the forms of expression dominant in the culture. Ong does not seek to revive rhetoric nor to make curriculum changes lead cultural changes, but merely to comprehend the relationships involved.

The curriculum development/planning process

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.

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

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)

10 things parents can do to help students succeed

1. Build relationships with your child’s teachers. Find out what each teacher expects of your teenager
and how you can help him or her prepare to meet those expectations.
2. Read. Reading is the foundation for all learning. Expose your teen to a wide variety of reading materials
(newspapers, magazines, books, Internet Web sites) and be ready to discuss what he or she has learned.
Helping your child develop strong reading habits and skills is one of the most important contributions you
can make to your child’s education.
3. Practice writing at home. Letters, journal entries, e-mail messages, and grocery lists are all writing
opportunities. Show that writing is an effective form of communication and that you write for a variety
of purposes.
4. Make math part of everyday life. Cooking, gardening, paying bills, balancing a checkbook, and even
shopping are all good ways to help your child understand and use mathematics skills. Show that there
may be many ways to get to the right answer and encourage your child to explain his or her method.
5. Ask your child to explain his or her thinking. Ask lots of “why” questions. Teenagers should be able
to explain their reasoning, how they came up with the right answer, and why they chose one answer
over another.
6. Expect that homework will be done. Keep track of your teen’s homework assignments and regularly look
at his or her completed work. Some teachers now give parents a number to call for a recorded message
of that day’s homework assignments; others put the information on the Internet. If your school doesn’t
offer these features, talk to the teacher about how you can get this important information. Even if there
aren’t specific assignments, find out how you can stay informed about what your child is working on so
that you can help at home.
7. Use the community as a classroom. Feed your child’s curiosity about the world 365 days a year. Take
your child to museums, local government buildings, state parks, and workplaces. Encourage your young
adult to volunteer in a field or area of interest in order to show how learning connects to the real world.
These activities will reinforce what is learned in the classroom and may help your teen decide what to
do with his or her future.
8. Encourage group study. Open your home to your child’s friends for informal study sessions. Promote
outside formal study groups through church or school organizations or other groups. Study groups will be
especially important as your child becomes older and more independent. The study habits your teen learns
now will carry over into college and beyond.
9. Help other parents understand academic expectations. Use your school and employee newsletters,
athletic associations, booster clubs, a PTA or PTO meeting, or just a casual conversation to help other
parents understand what academic standards mean for them, their children, and their school and how
they can help their children learn at home.
10. Spend time at school. The best way to know what goes on in your child’s school is to spend time there.
If you’re a working parent, this isn’t easy, and you may not be able to do it very often. But “once in awhile”
is better than “never.

Lesson plan

A lesson plan is a teacher's detailed description of the course of instruction for an individual lesson. While there is no one way to construct a correct lesson plan, most lesson plans contain some or all of these elements, typically in this order:

1.the title of the lesson

2.the amount of time required to complete the lesson

3.a list of required materials

4.a list of objectives. These may be stated as behavioral objectives (what the student is expected to be able to do upon completion of the lesson) or as knowledge objectives (what the student is expected to know upon completion of the lesson).

5.the set or lead-in to the lesson. This is designed to focus students on the skill or concept about to be instructed. Common sets include showing pictures or models, asking leading questions, or reviewing previously taught lessons.
the instructional component. This describes the sequence of events which will take place as the lesson is delivered. It includes the instructional input—what the teacher plans to do and say, and guided practice—an opportunity for students to try new skills or express new ideas with the modeling and guidance of the teacher.
independent practice. This component allows students to practice the skill or extend the knowledge on their own.

6.the summary. This is an opportunity for the teacher to wrap up the discussion and for the students to pose unanswered questions.
evaluation. Some, but not all, lessons have an evaluative component where the teacher can check for mastery of the instructed skills or concepts. This may take the form of a set of questions to be answered or a set of instructions to be followed. The evaluation may be formative; that is to say, used to guide subsequent learning, or summative; that is to say, used to determine a grade or other achievement criterion.

7.analysis. Often not part of a lesson plan, this component allows the teacher to reflect on the lesson and answer questions such as what went well, what needs improving, and how students reacted to the lesson.

8.Continuity - the content/ideas/theme/rules etc. from previous day are reflected upon or reviewed Unit plans follow much the same format, but are intended to cover an entire unit of work, which may be delivered over several days or weeks.

In today's constructivist teaching style, the individual lesson plan is often inappropriate. Specific objectives and timelines may be included in the unit plan, but lesson plans are more fluid as they cater to student needs and learning styles.

As students are asked to engage in problem or inquiry learning, rigid lesson planning with title, behavioral objectives, and specific outcomes within certain time constraints often no longer fit within modern effective pedagogy. Today, formal lesson plans are often required only of student teachers, who must be demonstrably familiar with the components of a lesson, or teachers new to the field, who have not yet internalized the flow of a lesson

Lovely Day

Today is my besday..hepi besday dila..u are getting older and older...remember u are not a small child anymore...think bout d future...just finish d celebration wif my family..thanks a lot 2 my mom,my pa,my 2 sis and my bro..thanks bro 4 d beautiful cake...also thank 2 all my lovely friend coz not forgotten my besday..
u are now 24 sui le(mandarin word)..arrghhh so many thing 2 think when u are getting older and older..work..study..work..study...work..complaint..work..complaint..study..assignm..
study..assignm..
thanks to GOD cause giving me lovely family that always give support and support all d time..like my mom said 'don't think bout anything just think bout work and study,other let me handle it'...i luv u so much mom..muahhhh..muahhh..muahh..

Learning Styles

The Four Quadrants of the Brain
* As an adult learner, have you noticed that you find some subjects easy and enjoyable to learn? But that learning other subjects entails industrial-strength pain?

* As a teacher of adults, have you noticed that some students in your classes are avid, effective learners - while others can't seem to get with the program?

* Whether you're a learner or a teacher, have you noticed that in everyday life, you relate to some people smoothly, while with others the process of interaction seems gnarly? Or that some tasks at work, or in your personal life, give you pleasure and satisfaction, while others are boring, irritating, and difficult?

All of these commonplace experiences derive from the same cause: the fact that we each have a preferred learning style, and that we learn most readily when we can use that style.

What does this mean for adult learning and teaching? How can we overcome the problems caused by these brain-style differences? Indeed, can we turn them into advantages and opportunities?

Here, some suggestion from some practical ways that learning and teaching can be enhanced by acting on the fact that we differ in the ways we learn the best developed by the late Ned Herrmann and currently carried forward with great integrity and verve by his top colleagues (www.hbdi.com).

