IDEAS OF CURRICULUM

MEANING OF EDUCATION Education refers to just any process of

bringing up or rearing in which the connection a desirable connection between the old and new generation.

Education is the transmission of desirable knowledge, culture, values and norms from one generation to another

Education is initiation into activities and mode of thought that are worthwhile

PURPOSE Aids to the development of men for a life

time and the allocation of roles in the society through recruitment and socializing the people into occupations, professions or political roles.

Panacea – A panacea to a vast range of tasks of the society and the bed rock of national development

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.

Look at the above figure properly. How many sentences relating to education, school, teaching and learning can you form? Let us try and see

The idea of curriculum is hardly new. It has its origins in the running or chariot tracks of Greece. It was, literally, a race course. In Latin curriculum was a racing chariot; meaning currere.

DEFINITIONS OF CURRICULUN Curriculum experts have arrived at some

understanding as to what constitutes the term curriculum. Tyler (1949) and Taba (1962) stipulated four elements of curriculum.

These are:

(i) goals and objectives;

(ii) content or subject matter;

(iii) learning experiences; and

(iv) evaluation.

.

Any good curriculum must at least follow these basic elements mentioned above if such curriculum is to effect any change on the learners.

In our discussion of the meaning or definitions of curriculum, our focus will be on the four basic elements of the curriculum stated by Tyler and Taba. It is on this basis that we shall accept or reject the definitions. A critical analysis of some definitions will enable us to see the difficulties in giving a precise definition of curriculum. It is important that readers should try to determine for themselves which of these definitions, if any are simple type or which one states in detail what curriculum is by spelling out the elements of curriculum

The first definition is the one from Kerr (1962). 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”.

Kerr in this definition sees curriculum as a plan for learning, or plan for action. Just like Kerr, Nicholls & Nicholls (1978) sees curriculum as

“the opportunities planned by teachers for pupils”. The definition by Kerr pre-supposes that the

learning experiences are carefully planned we assume that the elements of a good curriculum are considered especially when it is “guided by the school”. We assert that a school will consider what the objectives are, the content, method and evaluation. It is in this vein that one can consider Kerr’s definition as appropriate and valid.

The other aspect of the definition may be rejected for its broad base, that is, the aspect of “outside the school”. Normally, learning experiences occur through peers, at home and place of work. Some of these experiences are guided, the objectives are not clearly stated and of course they are not subjected to evaluation.

This is not to say that all learning experiences outside the school are valueless or invalid. We agree that there are many learning activities that are going on outside the classrooms and yet they fulfill the conditions stipulated in our previous discussion on what curriculum is and the elements of curriculum.

Another definition for our consideration comes from Caswell and Campbell (1935) who defined curriculum as

“all the experiences the learners have under the guidance of the school”.

This definition limits curriculum to what is obtainable in the school alone not minding that learning takes place outside the school and without the guidance of the guided learning experiences.

These definitions are two broad in scope and learning experiences seem to be indefinite. The impression created is that the determination of what to teach will be difficult as well as the separation of what is worth learning from what is not worth learning. The fact that the school has to guide the learning experiences does not mean that the students cannot acquire undesirable learning experiences because there are many things the teacher teaches without talking.

Tyler (1963) defined curriculum “as all of learning of students which is

planned by and directed by the school to attain its educational goals.”

If we analyze this definition critically, we shall see that it has the four elements of curriculum inherent or implied. In the definition, the phrase “all of the learning of the students” can be considered to represent both content (subject and subject matter) and learning experiences that the student are exposed to in the school.

These two components or elements of curriculum obviously are means by which students learn. The phrase “planned and directed by the school” clearly indicates that the elements of learning experiences provided by and executed in the school are carefully planned with the objectives formulated and clearly stated by the teachers. The phrase “to attain its educational goals” has two elements embedded in it. These elements are objectives and evaluation

The objective is implied. It is inherent in the term “goals”. While the element evaluation is implied as it is the means through which the school and teachers determine the extent to which students have achieved planned goals and objectives. The school as a matter of fact, used to formulate educational objectives and carry out evaluation by conducting tests/examination at intervals during the teaching-learning process. With our discussion of the

Tyler’s definition we can say that the definition is valid. Tyler himself argued that his definition contains educational objectives, all planned learning experiences (including extra-class and learning activities at home as far as they are planned and directed by the school) and finally the appraisal (evaluation) of student learning.

