M1: Conceptions of Curriculum
It may be argued that categorical impulses, be it of narrative genres or classifications of peoples or education/ pedagogy, stem from a sort of epistemological anxiety. We give an item power, and in doing so validity, by defining it and sorting it alongside its counterparts. It once used to be simple(r) to categorize types of fiction and people; but through technological advancement, through modernization and globalization (and all the other -izations), we find ourselves in the grayer spaces of intertextuality and intersectionality. Since we emerged from the Middle Ages, humanity has also nurtured an impulse towards forward movement and advancement.* Thus, we have a set of competing, intersecting, overlapping frameworks for pedagogy. Schiro (2013) addresses this concern for “systematic improvement” at the level of education, arguing that this is hindered by the fact that we cannot determine one ideology that we desire for our curriculum (p.3). Brown (2006) takes this a step further, articulating that educator need to distinguish and recognize these different categories, but that “their acceptance of the curriculum does not mean support for all connections” (n.p.). At its most distilled, we have four different foci of curriculum foci, summarized by Al-Mousa (2013): individualist (e.g. Sowell’s and Eisner and Vallance’s self-actualization; McNeil’s humanistic); societal (McNeil, Sowell, and Vallance’s reconstruction); technological; academic (Eisner and Vallance’s academic rationalism, Pratt’s cultural transmission; Sowell’s organized knowledge) (p.33). When placed as the responsibility of the state, institutionalized education is under enormous pressure to define its competent citizen, and work backwards to organize a curriculum that crafts this particular individual. Sowell (2005) recognizes this in regarding the duty of cultural transference in education, and then how societal expectations inform pedagogy. And in fact, I don’t believe it is just social efficiency model, as Schiro (2013) suggests, where society is the client (p.5); I think society is the client in all public education models.
I wonder if part of the problem is that the ways in which these curriculum frameworks differ is in philosophical stances. For example, Schiro identifies how the social reconstruction lens presupposes that the existing world is faulted, that “there is no good individual, no good education, truth… apart from some conception of the nature of a good society” (p. 6); that is, McNeill’s (2009) idea of the futurologist’s Utopia. Vallance (1986) argues that the liberal ethos of the 1960’s informed the “free-school movement” (i.e. self-actualized) of that period. Our readings seem to make clear, as a whole, that trends in philosophers and psychologists seem to impact the common curricular categories (Paolo Freire and the social reconstructivist lens (McNeil 2009, p. 30); Dewey and Piaget and Gestalt psychologists in cognitive processes (Sowell 2005)). Put another way:
"Each approach or orientation is manfested in other fields bearing upon education: for example, the cognitive process orientation has its roots in faculty psychology; the tech-nological orientation grows out of time-and-motion study; academic rationalism is related to rational humanism" (Eisner & Vallance 1974, p. 17)
But perhaps the solution is, like Vallance (1986) suggests, viewing these categories of curriculum as a flexible continuum, moveable based on the target audience (p. 25). The recognition that the “best” method cannot be fixed, as society and epistemology and curriculum are constantly in motion, serving both “present and emerging purposes” (Ornstein & Hunkins 2009, p. 1). So then, we return to Brown’s (2016) articulation that one needs to discern between the curricular types, but not necessarily “support all connections:” perhaps this does not mean we negate one over the other, but simply focus our curricular scope for whichever teaching context we inhabit.
My teaching context seems to favour cognitive processes, insofar as there is a favouring towards skills (adaptive and transferrable) over content (Eisner & Vallance 1974, p.6). BC’s Revised Curriculum has shifted from prescriptive texts in English (even diversifying the definition of a “text”), and the Social Studies curriculum offers “suggestions” for teachable content in each grade – what is “standardized,” or at the very least made “concrete,” are the lists of curricular competencies (i.e. skills) meant to be taught. I am enamored with Vallance’s (1986) “personal learning,” but am unsure how to place this idea of passionate teaching into policy; I think it has to be through descriptive means and flexibility in (teacher and student) choice, and this process itself seems to pave way for the cognitive processes approach. Similarly, I am intrigued by Eisner and Vallance’s (1974) concept of self-actualization/ consummatory experiences, but I wonder if this content-focused, 100% student-focused perspective is a little ideal. That is, thinking about Maslow’s concept of self-actualization, are we all capable of becoming self-actualized learners as a curriculum requirement/ expectation? Further, I am curious what “self-actualization” looks like in a Grade 2 class, versus a Grade 12 one.
The one approach that makes me feel a little hesitant is the behaviourist approach to systemic curricula. I feel like our current climate is moving away from performance standards and top-down mandates, just as Western society as a whole is moving away from centralized authority (in as everyday examples as “influencers” and YouTubers becoming the new celebrities). This can become an essay unto itself, but in politics we speak of the pendulum shift; in this systemic approach to curriculum, I cannot help but think of the No Child Left Behind Policy of 2001 (Klein, 2015). For those unfamiliar, this is the exemplification of what McNeil (2009) is talking about with the idea of rewards and punishments in standardized curriculum: as per the NCLB policy, schools had target performance objectives to meet in standardized testing, and if they didn’t there were consequences: students could transfer, school could be shut down, schools could be mandated to provide free tutoring services. For more, please read here: https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/no-child-left-behind-an-overview/2015/04. Of course, this fell by the wayside with George Bush.
Which is to argue that it is impossible, perhaps, to conceive of curriculum as distinct from the political landscape. And again, as we began, society is the client whom education serves.
*One may see, here, a potential bias in my framing, as the Renaissance is seen as the beginning of humanism, and the humanistic lens is one of the curriculum frameworks discussed; however, I wish to, in the above example, refer to humanism closer to Steven Pinker’s perspective, which identifies humanism as a broad concept that has multiple applications, each with its own particular definition. In my above example, I refer to the idea of human advancement in this broadest of concepts.
References
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).
Brown. (2006). Conceptions of curriculum: A framework for understanding New Zealand’s curriculum framework and teachers’ opinions. Curriculum Matters, 2, 164–181. https://doi.org/10.18296/cm.0080
Eisner, E. & Vallance, E. (1974). Five conceptions of curriculum: Their roots and implications for curriculum planning. In Vallance (Ed.), Conflicting conceptions of curriculum (pp. 1–18). McCutchan.
Klein, A. (10 Apr. 2015). No child left behind: An overview. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/no-child-left-behind-an-overview/2015/04
McNeil, J. D. (2009). Contemporary curriculum: In thought and action (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Pages 1, 3-14, 27-39, 52-60, 71-74.
Ornstein, A. & Hunkins, F. (2009). The Field of curriculum. In Curriculum : foundations, principles, and issues (5th ed., pp. 1–8). Pearson.
Pinker, S. (2018). Dare to understand! In Enlightenment now: The case for reason, science, humanism, and progress (pp. 7-14). Penguin Random House LLC.
Schiro, M. (2013). Introduction to the curriculum ideologies. In Curriculum theory : conflicting visions and enduring concerns (2nd ed., pp. 1–13). SAGE.
Sowell, E. (2005). Curriculum organization. In Curriculum : an integrative introduction (3rd ed., pp. 37–51). Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Vallance, E. (1986). A second look at conflicting conceptions of curriculum. Theory into Practice, 25(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405848609543194
Comments
Post a Comment