Module 1: Conceptions of Curriculum
The readings from Module 1 suggest that curriculum is an educational component that has been (and will continue to be) studied vigorously by many various curriculum workers. There are numerous conceptions of curriculum that have been examined, evaluated, and utilized throughout history. It goes without saying that some conceptions of curriculum have merit, others are generally inferior and, still, some others work better for certain teachers and students. The goal of this blog is to address a few of these conceptions, while explaining why some have proven better than others. I will also use this post to explain my own interpretation of these conceptions of curriculum.
A main strategy that I utilized, during the readings, was comparing and contrasting the different conceptions as they were discussed. Before reading Al Mousa’s Master’s Thesis (2013), I actually created a table of my own to help me organize my thoughts. Please see the table below (Figure 1). One area that seems to have survived the test of time, when it comes to applying curriculum theories in education, are those conceptions that include individual pursuits, social objectives, the technological aspect of how learning is facilitated, and theories that attempt to transmit Western cultural values and abilities into the minds of students. A major reason that these features support the development of curriculum theories is because they offer a method of organizing and simplifying the complex field of curriculum development (Eisner & Vallance, 1974). Another reason for the success of these conceptions is socialization. In other words, certain curriculum advocates may persuade others to adopt their ideologies by educating and orienting other’s thinking in a way they accept (Schiro, 2013, p. 9). A third thought that I have, as to why the longevity of some theories is greater than others, is simply due to the significance of each major element. For instance, individual and social outcomes are extremely important, and always will be, since humans have an inherent desire to grow (personally) and to make the world (and society) a better place. Furthermore, technology is a major 21st-century skill and, perhaps, the most important advancement in today’s world. Lastly, teaching Western culture is a dominant ideology in classrooms around the world, and is a traditional way of thinking in North America. It just makes sense to provide youth with the “tools to participate in the Western cultural tradition” (Eisner & Vallance, 1974). The conceptions that have become mainstream in modern education have clearly been supported by “curriculum advocates”, assessed to be effective by “curriculum evaluators”, and utilized by “curriculum practitioners” (Schiro, 2013).
Figure 1: Prominent Conceptions of Curriculum
Alternatively, check out the mind map that I created (Figure 2) using MindMeister!
Figure 2: Conceptions of curriculum Graphic Organizer
However, other elements have not been so successful and, consequently, are not being used frequently in curriculum planning and the implementation of curriculum. One conception that has not been recurring, for example, is Pratt’s “Feminist pedagogy” (1994). I think that one reason for the lack of this pedagogy being used is because of its specificity. Though extremely important, this conception are rather specific, and seems to be encompassed in other, more broad, conceptions - such as those relating to social reconstruction. Another conception that has been modified over time is Vallance’s Self-actualization conception, which now emphasizes personal success and commitment (Al Mousa, 2013, p. 34).
While reading through the literature, there were several instances when I was able to consider and interpret each. A major consideration that I maintain is the importance of focusing on how children learn, and not just on what they learn. As stated by Eisner and Vallance, a major goal of school must be to teach students “how to learn” (1974, p. 14). Although there is a time and place for teaching with the end product in mind, a majority of my teaching will always place an emphasis on the process of learning. Another interpretation that I made, while reading, was that each student is different and, therefore, may need to be taught in a different way. No single method of teaching or curriculum planning is universal, and it is the teacher’s role to adapt their curriculum ideology based on what works best for the particular class/student with whom they are dealing. In saying this, I acknowledge that there is no “ideal” conception of curriculum, nor is there one best way to teach.
I hope that you enjoyed this Blog post, and please feel free to comment in a response or through Twitter (Twitter link on Blog homepage)!
References
Al Mousa, N. (2013). An examination of cad use in two interior design programs from the perspectives of curriculum and instructors, 21-37.
Brown, G. T. L. (2006). Conceptions of curriculum: A framework for understanding New Zealand’s Curriculum Framework and teachers’ opinions. Curriculum Matters, 2, 164-181.
Eisner, E., & Vallance, E. (Eds.). (1974). Five conceptions of the curriculum: Their roots and implications for curriculum planning. Conflicting conceptions of curriculum, 1-18. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.
McNeil, J. D. (2009). Contemporary curriculum in thought and action (7th ed.), 1, 3-14, 27-39, 52-60, 71-74. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. .
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2013). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (6th ed.), 1-8. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Schiro, M. S. (2013). Introduction to the curriculum ideologies. Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns (2nd ed.), 1-13. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sowell, E. J. (2005). Curriculum: An integrative introduction (3rd ed.), 37-51. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Vallance. (1986). A second look at conflicting conceptions of the curriculum. Theory into Practice, 25(1), 24-30.
Comments
Post a Comment