Tanner and Tanner (1975) defined curriculum as

“the planned and guided learning experience and intended learning outcomes, formulated through the s ystematic reconstruction of knowledge and experience, under auspices of the school for learner’s continuous and willful growth in personal-social competence”.

This definition reveals the dynamic nature of curriculum and learning experience. This is built in to the phrase “systematic reconstruction of knowledge and experience”.

It is crystal clear that the curriculum cannot be separated from the society, since the society is not static; the curriculum cannot be static if the learners are to keep pace with the dynamic nature of the society. Already there is a sort of knowledge explosion in the world. The definition also spelt out the place of the learner and society in curriculum considerations this can be inferred from the phrase “for the learners continuous and willful growth in personal-social competence”.

Saylor and Alexander (1974) claimed that “the curriculum is a plan for providing

sets of learning opportunities to achieve broad goals and related specific objectives for an identifiable population (of students) served by a single school center”.

This definition has all the elements of the curriculum built into it. For instance, the phrase “a plan for providing sets of learning opportunities “shows elements of contents and learning experiences.

Learning experiences and learning opportunity are the same and each has corresponding subject matter. The phrase “to achieve broad goals and related specific objectives” is very clear statement of the element objective. The last of the elements which is evaluation can be inferred from the definition and from the phrase “to achieve broad goals. Before a school can identify whether its goals have been achieved or not, the school must have carried out evaluation. This evaluation is always carried out in the school through examinations.

In considering the validity of any definition of curriculum it is very vital to bear in mind all the four elements of curriculum that is

(i) goals and objectives

(ii) content or subject and subject matter (iii) learning experiences and

(iv) evaluation. Our judgment and conclusions about any

definition of curriculum should be based on these elements.

Concepts of Curriculum We shall discuss four prevailing conceptions of the

curriculum; these are the humanistic, social reconstructionist, technological and academic. The advocates of these viewpoints have different ideas about what should be taught, to whom, when and how.

Those with a humanistic orientation hold the view that the curriculum should provide personally satisfying experiences for each individual. The social reconstructionists stress societal needs over individual needs. Those with technological orientation view curriculum making as a technological process for producing whatever ends policy makers demand. Persons with an academic orientation see curriculum as the vehicle by which learners are introduced to subject disciplines and organized fields of study.

The Humanistic Curriculum The humanistic curriculum has been

described by some critics as a gimmick, others see it as a way to cut vandalism, deviance and boost learning of school subjects. Some scholars also describe it as a truly liberating education. The main objective of the humanistic orientation is that the curriculum should provide personally satisfying experiences for each individual. This group sees curriculum as way of accelerating human growth and promoting personal integrity.

The Social Reconstruction Curriculum

The social reconstructionists do not buy the idea that the curriculum should help student to adjust or fit into the existing society. They perceive curriculum as a vehicle for fostering critical discontent and for equipping learners with the skills needed for conceiving new goals and effecting social change. This development began in America in 1970’s. One of the protagonists, Harold Rugg (1932), emphasized work. He wanted the learners to use newly emerging concepts from the social sciences and aesthetics to identify and correct social issues. Rugg and his colleagues thus called on the school to begin creating a “new” and “more” equitable” Society.

Conception through the Academic Subject Curriculum

It is no gain saying the fact that the heart of schooling is curriculum and that the irreducible element of curriculum is knowledge. The central focus of knowledge and the chief content or subject matter of instruction are found in academic subjects that are basically intellectual, such as language and literature, mathematics, the natural sciences, history, social sciences and the fine arts.

The aforementioned disciplines represent a range of ways at arriving at the truth and knowledge. We will regard knowledge as “justified belief” Opposed to ignorance, mere opinions or guesses.