Briefly, Herrmann suggests that we think of our brains as divided into four quadrants, each of them with distinctive strengths:

Left Front: Logical, Analytical, Theoretical, Quantitative

Left Rear: Sequential, Organized, Evaluative, Prepared

Right Front: Synthesist, Exploratory, Conceptual, Experimental

Right Rear: Kinesthetic, Emotional, Feeling, Sensing

This scheme is not a literal map of the anatomy of your brain. But it does reflect the ways in which different physical locations inside your skull specialize in different ways of processing information.

For example, in most people the areas that handle speech and verbal logic do indeed lie behind the left ear. Hippocrates noticed this: when soldiers were brought to him who had been struck in the left side of the head, they often lost the power of speech, but the same wound on the right side did not produce this result.

Tips 4 learners

As a learner, an understanding of your learning style can help in the classroom and at home.

In the classroom:
If you have difficulty following a teacher's presentation of new material, ask if it can be presented in a way that appeals to your style. For example, if you are a visual learner, you may find it difficult to absorb content if the teacher just speaks. Approach your teacher and ask him/her to write key points on the board while they are talking.

At home:
When working independently to study for tests or complete assignments, you will find that you use your time more effectively if you use the strategies recommended for your style. For example, if you are an auditory learner, try recording summaries of notes you have taken from readings. To study, just sit back and listen...

Good luck!

beautiful scenery

Nature's Wonders

The wonders of nature bring into full bloom
It's colors and signs of seasonal bliss
It draws the heart toward it's vividful views
And unto the things that it should not miss

It's creatures that are drawn out from their dens
Bring warmful views to the earth once more
That they would grow and produce in a thriving state
In abundance of all it's galore

Tyler model of curriculum

A Curriculum Model
based on the work of
Ralph Tyler


The Tyler Model of
Curriculum Design

• The nature & structure of knowledge
• The needs of the society
• The needs of the learner


Fundamental Questions in
Developing Curriculum

1 .What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?


Fundamental Questions in
Developing Curriculum

2 .What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes?


Fundamental Questions in
Developing Curriculum

3 .How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?


Fundamental Questions in
Developing Curriculum

4 .How can we determine whether and to what extent these purposes are being attained?


The Nature & Structure
of Knowledge

 Selection of subject matter
 Organization of subject matter or discipline
 Theoretical basis of methods & approaches


Selection of Subject Matter

 Criteria: Relevance, importance, priority
 Scope: Amount, depth of coverage, concentration
 Sequence: Hierarchy & progression of complexity or difficulty


Organization of Subject Matter

# Discrete subjects or courses
# Broad fields or disciplines
# Core or interdisciplinary
# Skills or processes
# Projects & activities




Approaches to Subject Matter

 Textual
 Experimental
 Developmental
 Psycho-social
 Experiential


Needs of the Learner

* Cognitive development
* Linguistic development
* Psycho-social development
* Moral/affective development
* Vocational focus


The Needs of Society

 Literacy
 Vocational skills
 Social order & morality
 Interpersonal skills
 Transmission of values & culture
 Creativity & innovation

Number One Teacher

Puan Shima,
I'm happy that you're my teacher;
I enjoy each lesson you teach.
As my role model you inspire me
To dream and to work and to reach.

With your kindness you get my attention;
Every day you are planting a seed
Of curiosity and motivation
To know and to grow and succeed.

You help me fulfill my potential;
I'm thankful for all that you've done.
I admire you each day, and I just want to say,
As a teacher, you're number one!

PUAN SHIMA

The Teacher Gets A+..

Puan Shima,
I look forward to your class
When I come to school.
You're an awesome teacher;
I think you're very cool.

You're beautiful and fair and friendly;
You're helping all of us.
And if I got to grade you,
From me you'd get A+!

my friend

My Friend when I think of you.
I think of all that we've been through.
All the times we argue and fight,
I know deep inside that it isn't right.
I, then feel bad and alot of pain.
It feels like I've fallen from the sky like the rain.
I love you dear friend with all of my heart.
But now that you're gone I've fallen apart.
I'm getting better as the days go by.
I wish sometimes this was all a big lie.
I pray to you every night.
It's like you're my fire, a burning light.
My dear friend, I miss you alot.
I still wonder why you were put in that spot.
I know you're in a place much better than here.
Watching and helping me with all of my fear.
Our friendship my dear friend,
we will have to the end.
Friends til the end is what we will be.
Someday we'll be together,
together you and me.

Forever friends

you'r my friend and that is true,
but the gift was given from me to you.
we went thru moments that were good and bad,
even moments that were happy and sad.
you suported me when i was in tears,
we stuck together when we were in fear,

its really sad that it had to be this way,
but it has reached its very last day.
miles away cant keep us apart,
'cause you'll always be in my heart

Syllabus design

Knowing the basics of how to put together a syllabus for a course of study or series of textbooks is an essential teaching skill and can have a profound effect on how well material is applied in the classroom. This section of the English Raven site provides examples of basic syllabuses as well as ready to use templates that can be adapted according to classroom and institutional needs.



Generally speaking, a syllabus need not be a complicated affair, but should aim at ensuring that material is organized into manageable 'chunks' while at the same time catering for opportunities to review, apply projects and reading,
and facilitate time to apply assessment/tests. All too often, many teachers' and/or institutes' idea of a 'syllabus' is to calculate the amount of pages in the book and then divide that by the number of teaching days in a session. The resulting figure accounts for the amount of pages that need to be covered in one lesson, and wha-la! the school has a simple plan to make sure that textbooks are completed in a timely fashion. Perhaps this could be called a syllabus in some contexts, but it is really missing some important factors that could make applying the textbooks both more enjoyable and more effective.



In organizing a syllabus, teachers and/or administrators really should be asking themselves some important questions. Which parts of the textbook material are worthy or in need of more attention (and therefore time) than others? How can an organization of the material create both a rhythm and a routine that can apply to any given week and/or any given session of study? Does the syllabus allow sufficient time to engage in more production-based activities, such as projects and task-based learning? If we are to test the students on this material, how can we ensure that the syllabus provides days for pre-test revision and preparation as well as post-test review and reflection? Is the syllabus organized in such a way that a new teacher (or indeed, a student's parent) could glance at it and get a quick overview of what is going to form the focus of any given lesson as well as what was studied over the course of a week or a month? How can we be sure that a relief teacher could walk into our classroom and know what to do with the class and how (based on the sorts of language areas and activities the students have already covered)? In answering these sorts of questions and then sitting down to the task of organizing our material, the challenging nature of syllabus design becomes much more apparent. In fact, session planning, syllabus design and daily lesson planning are fundamental aspects of basic language program design and implementation - and all teachers can and should benefit from knowing how to engage in these activities

Scheme Of Work

A scheme of work defines the structure and content for teachers in their subject. The document includes teaching and learning objectives and, depending upon the level of detail, may contain a full time-plan for each lesson.

