Conceptions of Curriculum
The Importance of Society
Can you imagine a time before formal education? How do you think we learned about ourselves, our community, and our environment? I can imagine a time when education seeped through every experience. There were no four walls or textbooks preserving and delivering knowledge. Every learning experience was immediately valuable to the student because to learn meant to survive. Through observation, trial and error, and the community’s collective knowledge, children learned what was necessary for them to not only survive but also thrive in their community.
As social creatures, we are deeply invested in not only our own survival, but the survival of our group. We have an innate desire to be accepted into our community, which would increase our chances of survival. In my opinion, this is why the social reconstruction/relevance and the social efficiency ideology have been dominant conceptions of curriculum. Humans understand the inherent value in the group and so we began to frame education to reflect this value. In these frameworks, schools are either agents of change (Eisner and Vallance 1974) or where students can learn the practical skills to effectively contribute to society (Shiro 2008). In the social reconstructionist curriculum, the group experience is often emphasized and thus students need to learn how to cooperate with each other (McNeil 2006). In an adaptive approach of the social reconstruction/relevance curriculum, students need to learn the necessary skills in order to survive (Eisner and Vallance 1974). On an instinctual level, it makes absolute sense that this curricular framework has remained one of the dominant conceptions of curriculum.
History and Education
There are a few other conceptions of curriculum that have become mainstream over the years. I will discuss two of these conceptions: academic rationalism and the humanistic curriculum. I believe there are two reasons these conceptions have remained dominant. One reason is historical; our educational and political landscapes have changed in similar ways over time. The other reason is rooted in the ancient Chinese philosophy of yin and yang. These two reasons are not mutually exclusive.
Many of the political changes that occurred throughout the West have also occurred within education. Although these changes did not happen at the same time, I believe they are deeply connected. Specifically, the pivotal moments in history that are similar to how education has changed are: The Middle Ages, The Age of Reason, and the rise of individualism. The Middle Ages was a deeply religious and hierarchical time. People valued, or were forced to value, the hierarchical system and religious texts above all else. This was a time rooted in tradition, much like academic rationalism (Eisner and Vallance 1974). Similar to The Middle Ages, there is a hierarchy of knowledge in this conception of curriculum (Shiro 2008).
The Age of Reason, followed by the rise of individualism, was a time in which people began to reject tradition and embrace new ideas. In this time period, philosophers, scientists, and writers were changing the way people viewed the world in which they lived. The individual became more important than hierarchy and tradition. Similarly, the humanistic curriculum was a rejection of academic rationalism, which focused more on tradition than the growth of the individual. The humanistic curriculum is founded upon personal growth, autonomy, and innovative thinking (McNeil 2006) which were all key characteristic of The Age of Reason and individualism. In fact, McNeil draws this parallel by stating that the humanist curriculum is the American ideal of individualism because it helps students figure out who they are and what they like (2006).
The constant shifts on both the political and educational landscapes indicate an imbalance within the systems, of too heavily relying on one part of a whole. We must acknowledge and embrace all of the opposing forces, the yin and the yang within education. There must be a balance between the conflicting demands of living in the modern world, our personal growth as individuals, our responsibilities to the community, and our environment. I believe this desire for balance is why we have had many very different conceptions of curriculum and why we continue to create new ones. I think we are heading in a direction where we will be able to blend the elements of each curriculum, dominant or otherwise, in a way that is harmonious. We will soon find a way to both pass on the wisdom of our ancestors while simultaneously building a deeper understanding of ourselves.
With that being said, I think the feminist pedagogy has not become mainstream because we live in a patriarchal society and, in my opinion, it will take a few more decades, or more, for our society as a whole to go through the process of unlearning. Many of our institutions, work places, and even some homes function in a masculine way. The feminist pedagogy gives some examples of masculine qualities such as being goal-oriented, rational, and competitive (Pratt 1994), which are all qualities that are admired in our modern world. We often reward those who achieve and do more, rather than those who portray more feminine qualities like respecting process, intuition, and cooperation (Pratt 1994). It is my belief, and hope, that this pedagogy will become more mainstream or will be blended into the other conceptions of curriculum in the future.