Child-Centered Curriculum The Child-centered curriculum holds that the child is an important

individual and should be considered first. The curriculum in this respect should be based on the development needs of the child taking care of the interests of the child. The protagonists of this school of thought hold the belief that the child has active mind, which has been developed and has conceived ideas ever before it comes in contact with the teacher.

A child like every individual has aspirations and beliefs and hopes. The scholars believe that the purpose of education is to assist the child in achieving his goals in life and there is nothing to educate but the child. In this sense curriculum is not expected to be chosen by the educators for the child to learn but has to include things that agitate the minds of the child and enable him to realize his aspirations, hopes and desires.

Jean Rousseau believed that education should be child-centered. He noted that the child should be seen as possessing unique characteristics of his own and so he should be handled as such. He emphasizes that the child is good and innocent and he should be allowed to enjoy the experience of his age.

Teaching should be suitable to the age and ability of the children. Education should focus on the needs and interest of children.

John Dewey in his own view also supported a child-centered curriculum. He advocated that the curriculum should be adopted for the child rather than fitting the child to the school curriculum. The curriculum should be adapted to the child. A subject has meaning if only it is related to the experiences of the child and meets his growing needs. Thus a child learns a difficult subject like speaking because the child needs that form of expression. It is often said that what is to be taught must be interesting and meaningful to the child and not necessarily to the teacher. This is hardly realistic as curriculum ends up as a teacher-centered curriculum.

The child-centered approach has brought about objections from other scholars. They refuse the idea that education is to be guided solely by the interest, the needs of the child, by what is described as children narcissistic whim, (obsessive interest in oneself) for instance how do we know the future needs of the child?

Which need has educational priority? With the trend of civilization and invention daily no one can predict the level of civilization in the next twenty years, so it is extremely difficult to prepare the child for such envisaged civilization. It is important to distinguish between ‘learners-centered’ education and ‘child-centered’ or interest-dominated’ curriculum. Education is concerned about learning, about the rules, culture of the society and for a child to be educated at all he must learn the rules whether they interest him or not. Though we know that interest will motivate the child to learn.

The Core-Curriculum The common core-curriculum is an example

of a content-based curriculum common body of fundamental knowledge and skills as taught to all pupils in some countries e.g. Nigeria, the core curriculum denotes those stipulated subjects for all pupils of given age in any particular school. In Nigeria’s the implementation committee of the National Policy on Education recommends the following as the core subjects for Junior Secondary School.

Mathematics English

Nigerian Language Science Art and Music Moral and Religious Instruction Physical Education Vocational subjects It is important that no one opts out of a

discipline or subject merely through lack of interest.

Hidden or Unstudied Curriculum Hidden or unstudied curriculum is not

the same thing as unplanned curriculum. Hidden curriculum takes into consideration the fact that student in school have purposes and objectives that may not be fully congruent with those of the school or the teacher. They also have their own aims and objectives that are usually unrecognized by the teachers who interact with the students in the classrooms or non-classroom situation.

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.

Is it all that take place in school that are planned? Discuss

The definition refers to schooling. We should recognize that our current appreciation of curriculum 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.

the theoretical the practical the procedure

syllabus process product

praxis

From the above we can see some clear links - the body of knowledge, (the syllabus) to be transmitted is the first and is considered as very important, then 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. It means a concise statement / table of the heads of a discourse / the contents / the subjects of a series of lectures. In the form that many of us are familiar with it is connected with courses leading to examinations - teachers talk of the syllabus associated with, say, SCE 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 indicate the relative importance of its topics or the order in which they are to be studied. 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. Thus, an approach to curriculum 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.

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. Many teachers 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, but to operate syllabus. Curriculum is more embracing than syllabus. Differentiate between curriculum and syllabus

Curriculum as product The dominant modes / ways of looking at education

today are in its 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 and with the concern for 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. The works of two American writers Franklin Bobbitt (1918; 1928) and Ralph W. Tyler (1949) dominate theory and practice within this tradition. The ‘ends’ and ‘means’ tradition. What do you understand by ‘ends’ and ‘means’ curriculum tradition?