Smart School

Malaysia intends to transform its educational system, in line with and in support of the nation’s drive to fulfil Vision 2020. This Vision calls for sustained, productivity-driven growth, which will be achievable only with a technologically literate, critically thinking work force prepared to participate fully in the global economy of the 21st century. At the same time, Malaysia’s National Philosophy of Education calls for developing the potential of individuals in a holistic and integrated manner, so as to produce individuals who are intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, and physically balanced and harmonious. The catalyst for this massive transformation will be technology-supported Smart Schools, which will improve how the educational system achieves the National Philosophy of Education, while fostering the development of a work force prepared to meet the challenges of the next century.


Transforming the educational system will entail changing the culture and practices of Malaysia’s primary and secondary schools, moving away from memory-based learning designed for the average student to an education that stimulates thinking, creativity, and caring in all students, caters to individual abilities and learning styles, and is based on more equitable access. It will require students to exercise greater responsibility for their own education, while seeking more active participation by parents and the wider community.


The Smart Schools initiative is one of the seven flagship applications that are part of Malaysia’s Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) project. The Government of Malaysia aims to capitalise on the presence of leading-edge technologies and the rapid development of the MSC’s infrastructure to jump-start deployment of enabling technology to schools. This will be done by creating a group of 90 pilot Smart Schools by 1999 that will serve as the nucleus for the eventual nation-wide rollout of Smart School teaching concepts and materials, skills, and technologies. By 2010, all 10,000 of Malaysia’s primary and secondary schools will be Smart Schools.
This Blueprint - like the Smart School concept itself - is a work in progress and remains open to evolutionary refinement, including advances in pedagogy and improvements in information technology. Consequently, this document is descriptive, rather than prescriptive. For a fuller understanding of the Smart School initiative, the Blueprint should be read with the Smart School Implementation Plan, which outlines the implementation process and timetable, and the Concept Requests for Proposals, which define the project’s requirements.


This document summarises the Blueprint and is organised into eight sections:


Conceptual Model
Teaching and Learning Concepts: Guiding Principles
Management
Processes and Scenarios
People, Skills, and Responsibilities
Technology Enablers
Policy Implications
Concluding Remarks


Conceptual Model


The Malaysian Smart School is a learning institution that has been systemically reinvented in terms of teaching-learning practices and school management in order to prepare children for the Information Age. A Smart School will evolve over time, continuously developing its professional staff, its educational resources, and its administrative capabilities. This will allow the school to adapt to changing conditions, while continuing to prepare students for life in the Information Age. To function effectively, the Smart School will require appropriately skilled staff, and well-designed supporting processes.


Preparing students for the Information Age depends on an integrated strategy:
Provide all-round development with provision for individual abilities, offering a broad curriculum for all, with electives, that is vertically integrated, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary.


Emphasise intellectual, emotional, spiritual, and physical growth, concentrating on thinking, developing and applying values, and using correct language across the curriculum.
Produce a technologically literate work force that can think critically, encouraging thought and creativity across the curriculum and applying technology effectively in teaching and learning.
Democratise education, offering equal access to learning opportunities and accommodating differing learning abilities, styles, and paces.


Increase the participation of stakeholders, creating awareness of their roles and responsibilities and developing the skills they need for that.
TEACHING AND LEARNING CONCEPTS: GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The most distinctive feature of the Smart School will be a teaching and learning environment built on international best practices in primary and secondary education. This entails aligning the curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and teaching-learning materials in a mutually reinforcing, coherent manner.


Curriculum


The Smart School curriculum shall be meaningful, socially responsible, multicultural, reflective, holistic, global, open-ended, goal-based and technological. It shall promote holistic learning, allowing children to progress at their own pace, and catering for students’ varying capabilities, interests and needs. It will seek to ensure that children are educated with critical and creative thinking skills, inculcated with appropriate values, and encouraged to improve their language proficiency. Thus, the curriculum will be designed to:
help students achieve overall balanced development
integrate knowledge, skills, values, and correct use of language
state explicitly intended learning outcomes for different ability levels
offer multidisciplinary, thematic, and continuous learning
foster the knowledge, skills, and attitudes appropriate for success in the Information Age.
Pedagogy
The Smart School pedagogy will seek to make learning more interesting, motivating, stimulating, and meaningful; involve the children’s minds, spirit, and bodies in the learning process; build basic skills to prepare children for greater challenges over time; and cater for a range of needs and capabilities among the students. The pedagogy shall:
use an appropriate mix of learning strategies to ensure mastery of basic competencies and promote holistic development
accommodate individual different learning styles, so as to boost performance
foster a classroom atmosphere that is compatible with different teaching-learning strategies.


Assessment


The Smart School’s assessment system will be distinctly different from current systems to help realise the National Philosophy of Education It shall be element-based and criterion-referenced to provide a more holistic and accurate picture of a student’s performance. Teachers, students and parents will be able to access on-line assessment items. Smart School assessment will be flexible and learner-friendly, while assuring the quality of the assessment information by using multiple approaches and instruments. It will lead to living certification, which will not only attest to a student’s cumulative accomplishments but will also be open to continued improvement on a lifetime basis.


Teaching-learning materials


Smart Schools will need teaching-learning materials designed for the new teaching strategies. These materials will accommodate students’ differing needs and abilities, resulting in fuller realisation of their capabilities and potential, and allow students to take greater responsibility for managing and directing their own learning.



MANAGEMENT


The primary objective of Smart School management will be to manage efficiently and effectively the resources and processes required to support the teaching-learning functions. Management will help to reallocate skilled human resources to more valuable activities, save costs over the long term, improve the quality of decisions through better access to information, and accelerate decision making.


To fulfil its objectives, the Smart School management will need strong, professional administrators and teachers who can articulate school goals clearly, lead teaching at the school, and elicit strong parental and community support. They will need to maintain open communication with all constituencies, allocate resources sensibly and equitably, track school performance against financial and non-financial objectives, and provide a school environment that is conducive to learning.


Further, they will need to develop and maintain a happy , motivated and high-performing staff, ensure the security of the school and its occupants, and use and manage technology appropriately, effectively, and efficiently.


PROCESSES AND SCENARIOS


For a Smart School to achieve its educational objectives, its internal processes must be co-ordinated. Ensuring co-ordination entails viewing these processes as a system: if the system is well designed, providing appropriate inputs will yield the desired outputs - namely, students ready for higher education or active and productive participation in the work force. The Smart Schools initiative offers an ideal opportunity to reassess the current schooling system, identifying problems and finding potential solutions, many of which can be enabled by technology.


