I found there were many pieces from the reading that connected to my own experiences and aligned with my views on education. It became quite clear that curriculum is not simply provincial guidelines developed for kindergarten to 12 learning, but contending frameworks that have political, ideological and societal influences. By examining the various conceptions of curriculum, I have developed a better understanding of how they can be used in our own contexts to analyze planning, instruction and assessment, as well I will describe how some of the curriculum I have found to be mainstream in my career.
According to Ornstein and Hunkins (2013), curriculum is defined by 5 key pieces focusing on planning, learners’ experiences, structures, subject areas and subject matter. However, much debate has occurred based on the varying definitions and the orientations resultant of these arguments. Foundational frameworks of the curriculum, identified by Eisner and Vallance (1974), distinguished five preliminary orientations as the cognitive approach, curriculum as technology, self-actualization, social reconstruction, and academic rationalism. Each approach spawning new terms with similar purposes, some merging, and some losing relevance. According to Al Mousa’s examination (Master’s Thesis), these initial five conceptions of the curriculum have been arranged, based on our contemporary understandings of curriculum, into recurring conceptions that have maintained credibility and longevity.
Self-actualization emerged as a curriculum focusing on making learning enjoyable for students. It emphasizes child-centered learning, trust, strands of content, and intrinsic motivation for students. I have observed this in education at several schools over the past years. I feel that components of this framework are mainstays in education and will continue to be mainstream. For example, upon examination of the BC curriculum, the Core Competencies (thinking, communication, social and emotional) for learning are foundational to child-centered learning. One sub-section within social and emotional learning identifies the importance of having a positive personal and cultural identity. Additionally, The First Peoples’ Principles of Learning emphasizes that learning requires exploration of one’s identity. Classrooms that place great importance on relevant values to the learners and personal purpose can be linked to self-actualization. Currently, I work in a school with a large population of Indigenous learners. Our school continues to integrate Indigenous values and perspectives within our routines each day. In fact, we have recently engaged in the school planning as an inquiry process in which we integrate Indigenous perspectives into the classroom while utilizing divergent teaching strategies. This experience will allow us to use this as tools to analyse the current planning and instruction.
Social reconstruction is a curriculum orientation that focuses on much of the larger societal issues. In fact, it is highlighted in this curriculum that inequities and major public matters must be realized in education and reform should occur to improve any systematic failures. According to Schiro (2013), our current status in schools and communities is unwholesome, and that something can and must be done to improve what is occurring. Upon reflection, this is a platform for learning that is still recurring today. Educators are developing curriculum that encourage deep inquiry on very similar big ideas. In fact, the British Columbia curriculum has a three-tiered approach: big ideas, curricular competencies (strategies, reflecting, etc.) and content. Arguably the most vital piece to the curriculum are these curricular competencies. Within this section, it is emphasized that we must teach focusing on contributing to care for self, others, and community through personal or collaborative approaches. As much of the work I have done has been in the classroom encouraging collaborative inquiry projects, I have also had the opportunity to collaborate with staff on these larger societal issues and instill them in the curriculum through school wide initiatives. Once again, this is another example of how this curriculum may be used as a framework to analyze our current state of planning, instruction and assessment. I believe this framework has been recurrent because of the constantly evolving and unpredictable landscape of society.
Academic rationalism ensures that cultural views and knowledge are passed on to the next generations’ youth. As well, there is much about this prescriptive orientation that focuses on achievement and intelligence. McNeil (2009) coins this as knowledge for use. One piece that stands out in the academic curriculum is the focus on McNeil’s highlighting of “schools as institutional rankings and grants”. We continue to see this competition occurring in rankings each and every year. On such example may be that of The Foundation Skills Assessments that is facilitated every school year for grade 4 and 7 learners. In fact, as these standardized tests are designed to asses “ways of thinking” that are based on Western culture, data is then collected and analyzed. From there, schools are ranked based on achievement placing little to no emphasis on community variables. As I have facilitated the FSA on many occasions as grade 7 teacher and administrator, I have observed many staff preparing (teaching to the test) students for the upcoming assessment. This is quite clear how this example can be seen as a tool for planning, instruction and assessment.
Technology in curriculum appears to be more concerned with efficiency of delivery, emphasizing the classic disciplines, and simple outcomes. The ‘No Child Left Behind’ movement can be attributed to this orientation. However, despite the inventiveness of the title, technology education can be seen as the firstborn of the frameworks as it has ties to behavioural curriculum. According to Ornstein and Hunkins, “the behavioural approach is the oldest and still the dominant approach to curriculum” (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2012, 2). One piece that stands out in relation to common practice nowadays is the increasing student-teacher ratios. It wasn’t long ago when elementary classes would be made up of thirty or more students with little attention on composition. As well, the readings indicate that this curriculum concentrates on uniformity. I find this interesting as this connects much more to BC’s previous curriculum stressing prescribed learning outcomes. This curriculum was much more focused on a learning standard such as content. In fact, very little in this curriculum was based on skills and process (older terms) than in our constructivist curriculum of today. As well, this curriculum utilizes testing as a key form of summative assessment. Yet, despite some of the unfashionable language related to this curriculum, there is talk of performance standards -students knowing what is expected of them, and the use of backwards design. McNeil states, “teachers typically develop their standards-based curriculum planning backwards from the standards and benchmarks, deciding what will be addressed at each grade level” (McNeil, 2009, 57). As we continue to see backwards design utilized in today’s practices, this is often taught when building professional capacity for teachers and leaders. Our district offers workshops and action inquiry projects where teachers throughout the district gain insight from directors of instructions, helping teachers and guest presenters on how to implement this into school-based units. The strands can be seen tools to analyze planning, instruction and assessment.
As I see each of these orientations as quite different, it is obvious that each has a hand in our current curricular climate. From each orientation, it is clear they can be used as tools to analyze current planning, instruction and assessment to this day.
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).
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. (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. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2013). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Read part of Chapter 1, pp. 1-8.
Schiro, M. S. (2013). Introduction to the curriculum ideologies. In M. S. Schiro, Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns (2nd ed., pp. 1-13). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.