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)

The ends and means tradition or movement (a progressive movement) was further reinforced by the work of Ralph W. Tyler. Tyler came on board at a time when the movement was losing prominence in curriculum discourse in America. Tyler work 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

behavioral 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 behavior, 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 behavioral 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 program assumes great importance. Teachers must spend adequate time to plan his / her lessons, starting with formulation of adequately stated behavioral objectives and then search for means of achieving the stated objectives. This is in line with a more recent definition of curriculum as: ‘A program 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 programs 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 program and the individual learners is judged on the basis of whether pre-specified changes occur in the behavior and person of the learner (the meeting of behavioral 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 programs, 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 programs and are judged by the products of their actions.  It turns educators into technicians.

The summary of the above is that there is little or no room for incidental learning / Learning that is not contained in the objectives or planned for. 

Second, there are questions on how to measure the objectives.  The model pictured by ends and means affair is hot on measurability.  If objectives are formulated they have to be measured to know if they had been achieved or not. This makes evaluation very important. The criticism is that behavior can be objectively, mechanistically measured.  There are obvious dangers here - there always has to be some uncertainty about what is being measured.

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.

The summary here is that measurement has to be done with care. Care must be taken too not to reduce objectives and measurement to trivial and meaningless bits that will make learning concentrating on parts and not the totality of the child

Curriculum as process We have seen that the curriculum as product model is heavily dependent

on the setting of behavioral 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. 

Teachers enter particular schooling and situations with - 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.

Lawrence Stenhouse (1975) produced one of the best-known explorations of a process model of curriculum. 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?

It can be criticized on the grounds of practicality – is it practicable or possible? You can have an idea you want to buy a car that can convey the whole class out for a dinner. Is there such a car? If there is, do you have the means? What about feeding the whole class?

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.  Finally, within limits, a recipe can varied according to taste.  So can a curriculum.  (Stenhouse 1975: 4-5)

The summary here is curriculum must be a process that is practicable and possible.

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 must equip the learners with all they need to solve life-long problems. It is not good enough that a learner has a good grade and turn out a failure in life. This is talking about the functionality of curriculum and education. A learner must be useful to him/herself and the society.

In describing 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 line with above discussion, 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' It requires an informed and a committed action.

First, 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.

The summary here is that curriculum as praxie focuses on human development. And this should be incorporated int6o product, process and practice of curriculum and education

Curriculum in context Curriculum is contextually shaped and situated. Curriculum must take into consideration 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 .

There are activities that are not planned but have led to positive changes in learners. Talk about a student emerging as a class captain, school prefect, a good and world class footballer, or an outstanding role model. These are never listed in the syllabus nor incorporated in the curriculum. Yet students engage in a number of extra-curricular activities that are positive. Care must be taken, the school must get involved in these so that they do not turn to produce negative effects

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).  They enable students to develop socially valued knowledge and skills

Curriculum as the boundary between formal and informal education

Where does the informal education come in this context? What should content of informal education look like, the same with

that of formal schooling? Should the program also follow the ‘ends and means’ prescription,

specified objectives, content, learning experience and evaluation? The adoption of curriculum theory and practice by some informal

educators appears to have arisen from a desire to be clear about content. 

We must, thus, conclude that approaches to the curriculum which focus on objectives and detailed program appear to be incompatible with informal education. (Jeffs & Smith 1990: 15) In other words, a product model of curriculum is not compatible with the emphasis on process and praxis within informal education. 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. A number of points discussed above would have to be altered in order to accommodate informal education. Talk about adult education, education for the prison inmates, how do we incorporate these into the conventional curriculum?

Conclusion We have explored four different approaches to curriculum theory and

practice, curriculum ideas. 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. We have also seen that though curriculum is planned and

implemented for the purpose of producing desirable and observable change in behavior of learners, it must not lose focus on hidden curriculum. Something worthwhile should also be planned for those who haven’t got the opportunity of formal education

Finally, the scientific curriculum makers are of the opinion that ‘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’.   Children must be allowed to lear through activities END OF LECTURE