Introduction:

Curriculum is something that I have questioned throughout my journey as both a learner and educator.  I can remember questioning why I had to learn content like information about the second world war in grade 6. I couldn’t imagine ever using that knowledge when I grew  up–which now I do know and understand–and badly wished for some person to appear so that I could blame them for the mental torture that they were putting me through in elementary school.  Similarly, I questioned the process of curriculum development when I was in the early stages of becoming a teacher.  Wondering who got to decide what our students learn, how they decided, and why they were appointed as decision makers.  This continued in teachers college, as I was advised to get used to justifying content to students throughout my career, because it would only continue.  This journey of inquiry that I have already somewhat established, led me to be intrigued and make many connections to my own pedagogy as an educator throughout the readings for the first module of PME 810.  

This module, we were asked to consider the 5-part model outlined in Conflicting Conceptions of Curriculum as identified by Eisner and Vallance (1974).  As I progressed through the readings in this module, I found myself experiencing a form of academic whiplash as I navigated the different opinions about the superiority of different curricular approaches.  One thing that was glaringly clear was the outline of 5 defined sections of curriculum.  The five sections are as follows:

  1. Humanistic/Cognitive Processes Approach
  2. Technological Approach
  3. Self Actualization Approach
  4. Social Reconstructionist Approach
  5. Academic Rationalist Approach

 

Interpreting the 5 Conceptions of Curriculum

  • Humanistic/Cognitive Processes Approach
    • The humanistic approach is intended to provide an enjoyable learning experience that requires the educator to be a facilitator of learning, essentially being the guide of learning rather than the provider of information (Schiro, 2013.).  Educators are seen as facilitators of healthy, virtuous, and beneficial growth. The child is actively participating in their learning and this curriculum is often emphasized as the child-centered approach to curriculum (Hunkins, 2009.).
  • Technological Approach
    • This approach is intended to encourage an efficient and effective process of learning (Vallance, 1986.). This approach has a neutral perspective in regards to its values and is concerned more with purpose rather than means of educating.  Another component to consider about this approach is that it embraces the rapid changes of technology in our world that are threatening to make much of education irrelevant.  The intention of the Technological Approach is to “make learning systematic and efficient” (Sowell, 2005, p. 48.). 
  • Self Actualization Approach
    • The Self-Actualization approach is intended to facilitate learner autonomy and growth.  Students invest their time and energy into choice projects and teachers remain as a guiding influence rather than a provider of content (Sowell, 2005.).  This approach makes me think of Maria Montessori’s philosophy of learning and the Montessori schools that I have shadowed in that are based on the idea that learners can facilitate their own learning (Lillard, et al., 2006).  The learners must be intrinsically motivated for this approach to be effective.
  • Social Reconstructionist Approach
    • The Social Reconstructionist approach has an external agenda focused on influencing societal change through education rather than individualistic standpoints.  The purpose is to consistently influence positive societal changes (Schiro, 2013.).  Schools are intended to direct social change from an academic standpoint (Brown, 2006.). Social Reconstructionists that support this approach are more interested in education influencing people how to live rather than specifically teaching them skills in how to earn a living (Sowell, 2005.).  
  • Academic Rationalist Approach
    • Knowledge in this approach is organized in a format that is intended to target specific subject matter (Darby, 2009.).  The purpose of this approach is to help children learn the culturally accumulated knowledge (Schiro, 2013.).  In this approach, teachers are required to be experts on the content and have the ability to break it down into simple and direct instructional formats.

While some of the approaches listed above are more popular than others today, they all have their place in the development of curriculum in education.  As time, society, culture, and political agendas progress, each approach has their unique role in education.  As some approaches become more relevant with the change of societal and cultural expectations, others begin to phase out.  

 

The Ebbs and Flows of Curriculum Over Time

It is natural to expect curriculum to ebb and flow throughout time and even from one cultural norm to the next.  To state that a curriculum is a one size fits all method, would be to ignore the variations in humanity.  Eisner and Vallance (1974.) reinforce this idea by proposing it as a misconception that curriculum is all encompassing.  One specific curriculum approach is not and cannot be a one-size fits all method when we have a multitude of societies and cultures attempting to stand under this same umbrella.  It is understandable however, that curriculum theorists would attempt to instill a certain level of confidence in their approach regardless of any relevancy of other approaches, when it is what they believe as the superior theory of curriculum to target a multitude of educational participants.  Shiro (2013, p. 10) describes this by stating: “The consequence of this in our culture, in which adherents of four curriculum ideologies vie for control over our educational system, is that proponents of each ideology attempt to convert other people to their viewpoint as they assert that their educational perspective is the only proper, natural, and acceptable way of viewing the field”.