Self-Awareness: The Key to Success
As Deepak Chopra famously said, “By becoming self aware, you gain ownership of reality; in becoming real, you become the master of both inner and outer life.” It is important to be aware of not only what you accept but also what you resist. As a philosophy major, most of my educational career was spent reading classic philosophical texts, developing my logic and reasoning skills, and writing argumentative papers. If I had to choose the conceptions of curriculum my professors were basing their courses on, I would guess they used both academic rationalism and the development of cognitive processes. My first experience at a formal school was at Waldorf, which I mentioned in a previous post as being mainly based on the humanistic curriculum.
My personal experiences in school have definitely shaped my thinking as an adult and as an educator. From the moment I stepped into the classroom as a teacher, I rejected the hierarchy I felt so uncomfortable with as a student. I wanted my students to see me as a person who was there to help them reach their goals, not as the English teacher who knew all the grammar rules and used complicated vocabulary. I didn’t want anyone to see me as the keeper of knowledge and I often skipped any exercises in the textbook that made the student passive in the learning experience.
At the core of my values as a teacher is the humanistic curriculum. As a student, I need the material I am learning to be “value-saturated” (Eisner and Vallance 1974) and, as a teacher, I have the desire to bring this same quality to my classroom. At my previous school, we had constant enrolment and new students could join the class every week. I made a weekly needs assessment to ensure I was making my lessons learner-centred so my students were satisfied (Eisner and Vallance 1974). I also created a lot of goal-setting activities to use in the classroom and I always focused on my students’ growth rather than their “deficits” (Shiro 2008). Finally, I tried to make every exercise interactive (Shiro 2008). For writing tasks, I would have the students write an essay together or brainstorm together. They would edit each other’s work and give feedback. For reading assignments, I would sometimes give one student part of the reading and the other another part. They would then have to share what they had read in order to understand the text as a whole.
The curriculum that I have the most resistance toward is curriculum as technology. Seeing as my first few years in school I was not allowed to use technology, this definitely shaped the way I think about and view technology. For the most part, I have a very negative view of technology and this definitely transfers over to my teaching. I first began to notice this resistance of focusing too much on input, retention, and the systematic way of learning (Eisner and Vallance 1974) when I was tutoring a Japanese student. During our second lesson, she wanted to do some drills that she said she’d done in her country. I felt an immediate resistance to it. I remember thinking to myself “What is the value in saying a word and having her repeat it 20 times? That sounds dreadful!”. To this day, I still find myself resisting anything that seems to mechanical or systematic (Eisner and Vallance 1974).
The biggest impact this newfound self-awareness will have on my professional context is that it will help me begin to question my beliefs. I would like to try balancing some of the characteristics found in each of the conceptions of curriculum. I know that some of my students will benefit from a more mechanical or systematic way of learning while others will need a more personable learning environment. Some will be more accustomed to being passive in the learning process while others will want to take on a more active role. Being aware of my own assumptions about education will only help me to become a better teacher.
Questions
During the readings, I began to ask myself:
How do I view education? Do I see it as an end in itself or a means to an end or both?
How can I balance the demands of the society and the individual needs of my students at the same time?
How value free can education become and is this desirable? Should something as personal as education ever be value free?
Some questions I may ask myself as I develop curriculum in the future:
What role am I playing in this lesson? Am I transmitting knowledge or helping to expand perspectives?
What should I prioritize right now and why? Who finds it important and why?
What role are my students playing? Are they passive or active in the learning process?
How can I balance the demands of the individual, society, academia, and technology?
How can I avoid falling into the “traps” of relying too much on a framework that I have already accepted as true and valuable?
Works Cited
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.
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.
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).