For the Smart School system, the major inputs are the resources - students, teachers, technology and tools - and the Ministry of Education, in the form of curriculum specification, financing, and management and control functions. The system proceeds through a series of sub-processes - identifying and localising teaching plans, selecting and organising teaching-learning materials, determining a student’s entry level, planning the student’s experience, holding classroom sessions, assessing achievement internally, providing feedback - before delivering the student for external achievement assessment, and ultimately for higher education or the work force.


At a Smart School, these sub-processes will be constructed so that each delivers the desired output in an integrated manner.


PEOPLE, SKILLS, AND RESPONSIBILITIES


The higher degree of individualised attention for students at a Smart School will necessitate new roles and responsibilities for teachers, principals, Ministry of Education officers, support staff and parents. In fact, fulfilling these roles and responsibilities will require specialised training for each group.


Teachers


Teacher development will be critical to the success of the Smart School. Teachers will need intensive training in the use of information technology and in its integration into classroom activities in ways that enhance thinking and creativity. Smart School teachers will also need to learn to facilitate and encourage students in taking charge of their own learning. In the long term, these teachers will need to augment their skills regularly, if they are to stay abreast of developments in their profession and remain confident in their application of the technology.


Principals


The tasks of managing schools involves working with information and building on ideas collaboratively.


The efficiency and effectiveness of this management task can be enhanced significantly through the use of technology. Principals in Smart Schools will need intensive training to equip them to manage the new facilities, technologies and methodologies deployed in their schools.


Ministry of Education Officers


Ministry officers, comprising those at the central, state and district levels are crucial to the successful implementation of the Smart School project, because they play a major role in planning, co-ordinating, monitoring, and evaluating Ministry programmes. Officers will need to understand thoroughly the educational objectives and policies of the Smart School, the information technology being applied, the teaching-learning and management processes, and their own roles and responsibilities in that context.


Support Staff


The advent of new educational processes as well as advanced information technology will present real challenges for the support staff at Smart Schools. It will require creating a new position, that of Media/Technology coordinator, and it will require existing clerical staff to learn new ways of working.


Media/Technology Coordinator.



The coordinator's task will be to support teachers and the principal in deploying multimedia and other technologies in the Smart School. The coordinator should be an experienced teacher who also understands how best to use technology for gathering information, instruction, managing, and communicating. The coordinator will also need to assist the principal in managing software applications and in liasing with technical support staff for the maintenance and upgrading of IT facilities.


Clerical Staff.



School clerical staff will need to build IT skills sufficiently to communicate using the new technology and perform their record keeping functions. In addition to basic IT skills, however, they will also need to understand the new educational processes, so that they can give their support wherever it is needed.


Parents


Parents can play a major role in helping Smart Schools provide individualised education for students. Research has shown that students do better when their parents are involved. This task will go beyond monitoring the child’s progress, and providing guidance, motivation, and counsel; it will require familiarity with the new educational processes, a willingness to assist with developing teaching-learning and assessment materials, as well as the ability to access the school’s public domain databases electronically.


TECHNOLOGY ENABLERS


Technology alone will not make a school smart. Only improved teaching-learning strategies, management and administrative processes, and capable, well trained people with enthusiasm for their work can do that. However, information technology can enable the process of transforming traditional schools into Smart Schools. Consequently, a nation-wide system of Smart Schools will depend on advanced information technology at the school, district and national levels.


School-level technology


Technology has many roles to play in a Smart School, from facilitating teaching and learning activities to assisting with school management. Fully equipping a school might include the following:


Classrooms with multimedia courseware and presentation facilities, and e-mail or groupware for collaborative work.


Library/Media Centre with a database centre for multimedia courseware, and network resources like access to the internet.


Computer laboratory for teaching, such as Computer Studies as a subject, and readily accessible multimedia and audiovisual equipment.


Multimedia Development Centre with tools for creating multimedia materials and catering to varying levels of sophistication.


Studio/Theatrette with a control room for centralised audiovisual equipment, videoconferencing studio, preview room for audio, video, or laser disc materials.


Teachers’ Room with on-line access to courseware catalogues and databases, information and resource management systems, professional networking tools, such as e-mail and groupware.


Administration Offices capable of managing databases of student and facilities, tracking student and teacher performance or resources, and distributing notices and other information electronically.


Server Room equipped to handle applications, management databases, and web servers; provide security; and telecommunications interface and access to network resources.


The technology will enable the school to draw on a variety of external resources, while also making the school more accessible to the community. Students and teachers will be able to tap into public and university libraries; access companies and industry associations; investigate museums and other archives; keep up to date with local authorities.


Similarly, parents, students, and other members of the community can stay in touch with the school. Students can keep abreast of coursework from outside of school; parents can monitor their children’s progress or communicate with teachers from home; people in the community can use the school as a centre for continued learning.


District-level technology


School districts will need to maintain a secure network for communicating with schools in the area and with state and national authorities, while also using the open network for less sensitive materials. Districts will also need to maintain extensive databases for many different types of information, for example, assessment records of student and teacher performance; human resource records; matters of governance, financing, and security; and educational resources.
National-level technology


At the national level, interconnecting Smart Schools and educational authorities will involve both open and secure networks. This will allow open access to educational resources, facilitate collaborative work, and maintain open communication channels with constituencies, while providing for the controlled distribution of sensitive information. In addition, there will need to be a national repository centre that is accessible to all education sites and maintain expedient access to the Ministry of Education and the federal government administration.


This will require highly reliable telecommunications infrastructure to connect state and district education centres and provide international linkages. Given the Smart School initiative’s status as a flagship application, the ideal place for the national repository would be in the MSC.


POLICY IMPLICATIONS


Implementing Smart Schools successfully in Malaysia will be a complex task, requiring changes to existing policies, procedures, and practices, both written and unwritten. It may also require formulating entirely new policies and regulations. A few of the important issues to be addressed include those outlined below, in the areas of the teaching-learning processes; management functions; people, skills and responsibilities; and technology.


Teaching-learning processes


Teaching-learning. What policies need to be amended, if students are to progress at their own pace according to their own capabilities, and if students are to be free to learn in a variety of ways?


Assessment.

What will be the best regime for comprehensively and periodically assessing student aptitudes, and what supporting infrastructure will that require? How can tests be administered fairly in multiple ways, including on-line?


Selection of materials.

What changes will be needed in the process for selecting teaching-learning materials to ensure that the “best” Smart School materials are chosen?


Management functions
School governance. What are the appropriate guidelines for intellectual property at a Smart School? Who owns the information compiled at the school, and who gets access to it? Who owns the teaching materials produced by teachers?


Communications/public relations.

How best to achieve the rapid relaying of relevant information to and from stakeholders? What channels should be created for rapid communication with the world beyond the school and how to manage those channels?