Additionally, Al Mousa (2013) argues that many mainstream approaches have similar and relatable components which creates relevance in modern curriculum composition.  I think it also depends on the ambiguity of curriculums for how long they may endure.  If a curriculum is too specific, it may be unable to keep up with the natural progression of society and become irrelevant.  This brings my examination of curriculum full circle to our provincially mandated curriculum in British Columbia (https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca).  The curriculum proposes the use of big ideas and a concept-based competency-driven approach to learning.  The intention of this, is to encourage teacher and learner autonomy to attempt to envelope a variety of philosophies and educational approaches.  

 

Using the Conceptions of Curriculum as Tools to Analyze Planning, Instruction, and Assessment

It is interesting to begin to think of the conceptions of curriculum as a tool to analyze planning, instruction, and assessment for the purpose of this blog post because we are looking at curriculum collectively as a whole school district where I work. The reason we are doing this now is because the new provincially mandated reporting order comes into effect this coming Fall.  On Friday, January 27, 2023, everyone in the school district I work for, sat down to read through, examine, and discuss the new gradeless reporting order coming into effect in British Columbia schools.  As someone who is on the newer end of the teaching community, I was surprised to learn in the last few months that it is not actually already mandated.  I was trained in a gradeless setting, as the university I was attending, attempted to act proactively in the world of education. All of the schools connected virtually, so I was able to connect in person with the staff at the school site I work at.  One of the topics we discussed was the provincial curriculum document and how it can become overwhelmingly confusing at times.  The curriculum model is based on the  “Know-Do-Understand” model to support a concept-based competency-driven approach to learning (https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca). The redesigned curriculum develops around key content, concepts, skills and big ideas that foster the higher-order thinking demanded in today’s world.  While it seems like a simple model, it is actually quite complex and can be interpreted by the educator to fit their pedagogical approach in many cases.  The model is described as an adaptive approach to fit teachers and learners’ needs.

 

As a middle years teacher, I am drawn to the humanistic and technological approaches with a slight interest in the academic rationalist approach.  I tend to take my students’ interests into consideration when developing my plans for teaching in my classroom.  I involve my students in as much as I can by co-creating criteria, providing opportunities for open ended projects, and facilitating self-assessment whenever possible.  While I see the merit in other approaches and definitely pull bits and pieces from other models to have a more blended ideology, I truly do have strong values in the humanistic, technological, and self-actualization approaches.  I see value in the humanistic and self-actualization approaches because they truly involve the learner by pulling on their intrinsic motivation to facilitate learning.  By involving the learner in their educational pathway, I believe that I will be able to encourage and facilitate my students’ learning in a more meaningful process.  The technological approach also fascinates me as our world continues to evolve.  I use technologies like google classroom, a personalized website, and many other online resources to facilitate learning in my classroom.  Part of me thinks that the generation I am a part of and my technological fluency has a lot to do with my interest in this approach.  Another factor to why I gravitate towards this approach is that I recognize with the rapid changes of technology in our society, both my students and myself would get left behind if we didn’t at least attempt to adapt.  

 

Questions for my audience:

  1. Do you feel that your provincial/regional mandated curriculum aligns with your beliefs and pedagogical approaches as an educator/learner? Why or why not?
  2. If you are an educator in British Columbia, what parallels did you experience with the readings from this module (listed below) and how did it change the way you thought about your province/region’s provincially mandated curriculum?

 

References:

Al-Mousa. (2013). An Examination of CAD Use in Two Interior Design Programs From the Perspectives of Curriculum and Instructors (Queen’s University (Kingston & O. ). F. of E. Queen’s University (Kingston, Eds.; p. vii, 190 leaves.). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://proxy.queensu.ca/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/examination-cad-use-two-interior-design-programs/docview/1512073602/se-2?accountid=6180

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

Curriculum organization. (2005). In Sowell, Curriculum : an integrative introduction  (3rd ed., pp. 37–51). Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Province of British Columbia (2022). Curriculum. https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca

Darby (Ed.). (2009). Sections from chapters 1 to 4. In McNeil, Contemporary curriculum : in thought and action  (7th ed., p. xv, 408 p. ;). John Wiley & Sons.

Eisner. (1974). Five conceptions of curriculum: Their roots and implications for curriculum planning. In Vallance (Ed.), Conflicting conceptions of curriculum (pp. 1–18). McCutchan.

Hunkins (Ed.). (2009). The Field of curriculum. In Ornstein, Curriculum : foundations, principles, and issues  (5th ed., pp. 1–8). Pearson.

Introduction to the curriculum ideologies. (2013). In Schiro, Curriculum theory : conflicting visions and enduring concerns  (2nd ed., pp. 1–13). SAGE.

Lillard, A., & Else-Quest, N. (2006). Evaluating Montessori Education. Science, 313(5795), 1893–1894. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20031400

Vallance. (1986). A second look at conflicting conceptions of curriculum. Theory Into Practice, 25(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405848609543194