PME 810 Curricular Conceptions

Most see curriculum as a way of imparting knowledge or academic growth from educators to individuals in a structured environment, yet varied curricular ideologies or conceptions among curricular theorists remain. As Eisner and Vallance explain, the big question in education is "what can and should be taught to whom, when, and how?" (Eisner and Vallance, 1974, p.2). Since humans make meaning to pursue fulfillment in life, what meaning deserves priority? (Pratt, 1994, p 8). With this in mind, we can expect debate as individuals' personal values, background, goals, and ideas differ. Some of these conceptions of curriculum have lasted through the years and have been organized into mainstream approaches (typically five). There are four main conceptions termed by Shiro as academic, social efficiency, learner-centered, and social reconstruction (Shiro, 2008, p.2). Others have included curriculum as technology and feminist pedagogy. Today, as technology seems to have been absorbed by all frameworks due to its application to content and purpose and its value-neutral nature, and feminist pedagogy is perhaps too narrow for anyone to solely identify with and can be potentially amalgamated with social reconstruction, the above four conceptions will be discussed.

Each approach has merit and value and as I construct my own framework to analyze my planning, instruction, and assessment as an elementary school teacher, I see aspects of each emerging in the learning environment. The academic approach is perhaps most prevalent in my teaching. Our curriculum in British Columbia focuses on big questions and driving inquiry, and I try to focus on having students ask why instead of what as they learn. Students are encouraged to use their knowledge and analytical skills to deepen their understanding and be able to solve problems in the real world. Students collaborate, learn to ask good questions, investigate, and find evidence to draw conclusions.

Social efficiency, which focuses largely on facts and skills to be taught, is an approach that can limit the joy and wonder of learning and shift the teaching focus to teaching to tests, but I can see some merit in giving new teachers a starting point in their expectations for students. Standards are efficient and expectations of both teachers and students are clear, but children are all different in the way they learn and often this method of delivering curriculum does not reflect high-level thinking and reasoning. Students should be able to show what they know in a variety of ways and be challenged to reflect on their learning.

The learner-centered or humanistic approach, although Vallance mentions as waning in more recent years, is one that deeply motivates me as an educator (Vallance, 1986, p.26). I believe that all students have a purpose and they explore and investigate to figure out who they are as learners and how to best solve problems. Within our current BC curriculum, core competencies have been embedded which articulate the need for students to become critical and creative thinkers, and to be personally and socially aware, which I think are fundamental in learning. I have seen the connection between motivation to learn and positive belief about oneself, and the cognitive component of learning (McNeil, 2006, p. 5). Curiosity and questioning leads to deep learning.

Social reconstruction is characterized as educating to change or reform society. Freire was a proponent of this curriculum approach with the idea that "conscientization" was a way to liberate people and make them aware of the political and social culture (Pratt, 1994, p.13). I see the value in this approach as students become socially aware, have a critical consciousness, and perhaps are challenged to participate in social service to better society. We have our secondary students fulfill community service hours in our school district, and my own grade two class visits a care home for the elderly once a month. There is tremendous value in balancing both the humanistic approach with the social reconstruction approach as students need to see outside of themselves in order to contribute to society.

Although curriculum ideologies differ, most educators are a combination of characteristics from each. None are mutually exclusive and as we teach, we can borrow from each to enrich the ongoing learning experience of students. Humanity is complex and to authentically assess student learning, we as educators cannot prescribe to one approach alone.

Sources:

Al Mousa, N. (2013). An examination of cad use in two interior design programs from the perspectives of curriculum and instructors, pp. 21-37 (Master’s Thesis).

Eisner, E., & Vallance, E. (Eds.). (1974). Five conceptions of the curriculum: Their roots and implications for curriculum planning. In E. Eisner & E. Vallance (Eds.), Conflicting conceptions of curriculum (pp. 1-18). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.

McNeil, J. D. (2006). Contemporary curriculum in thought and action (6th ed., pp. 1-13, 24-34, 44-51, 60-73). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2013). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Read part of Chapter 1, pp. 1-8.

Pratt, D. (1994). Curriculum perspectives. In D. Pratt, Curriculum planning: A handbook for professionals (pp. 8-22). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publisher.

Shiro, M. S. (2008). Introduction to the curriculum ideologies. In M. S. Shiro, Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns (pp. 1-12). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sowell, E. J. (2005). Curriculum: An integrative introduction (3rd ed., pp. 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.