People, skills and responsibilities
What should be the minimum number of hours of on-going, annual professional development required for practising teachers, given their need to stay current with advances in information technology? Should teachers and administrators at Smart Schools, having been trained in the use of information technology, be paid more to ensure that they stay in education?


Technology
What modifications need to be made to the per capita grant to accommodate start-up and on-going technology expenses? What alternative funding sources can be harnessed to acquire additional technological inputs?
To what extent are schools allowed to add technology that is inconsistent with agreed-upon Ministry of Education guidelines and technology standards?


CONCLUDING REMARKS
Transforming traditional schools into Smart Schools represents a major undertaking. It will require a significant commitment of resources, but the nation will benefit from the change for many years to come. Success will require:
support from many stakeholders, including all agencies in the educational system;
sufficient funds to establish and maintain Smart Schools;
appropriate policies, norms, and guidelines to support the schools;
effective and efficient administrative practices in each school;
sufficient deployment of information technology to enable the Smart Schools to function properly;
continuing professional development for teachers, principals, and other educational personnel.
The Smart School initiative represents an investment in the future productivity of Malaysia’s work force and a down payment on the nation’s future prosperity

Curriculum and praxis

The organization of schooling and further education has long been associated with the idea of a curriculum. But what actually is curriculum, and how might it be conceptualized? We explore curriculum theory and practice and its relation to informal education.
The idea of curriculum is hardly new - but the way we understand and theorize it has altered over the years - and there remains considerable dispute as to meaning. It has its origins in the running/chariot tracks of Greece. It was, literally, a course. In Latin curriculum was a racing chariot; currere was to run. A useful starting point for us here might be the definition offered by John Kerr and taken up by Vic Kelly in his standard work on the subject. Kerr defines curriculum as, 'All the learning which is planned and guided by the school, whether it is carried on in groups or individually, inside or outside the school. (quoted in Kelly 1983: 10; see also, Kelly 1999). This gives us some basis to move on - and for the moment all we need to do is highlight two of the key features:
Learning is planned and guided. We have to specify in advance what we are seeking to achieve and how we are to go about it.
The definition refers to schooling. We should recognize that our current appreciation of curriculum theory and practice emerged in the school and in relation to other schooling ideas such as subject and lesson.
In what follows we are going to look at four ways of approaching curriculum theory and practice:
1. Curriculum as a body of knowledge to be transmitted.
2. Curriculum as an attempt to achieve certain ends in students - product.
3. Curriculum as process.
4. Curriculum as praxis.
It is helpful to consider these ways of approaching curriculum theory and practice in the light of Aristotle's influential categorization of knowledge into three disciplines: the theoretical, the productive and the practical.
Here we can see some clear links - the body of knowledge to be transmitted in the first is that classically valued as 'the canon'; the process and praxis models come close to practical deliberation; and the technical concerns of the outcome or product model mirror elements of Aristotle's characterization of the productive. More this will be revealed as we examine the theory underpinning individual models.
Curriculum as a syllabus to be transmitted
Many people still equate a curriculum with a syllabus. Syllabus, naturally, originates from the Greek (although there was some confusion in its usage due to early misprints). Basically it means a concise statement or table of the heads of a discourse, the contents of a treatise, the subjects of a series of lectures. In the form that many of us will have been familiar with it is connected with courses leading to examinations - teachers talk of the syllabus associated with, say, the Cambridge Board French GSCE exam. What we can see in such documents is a series of headings with some additional notes which set out the areas that may be examined.
A syllabus will not generally indicate the relative importance of its topics or the order in which they are to be studied. In some cases as Curzon (1985) points out, those who compile a syllabus tend to follow the traditional textbook approach of an 'order of contents', or a pattern prescribed by a 'logical' approach to the subject, or - consciously or unconsciously - a the shape of a university course in which they may have participated. Thus, an approach to curriculum theory and practice which focuses on syllabus is only really concerned with content. Curriculum is a body of knowledge-content and/or subjects. Education in this sense, is the process by which these are transmitted or 'delivered' to students by the most effective methods that can be devised (Blenkin et al 1992: 23).
Where people still equate curriculum with a syllabus they are likely to limit their planning to a consideration of the content or the body of knowledge that they wish to transmit. 'It is also because this view of curriculum has been adopted that many teachers in primary schools', Kelly (1985: 7) claims, 'have regarded issues of curriculum as of no concern to them, since they have not regarded their task as being to transmit bodies of knowledge in this manner'.

