Curriculum Theory - Project 2061

1 NCurriculum TheoryCurriculum Theory and theorizing may be characterized as being a rather formative condition, for essentially there are nogenerally accepted and clear-cut criteria to distinguish curriculumtheory and theorizing from other forms of writing in education. Thepresent situation may be summarized by saying that curriculumtheory and theorizing exists because a fair number of thoughtful andrespected professional persons say they do it and that it exists. Stillothers refer to the work of these persons as theorizing and theirefforts as theories. A reasonably knowledgeable look at thecurriculum situation readily reveals some of the problems whichcreate the present begin with, one would suspect that Theory would be focusedupon a clearly identified realm of phenomena.

2 Unfortunately, this isnot so in Curriculum for the definitions of Curriculum are as narrowas the subject matter to be learned and as broad as all theexperiences students have in school. Thus, writings calledcurriculum Theory have varied on one pole from essentiallyepistemological statements to the other pole of statements of a philosophy of living. There is also some disagreement among theorizers about thepurpose of theorizing. Among those few who give much thought tothis problem there appear to be three major camps. One group (by 1far the largest) sees Theory as a guiding framework for applied Curriculum development and research and as a tool for evaluation ofcurriculum One: State of the FieldThus, Theory becomes a springboard for prescribing and guidingpractical activity in relation to Curriculum .

3 Theory in this sensefunctions like a philosophy in that it is not directly thought of asopen to empirical validation. That this approach is not calledcurriculum philosophy may perhaps be so primarily because thepersons who engage in it arenot usually trained philosophersregardless of the fact that much of it is a form of second camp of ofttime younger (and far fewer) theorizers iscommitted to a more conventional concept of scientific Theory . Thisgroup has attempted to identify and describe the variables and theirrelationships in purpose of this Theory is primarilyconceptual in nature,and research would be utilized for empiricalvalidation of Curriculum variables and relationships.

4 Rather than as atest of the efficiency and effectiveness of a Curriculum third group of individuals looks upon the task of theorizing as acreative intellectual task which they maintain should be neither usedas a basis for prescription oras an empirically testable set ofprinciples and purpose of these persons is todevelop and criticize conceptual schema in the hope that new waysof talking about Curriculum ,which may in the future be far morefruitful than present orientations, will be forthcoming. At thepresent time, they would maintain that a much more playful,freefloating process is called for by the state of the further interesting and sometimes complicating factor is thatindividuals who theorize may well operate in all three realms upondifferent occasions as specific professional pressures and , any piece of Curriculum Theory must be looked atcarefully as a specific piece of theorizing in order to assess its 1 offers an analysis of theoretical statements which is ofconsiderable interest here.

5 Curriculum Theory he proposes can becategorized in terms of the various uses of language by , he finds that there are six kinds of language used:( 1) descriptive, (2) explanatory, (3) controlling, (4) legitimizing,(5) prescriptive, and (6) we accept this analysis it becomes clear that "curriculumtheory " varies with the intentions of theorists, as witnessed by theiruse of language, in any particular time and place. This may appear tobe unusual in relation to the history of scientific Theory at firstglance, but a little reflection shows that there are similar varieties oftheory in manyfields. The problem that variety creates forcurriculum is perhaps of a different order.

6 It would appear that thevariety is less troublesome than the confusion among theorists aboutthe variety and of the intentions of other theorists. The result hasbeen something like a series of theoretical exchanges which haveoften been at cross purposes,together with an essential lack ofhistorical development. Instead, the historical state of the field looksmuch more like a set of out-of-phase cycles. It is suggested from thisthat Curriculum Theory is much in need of historical study, with thegoal of untangling what Huebner referred to as the different uses ofcurricular 2 offers an insightful perspective on the history ofcurriculum issues.

7 He highlights the idea that Curriculum has beenessentially plagued by an ahistorical posture, an ameliorativeorientation, and a lack of definition. He concludes that "our basicframework and our intellectual horizons have been severely limited. He further suggests that the task of the future is the development ofalternative modes of thinking to the dominant production model ofthe past 50 years. The production model Kliebard speaks of is that associated withBobbit 3 and others in the early part of the 20th century and laterwith the Tyler 4 rationale. In Huebner s terms this is variously a controlling and prescriptive use of language. But even here theelements of control and prescription are fundamentally grounded ina technological rationale rather than in philosophical and/orscientific technical model has been developed to its greatestsophistication by vocational education workers.

8 An excellent recent state of the art review was edited by Smith and Moss 5 whosummarize the process as: (1) specifying the role for which training isto be provided, (2) identifying the specific tasks that comprise therole, (3) selecting the tasks to be taught, (4) analyzing each of thetasks, (5) stating performance objectives, (6) specifying theinstructional sequence, (7) identifying conditions of learning,(8) designing an instructional strategy, (9) developing instructionalevents, and (10) creating student and Curriculum evaluativeprocedures and all intents and purposes this has been what has passed for theprevailing " Theory " of most Curriculum workers (with variations andalterations for different areas).

9 Many Curriculum theorists, however,have not found this to be a satisfactory model for a variety ofreasons; perhaps most fundamentally because the technical processbegins with an acceptance of contemporary social values (thuseliminating the value question of what to teach).8 Part One: State of the FieldThe Concerns of Curriculum TheoryPhilosophies of education, according to Frankema6 are eitheranalytical or is, they are essentially attempting todescribe, discriminate, and establish meanings for terms, or they areessentially sets of statements about what should or should not beincluded in education and what should or should not be done duringthe educational theorists have found such neat categories difficult toparallel, since the concerns of Curriculum at some times must berelated to what is learned by persons.

10 Thus, Curriculum always hasaction implications with a broad directional concern for these circumstances,one is always involved in assumptionsand implicit (if not explicit) statements which could be classified atvarious times and places as ontological; axiological, andepistemological. Concern for the nature of human being, valuetheory, and the nature of knowledge are intricately interwoven inaction contexts. But in many ways Curriculum theorizing can beconveniently categorized as oriented toward statements aboutknowledge, statements about the Curriculum realities, and statementsabout valued StatementsUndoubtedly, the most prolific group of Curriculum thinkers inthe past decade have been those persons concerned with is a reasonable and important development since the curriculumhas a substance which is drawnfrom the accumulated culturaldevelopment of a civilization.