Conceptions of Curriculum

Why is it that some conceptions of curriculum continue to be used over time or are considered to be mainstream approaches, while others are not?

Political, social and economic environments inadvertently influence conceptions of curriculum. Consequently, curriculum conceptions and theories have shifted, evolved or been eradicated over time. Curriculum conceptions that do not seem to stand the test of time (Pratt’s (1994) theory of feminism for example) seem to be based on ideologies that revolve around issues that were current and relevant at the time, but do not sustain longevity. They may not be able to withstand the scrutiny of a change in political leadership or social change. There remain, however, some curriculum design conceptions that have endured social, political and economic change, in some variance, over time.

One of these conceptions that continues to be relevant is in the curricular conception of technology. Eisner and Vallance (1974), McNeil (2009) and Sowell (2005) all make reference to this conception of curriculum. According to Al Mousa these theorists focus on, “process and with the how rather than the what of education, similar to the development of cognitive processes” (Al Mousa 23). Eisner and Vallence describe it as being, “concerned not with the processes of knowing or learning, but with the technology by which knowledge is communicated and "learning" is facilitated. Making little or no reference to content, it is concerned with developing a technology of instruction. The focus is less on the learner or even on his relationship to the material than on the more practical problem of efficiently packaging and presenting the material to him” (Eisner and Vallance 7). Further to that, Al Mousa states that this form of curriculum emphasizes how to teach, rather than what to teach, and is outcome focused. He also illuminates what could be considered a drawback to this technological conception of curriculum in that, “not being able to give attention to the individual and the community is one major weakness of the systemic conception; its focus is mainly on the achievement of desired outcomes and expectations”(Al Mousa 27). Al Mousa also argues that this type of curriculum conception leads to ‘teaching to the test.’ He even claims that in some cases the test is developed prior to the curriculum being developed. One could argue that this type of theory has endured over time due to its outcome-based focus and a need in education for objective based curriculum in order to provide data driven evidence to inform stakeholders.

Explain your interpretation of conceptions of curriculum and how you can use them as tools or frameworks to analyze planning, instruction, and assessment within your specific context of practice.

Clearly there is value in combining many conceptions of curriculum in an attempt to meet the needs of students and twenty first century learners. A self – directed learning environment lends itself to theories of individual fulfillment. Al Mousa states that, “individual fulfillment, according to Pratt (1994), is when people are motivated by their own needs for growth, relationships, and self-actualization” (Al Mousa 28). Success in a self- directed learning environment is predicated partly on relationships that are developed in the building. These relationships exist between a teacher advisor and a student, as well as between subject area teachers and students, and finally between students. In addition self-direction and regulation has at its core the goal of self – fulfillment. We try to promote learning because of a love learning, and a desire to grow personally, not due to mechanical processing of a prescribed curriculum. In addition to Pratt’s curricular conception of self-fulfillment, there are also clear relationships between self directed learning and Eisner and Vallance’s (1974) and Sowell’s (2005) curriculum conceptions of self-actualization as well as McNeil’s (2009) conception of humanism.

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. (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.

Sowell, E. J. (2005). Curriculum: An integrative introduction (3rd ed., pp. 37-51). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.