Curriculum as product
The dominant modes of describing and managing education are today couched in the productive form. Education is most often seen as a technical exercise. Objectives are set, a plan drawn up, then applied, and the outcomes (products) measured. It is a way of thinking about education that has grown in influence in the United Kingdom since the late 1970s with the rise of vocationalism and the concern with competencies. Thus, in the late 1980s and the 1990s many of the debates about the National Curriculum for schools did not so much concern how the curriculum was thought about as to what its objectives and content might be.
It is the work of two American writers Franklin Bobbitt (1918; 1928) and Ralph W. Tyler (1949) that dominate theory and practice within this tradition. In The Curriculum Bobbitt writes as follows:
The central theory [of curriculum] is simple. Human life, however varied, consists in the performance of specific activities. Education that prepares for life is one that prepares definitely and adequately for these specific activities. However numerous and diverse they may be for any social class they can be discovered. This requires only that one go out into the world of affairs and discover the particulars of which their affairs consist. These will show the abilities, attitudes, habits, appreciations and forms of knowledge that men need. These will be the objectives of the curriculum. They will be numerous, definite and particularized. The curriculum will then be that series of experiences which children and youth must have by way of obtaining those objectives. (1918: 42)
This way of thinking about curriculum theory and practice was heavily influenced by the development of management thinking and practice. The rise of 'scientific management' is often associated with the name of its main advocate F. W. Taylor. Basically what he proposed was greater division of labour with jobs being simplified; an extension of managerial control over all elements of the workplace; and cost accounting based on systematic time-and-motion study. All three elements were involved in this conception of curriculum theory and practice. For example, one of the attractions of this approach to curriculum theory was that it involved detailed attention to what people needed to know in order to work, live their lives and so on. A familiar, and more restricted, example of this approach can be found in many training programmes, where particular tasks or jobs have been analyzed - broken down into their component elements - and lists of competencies drawn up. In other words, the curriculum was not to be the result of 'armchair speculation' but the product of systematic study. Bobbitt's work and theory met with mixed responses. One telling criticism that was made, and can continue to be made, of such approaches is that there is no social vision or programme to guide the process of curriculum construction. As it stands it is a technical exercise. However, it wasn't criticisms such as this which initially limited the impact of such curriculum theory in the late 1920s and 1930s. Rather, the growing influence of 'progressive', child-centred approaches shifted the ground to more romantic notions of education. Bobbitt's long lists of objectives and his emphasis on order and structure hardly sat comfortably with such forms.
The Progressive movement lost much of its momentum in the late 1940s in the United States and from that period the work of Ralph W. Tyler, in particular, has made a lasting impression on curriculum theory and practice. He shared Bobbitt's emphasis on rationality and relative simplicity. His theory was based on four fundamental questions:
1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?
2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes?
3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?
4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained? (Tyler 1949: 1)
Like Bobbitt he also placed an emphasis on the formulation of behavioural objectives.
Since the real purpose of education is not to have the instructor perform certain activities but to bring about significant changes in the students' pattern of behaviour, it becomes important to recognize that any statements of objectives of the school should be a statement of changes to take place in the students. (Tyler 1949: 44)
We can see how these concerns translate into a nicely-ordered procedure: one that is very similar to the technical or productive thinking set out below.
Step 1: Diagnosis of need
Step 2: Formulation of objectives
Step 3: Selection of content
Step 4: Organization of content
Step 5: Selection of learning experiences
Step 6: Organization of learning experiences
Step 7: Determination of what to evaluate and of the ways and means of doing it. (Taba 1962)
The attraction of this way of approaching curriculum theory and practice is that it is systematic and has considerable organizing power. Central to the approach is the formulation of behavioural objectives - providing a clear notion of outcome so that content and method may be organized and the results evaluated.
There are a number of issues with this approach to curriculum theory and practice. The first is that the plan or programme assumes great importance. For example, we might look at a more recent definition of curriculum as: ‘A programme of activities (by teachers and pupils) designed so that pupils will attain so far as possible certain educational and other schooling ends or objectives (Grundy 1987: 11). The problem here is that such programmes inevitably exist prior to and outside the learning experiences. This takes much away from learners. They can end up with little or no voice. They are told what they must learn and how they will do it. The success or failure of both the programme and the individual learners is judged on the basis of whether pre-specified changes occur in the behaviour and person of the learner (the meeting of behavioural objectives). If the plan is tightly adhered to, there can only be limited opportunity for educators to make use of the interactions that occur. It also can deskill educators in another way. For example, a number of curriculum programmes, particularly in the USA, have attempted to make the student experience 'teacher proof'. The logic of this approach is for the curriculum to be designed outside of the classroom or school, as is the case with the National Curriculum in the UK. Educators then apply programmes and are judged by the products of their actions. It turns educators into technicians.
Second, there are questions around the nature of objectives. This model is hot on measurability. It implies that behaviour can be objectively, mechanistically measured. There are obvious dangers here - there always has to be some uncertainty about what is being measured. We only have to reflect on questions of success in our work. It is often very difficult to judge what the impact of particular experiences has been. Sometimes it is years after the event that we come to appreciate something of what has happened. For example, most informal educators who have been around a few years will have had the experience of an ex-participant telling them in great detail about how some forgotten event (forgotten to the worker that is) brought about some fundamental change. Yet there is something more.
In order to measure, things have to be broken down into smaller and smaller units. The result, as many of you will have experienced, can be long lists of often trivial skills or competencies. This can lead to a focus in this approach to curriculum theory and practice on the parts rather than the whole; on the trivial, rather than the significant. It can lead to an approach to education and assessment which resembles a shopping list. When all the items are ticked, the person has passed the course or has learnt something. The role of overall judgment is somehow sidelined.
Third, there is a real problem when we come to examine what educators actually do in the classroom, for example. Much of the research concerning teacher thinking and classroom interaction, and curriculum innovation has pointed to the lack of impact on actual pedagogic practice of objectives (see Stenhouse 1974; and Cornbleth 1990, for example). One way of viewing this is that teachers simply get it wrong - they ought to work with objectives. I think we need to take this problem very seriously and not dismiss it in this way. The difficulties that educators experience with objectives in the classroom may point to something inherently wrong with the approach - that it is not grounded in the study of educational exchanges. It is a model of curriculum theory and practice largely imported from technological and industrial settings.
Fourth, there is the problem of unanticipated results. The focus on pre-specified goals may lead both educators and learners to overlook learning that is occurring as a result of their interactions, but which is not listed as an objective.
The apparent simplicity and rationality of this approach to curriculum theory and practice, and the way in which it mimics industrial management have been powerful factors in its success. A further appeal has been the ability of academics to use the model to attack teachers:
I believe there is a tendency, recurrent enough to suggest that it may be endemic in the approach, for academics in education to use the objectives model as a stick with which to beat teachers. 'What are your objectives?' is more often asked in a tone of challenge than one of interested and helpful inquiry. The demand for objectives is a demand for justification rather than a description of ends... It is not about curriculum design, but rather an expression of irritation in the problems of accountability in education. (Stenhouse 1974: 77)
So what are the other alternatives?
Curriculum as process
We have seen that the curriculum as product model is heavily dependent on the setting of behavioural objectives. The curriculum, essentially, is a set of documents for implementation. Another way of looking at curriculum theory and practice is via process. In this sense curriculum is not a physical thing, but rather the interaction of teachers, students and knowledge. In other words, curriculum is what actually happens in the classroom and what people do to prepare and evaluate. What we have in this model is a number of elements in constant interaction. It is an active process and links with the practical form of reasoning set out by Aristotle.



Curriculum as process
Teachers enter particular schooling and situations with an ability to think critically, -in-action
an understanding of their role and the expectations others have of them, and
a proposal for action which sets out essential principles and features of the educational encounter.
Guided by these, they encourage conversations between, and with, people in the situation out of which
may come thinking and action.They continually evaluate the process and what they can see of outcomes.
Perhaps the two major things that set this apart from the model for informal education are first, the context in which the process occurs ('particular schooling situations'); and second, the fact that teachers enter the classroom or any other formal educational setting with a more fully worked-through idea of what is about to happen. Here I have described that as entering the situation with 'a proposal for action which sets out essential principles and features of the educational encounter'.
This form of words echoes those of Lawrence Stenhouse (1975) who produced one of the best-known explorations of a process model of curriculum theory and practice. He defined curriculum tentatively: 'A curriculum is an attempt to communicate the essential principles and features of an educational proposal in such a form that it is open to critical scrutiny and capable of effective translation into practice'. He suggests that a curriculum is rather like a recipe in cookery.
It can be criticized on nutritional or gastronomic grounds - does it nourish the students and does it taste good? - and it can be criticized on the grounds of practicality - we can't get hold of six dozen larks' tongues and the grocer can't find any ground unicorn horn! A curriculum, like the recipe for a dish, is first imagined as a possibility, then the subject of experiment. The recipe offered publicly is in a sense a report on the experiment. Similarly, a curriculum should be grounded in practice. It is an attempt to describe the work observed in classrooms that it is adequately communicated to teachers and others. Finally, within limits, a recipe can varied according to taste. So can a curriculum. (Stenhouse 1975: 4-5)
Stenhouse shifted the ground a little bit here. He was not saying that curriculum is the process, but rather the means by which the experience of attempting to put an educational proposal into practice is made available. The reason why he did this, I suspect, is that otherwise there is a danger of widening the meaning of the term so much that it embraces almost everything and hence means very little. For example, in a discussion of the so-called 'youth work curriculum' (Newman & Ingram 1989), the following definition was taken as a starting point: 'those processes which enhance or, if they go wrong, inhibit a person's learning'. This was then developed and a curriculum became: 'an organic process by which learning is offered, accepted and internalized' (Newman & Ingram 1989: 1). The problem with this sort of definition, as Robin Barrow (1984) points out, is that what this does is to widen the meaning of the term to such an extent that it just about becomes interchangeable with 'education' itself. More specifically, if curriculum is process then the word curriculum is redundant because process would do very nicely! The simple equation of curriculum with process is a very slap-happy basis on which to proceed.
We also need to reflect on why curriculum theory and practice came into use by educators (as against policy-makers). It was essentially as a way of helping them to think about their work before, during and after interventions; as a means of enabling educators to make judgments about the direction their work was taking. This is what Stenhouse was picking up on.
Stenhouse on curriculum
As a minimum, a curriculum should provide a basis for planning a course, studying it empirically and considering the grounds of its justification. It should offer:
A. In planning:
1. Principle for the selection of content - what is to be learned and taught
2. Principles for the development of a teaching strategy - how it is to be learned and taught.
3. Principles for the making of decisions about sequence.
4. Principles on which to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of individual students and differentiate the general principles 1, 2 and 3 above, to meet individual cases.
B. In empirical study:
1. Principles on which to study and evaluate the progress of students.
2. Principles on which to study and evaluate the progress of teachers.
3. Guidance as to the feasibility of implementing the curriculum in varying school contexts, pupil contexts, environments and peer-group situations.
4. Information about the variability of effects in differing contexts and on different pupils and an understanding of the causes of the variation.
C. In relation to justification:
A formulation of the intention or aim of the curriculum which is accessible to critical scrutiny.
Stenhouse 1975: 5
There are a number of contrasts in this model of curriculum theory and practice as compared with the product model. First, where the product model appeals to the workshop for a model, this process model looks to the world of experimentation.
The idea is that of an educational science in which each classroom is a laboratory, each teacher a member of the scientific community... The crucial point is that the proposal is not to be regarded as an unqualified recommendation but rather as a provisional specification claiming no more than to be worth putting to the test of practice, Such proposals claim to be intelligent rather than correct. (Stenhouse 1975: 142)
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.
Curriculum as praxis
Curriculum as praxis is, in many respects, a development of the process model. While the process model is driven by general principles and places an emphasis on judgment and meaning making, it does not make explicit statements about the interests it serves. It may, for example, be used in such a way that does not make continual reference to collective human well-being and to the emancipation of the human spirit. The praxis model of curriculum theory and practice brings these to the centre of the process and makes an explicit commitment to emancipation. Thus action is not simply informed, it is also committed. It is praxis.
Critical pedagogy goes beyond situating the learning experience within the experience of the learner: it is a process which takes the experiences of both the learner and the teacher and, through dialogue and negotiation, recognizes them both as problematic... [It] allows, indeed encourages, students and teachers together to confront the real problems of their existence and relationships... When students confront the real problems of their existence they will soon also be faced with their own oppression. (Grundy 1987: 105)
We can amend our 'curriculum as process' model to take account of these concerns.
Curriculum as praxis
Teachers enter particular schooling and situations with a personal, but shared idea of
the good and a commitment to human emancipation, an ability to think critically, -in
-action an understanding of their role and the expectations others have of them, and a
proposal for action which sets out essential principles and features of the educational
encounter. Guided by these, they encourage conversations between, and with, people
in the situation out of which may come informed and committed action.They
continually evaluate the process and what they can see of outcomes.
In this approach the curriculum itself develops through the dynamic interaction of action and reflection. 'That is, the curriculum is not simply a set of plans to be implemented, but rather is constituted through an active process in which planning, acting and evaluating are all reciprocally related and integrated into the process' (Grundy 1987: 115). At its centre is praxis: informed, committed action.
How might we recognize this? First, I think we should be looking for practice which does not focus exclusively on individuals, but pays careful attention to collective understandings and practices and to structural questions. For example, in sessions which seek to explore the experiences of different cultural and racial groups in society, we could be looking to see whether the direction of the work took people beyond a focus on individual attitudes. Are participants confronting the material conditions through which those attitudes are constituted, for example?
Second, we could be looking for a commitment expressed in action to the exploration of educators' values and their practice. Are they, for example, able to say in a coherent way what they think makes for human well-being and link this with their practice? We could also be looking for certain values - especially an emphasis on human emancipation.
Third, we could expect practitioners committed to praxis to be exploring their practice with their peers. They would be able to say how their actions with respect to particular interventions reflected their ideas about what makes for the good, and to say what theories were involved.
Curriculum in context
To round off this discussion of curriculum we do need to pay further attention to the social context in which it is created. One criticism that has been made of the praxis model (especially as it is set out by Grundy) is that it does not place a strong enough emphasis upon context. This is a criticism that can also be laid at the door of the other approaches. In this respect the work of Catherine Cornbleth (1990) is of some use. She sees curriculum as a particular type of process. Curriculum for her is what actually happens in classrooms, that is, 'an ongoing social process comprised of the interactions of students, teachers, knowledge and milieu' (1990: 5). In contrast, Stenhouse defines curriculum as the attempt to describe what happens in classrooms rather than what actually occurs. Cornbleth further contends that curriculum as practice cannot be understood adequately or changed substantially without attention to its setting or context. Curriculum is contextually shaped. While I may quibble about the simple equation of curriculum with process, what Cornbleth does by focusing on the interaction is to bring out the significance of context.
First, by introducing the notion of milieu into the discussion of curriculum she again draws attention to the impact of some factors that we have already noted. Of especial significance here are examinations and the social relationships of the school - the nature of the teacher-student relationship, the organization of classes, streaming and so on. These elements are what are sometimes known as the hidden curriculum. This was a term credited to Philip W. Jackson (1968) but it had been present as an acknowledged element in education for some time before. For example, John Dewey in Experience and Education referred to the 'collateral learning' of attitudes that occur in schools, and that may well be of more long-range importance than the explicit school curriculum (1938: 48). A fairly standard (product) definition of the 'hidden curriculum' is given by Vic Kelly. He argues it is those things which students learn, 'because of the way in which the work of the school is planned and organized but which are not in themselves overtly included in the planning or even in the consciousness of those responsible for the school arrangements (1988: 8). The learning associated with the 'hidden curriculum' is most often treated in a negative way. It is learning that is smuggled in and serves the interests of the status quo. The emphasis on regimentation, on bells and time management, and on streaming are sometimes seen as preparing young people for the world of capitalist production. What we do need to recognize is that such 'hidden' learning is not all negative and can be potentially liberating. 'In so far as they enable students to develop socially valued knowledge and skills... or to form their own peer groups and subcultures, they may contribute to personal and collective autonomy and to possible critique and challenge of existing norms and institutions' (Cornbleth 1990: 50). What we also need to recognize is that by treating curriculum as a contextualized social process, the notion of hidden curriculum becomes rather redundant. If we need to stay in touch with milieu as we build curriculum then it is not hidden but becomes a central part of our processes.
Second, by paying attention to milieu, we can begin to get a better grasp of the impact of structural and socio-cultural process on teachers and students. As Cornbleth argues, economic and gender relations, for example, do not simply bypass the systemic or structural context of curriculum and enter directly into classroom practice. They are mediated by intervening layers of the education system (Cornbleth 1990: 7). Thus, the impact of these factors may be quite different to that expected.
Third, if curriculum theory and practice is inextricably linked to milieu then it becomes clear why there have been problems about introducing it into non-schooling contexts like youth work; and it is to this area which we will now turn.

Curriculum as the boundary between formal and informal education
Jeffs and Smith (1990; 1999) have argued that the notion of curriculum provides a central dividing line between formal and informal education. They contend that curriculum theory and practice was formed within the schooling context and that there are major problems when it is introduced into informal forms of pedagogy.
The adoption of curriculum theory and practice by some informal educators appears to have arisen from a desire to be clear about content. Yet there are crucial difficulties with the notion of curriculum in this context. These centre around the extent to which it is possible to have a clear idea, in advance (and even during the process), of the activities and topics that will be involved in a particular piece of work.
At any one time, outcomes may not be marked by a high degree of specificity. In a similar way, the nature of the activities used often cannot be predicted. It may be that we can say something about how the informal educator will work. However, knowing in advance about broad processes and ethos isn't the same as having a knowledge of the programme. We must, thus, conclude that approaches to the curriculum which focus on objectives and detailed programmes appear to be incompatible with informal education. (Jeffs & Smith 1990: 15)
In other words, they are arguing that a product model of curriculum is not compatible with the emphasis on process and praxis within informal education.
However, process and praxis models of curriculum also present problems in the context of informal education. If you look back at at our models of process and compare them with the model of informal education presented above then it is clear that we can have a similar problem with pre-specification. One of the key feature that differentiates the two is that the curriculum model has the teacher entering the situation with a proposal for action which sets out the essential principles and features of the educational encounter. Informal educators do not have, and do not need, this element. They do not enter with a clear proposal for action. Rather, they have an idea of what makes for human well-being, and an appreciation of their overall role and strategy (strategy here being some idea about target group and broad method e.g. detached work). They then develop their aims and interventions in interaction. And what is this element we have been discussing? It is nothing more nor less than what Stenhouse considers to be a curriculum!
The other key difference is context. Even if we were to go the whole hog and define curriculum as process there remain substantive problems. As Cornbleth (1990), and Jeffs and Smith (1990, 1999) have argued, curriculum cannot be taken out of context, and the context in which it was formed was the school. Curriculum theory and practice only makes sense when considered alongside notions like class, teacher, course, lesson and so on. You only have to look at the language that has been used by our main proponents: Tyler, Stenhouse, Cornbleth and Grundy, to see this. It is not a concept that stands on its own. It developed in relation to teaching and within particular organizational relationships and expectations. Alter the context and the nature of the process alters . We then need different ways of describing what is going on. Thus, it is no surprise that when curriculum theory and practice are introduced into what are essentially informal forms of working such as youth work and community work, their main impact is to formalize significant aspects of the work. One of the main outcome of curriculum experiments within youth work has been work, for example in the field of health promotion, which involve pre-specified activities, visiting workers, regular meetings and so on. Within the language of youth work these are most often called programmes or projects (Foreman 1990). Within a school they would be called a course.
What is being suggested here is that when informal educators take on the language of curriculum they are crossing the boundary between their chosen specialism and the domain of formal education. This they need to do from time to time. There will be formal interludes in their work, appropriate times for them to mount courses and to discuss content and method in curriculum terms. But we should not fall into the trap of thinking that to be educators we have to adopt curriculum theory and practice. The fact that so many have been misled into believing this demonstrates just how powerful the ideas of schooling are. Education is something more than schooling.
Conclusion
We have explored four different approaches to curriculum theory and practice:
Curriculum as a body of knowledge to be transmitted.
Curriculum as an attempt to achieve certain ends in students - product.
Curriculum as process.
Curriculum as praxis.
In a number of respects these different bodies of curriculum theory and practice link to the four main forces in North American curriculum-making in the twentieth century: the liberal educators; the scientific curriculum makers; the developmental/person-centred; and the social meliorists (those that sought more radical social change) (after Kliebart 1987).

the liberal educators
the scientific curriculum makers
the develop- mentalists
the social meliorists
Orientation
Guardians of an ancient tradition tied to the power of reason and the finest elements of the Western cultural heritage
Human life consists in the performance of specific activities. Education that prepares for life is one that prepares definitely and adequately for these specific activities.
The natural order of development in the child was most significant and scientifically defensible basis for determining what should be taught
Schools as a major, perhaps the, principal force for social change and social justice
Curriculum
Systematic development of reasoning power and the communication of 'the canon'.
Influenced by the rise of scientific management and notions of social efficiency. Focus on setting objectives (the statement of changes to take place in the students) and the organization of schooling to meet these.
Sought a curriculum in harmony with the child's 'real' interests, needs and learning patterns
Corruption and vice, inequalities of race and gender, and the abuse of privilege and power should be addressed directly. with the aim of raising a new generation equipped to deal effectively with these abuses.
Key thinkers
Charles W. Taylor
Franklin Bobbitt and Ralph W. Tyler
G. Stanley Hall
Lester Frank Ward
Linked to
transmission
product
process
praxis
We shouldn't push the similarities too far - but there are some interesting overlaps - and this does alert us both to the changing understanding and to shifting policy orientations over time.
For the moment we are having to operate within a policy environment that prizes the productive and technical. Furthermore, the discourse has become so totalizing that forms of education that do not have a curricula basis are squeezed. The temptation is always there to either be colonized by curriculum theory or adopt ways of describing practice that do not make sense in terms of the processes and commitments involved. Kleibart's analysis provides us with some hope - things will change. However, there is no guarantee that they will move in a more edifying direction.