personal definition of curriculum essay

Defining Curriculum and Instruction Essay

Definition of curriculum, definition of instruction, an example of curriculum and instruction, reference list.

The word curriculum originated from the Latin word ‘curere’, which means running with a view of reaching a certain place. A curriculum is a formal learning system that refers to a set of lessons that are offered to students. Curriculum as a learning process enables students to gain knowledge and in turn, achieve a certain grade. The curriculum thus plays an important role in assessing the performance of the students. According to Svinicki & James (2010), a curriculum consists of a set of courses that enable students to achieve higher performance. Pupils also gain experience as a result of interaction among themselves. In this sense, their school life becomes the curriculum as it enables them to learn behaviors from others. Thus, the curriculum is a totality of experiences that students acquire as a result of interaction with the teachers and their fellow students (Svinicki & James, 2010, p.13).

According to Marsh (2009), Curriculum should be specific meaning; it should provide students with specific skills or knowledge. If the students do not achieve the set goals, then the curriculum is deemed to be ineffective. In other words, curriculum refers to what is supposed to be taught by the teachers. The learning objectives to be attained by students should be measurable. In this regard, the curriculum should be broken down into smaller components. For the curriculum to be effective, both students and the teachers should have a clear understanding of their roles. As a result of the understanding of the roles and expectations, a conversation between the teachers and pupils is greatly enhanced. This in turn plays an important role in enabling them to achieve positive learning outcomes (Svinicki & James, 2010, p.13).

Instruction refers to the manner in which the teacher facilitates students to acquire knowledge and skills. It is a planned process through which an interaction takes place between two people or between an individual and technology. An instructor thus plays the role of providing support to the learners. Instruction is goal-oriented, meaning that there should be a specific objective to be achieved at the end of the instruction process. The main purpose of instruction is to assist learners in attaining their learning goals. Thus, it is concerned with how a teacher delivers instructions effectively to all students in a classroom setup. For instruction to be effective, teachers should have both personal and professional skills. The goal to be attained can be set by either the students or the instructor. The students can set the goal that they intend to attain and also enlist some level of assistance that they expect from the instructor. The learner is required to respond to the instruction process. The response is important as it helps to determine whether the instruction is effective or not. It enables the instructor to determine the extent of learning that has taken place in comparison with the set goals (Koohang & Harman, 2007, p. 231).

An example of a curriculum is the open curriculum that provides students with an opportunity of majoring in the subjects of their interests. This type of curriculum was designed in 1969 and it is currently being practiced in many learning institutions across the globe.

An example of instruction is computer-assisted instruction. This is the type of instruction between a person and technology, for example, the computer. It is relatively a new concept of instruction. The achievement of the set goals is enhanced by the interaction between the student and the computer device.

• Koohang, A & Harman, K. (2007). Learning objects and instructional design . Santa Rosa, CA: Informing Science.
• Marsh, C. (2009). Key Concepts for Understanding Curriculum, Edition 4 . London: Taylor & Francis.
• Svinicki, M & James, W. (2010). McKeachie’s teaching tips: strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers, Edition 13 . London: Cengage Learning.
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 31). Defining Curriculum and Instruction. https://ivypanda.com/essays/defining-curriculum-and-instruction/

"Defining Curriculum and Instruction." IvyPanda , 31 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/defining-curriculum-and-instruction/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Defining Curriculum and Instruction'. 31 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Defining Curriculum and Instruction." October 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/defining-curriculum-and-instruction/.

1. IvyPanda . "Defining Curriculum and Instruction." October 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/defining-curriculum-and-instruction/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Defining Curriculum and Instruction." October 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/defining-curriculum-and-instruction/.

• Curriculum as PRAXIS Proposal
• Individualizing Instruction for Gifted in Mathematics
• Education Issues: Identifying a Unit of Instruction
• Fundamentals of Curriculum and Instruction
• Curriculum and Instruction Revisited
• Curriculum Design
• Curriculum Philosophies Analysis
• Improving Curriculum Alignment and Achieving Goals
• Reading Intervention for English Language Learners
• Benefits of Differentiated Curriculum in the Gifted Classroom
• Supervision Change and School Success
• Printed vs. Digital Resources in Learning
• Books vs. Electronic Resources' Impact on Learning
• Book Search on Research Design
• Article Search in Online Databases for Learning

2 Curriculum and the Purpose of Education

Before We Read

Before reading, spend some time thinking about the different decisions that teachers make everyday as they plan their classes. The materials teachers choose, the way they organize a class, what is emphasized or not, and what choices are offered to the students all shape the student experience. To be an engaged teacher, it is important to build a critical consciousness and the habit of making informed and deliberate instructional choices. Think about your favorite experiences in school. What choices did the educators make that contributed to your experience?

Critical Questions for Consideration

As you read, consider these essential questions: What are the goals of education? How is the experience of the students impacted by the curriculum and what it contains, what is missing, and the hidden lessons of school? In what ways are we, as educators, shaping our schools and communities through our curricular and instructional choices?

Curriculum The subjects, knowledge areas, and skills that students are expected to learn. The course of study.

Introduction to Curriculum

A simple definition of curriculum would be the subjects and the course of study in a school or college. Curriculum and instruction is an entire sub-field of education. Definitions of curriculum vary. The differences in the definition of curriculum from educator to educator provide clues to the varying stances on education and what it means to be educated. For example, curriculum may refer to knowledge students are expected to have or may refer to certain skills or competencies students should be able to demonstrate.

Explicit Curriculum The planned part of the curriculum which includes the topics, standards, and learning materials used in a course of study. The word explicit is used to differentiate and contrast it from the hidden curriculum.

Hidden Curriculum The lessons that arise from the culture of the school and the behaviors, attitudes, and expectations that characterize that culture.

Some educators describe the curriculum as a prescription, a series of interactions, lessons, and topics that ought to be included in an education. This is the most traditional definition of curriculum. A prescriptive curriculum would define bodies of knowledge and ways that it would be taught to students, serving as a master plan for teachers and adminstrators. For this group of educators, the curriculum is a series of experiences mapped across the students’ journey of growth preparing them for their adult lives. The mandated and planned part of the curriculum is sometimes referred to as the explicit curriculum . The explicit or planned curriculum refers to the topics and standards covered by a class and perhaps the documents that align with the standards such as lesson plans, textbooks, and other teaching aids.

An alternative way to look at curriculum is from the students’ lived experiences. This more holistic view of curriculum would include the lessons taught to students both formally and informally. From the student viewpoint, there is more that is learned in school than the planned subject areas. The implicit or hidden curriculum refers to the lessons and values that are not explicitly taught, but are implied and inferred by the students from classroom and school culture. The hidden curriculum is taught to students often unconsciously through how instructors interact with students: types of behavior the teacher praises, rewards, admonishments, or classroom dynamics.

Explicit vs Hidden Curriculum

The hidden curriculum can have positive and negative effects on students’ learning and development. Social skills, norms, and community values may be positive aspects learned at school. Schools teach our children how to behave in class and is the primary socialization for young people. Positive aspects of this might include how to dress, how to speak with authority or persuasively, and how to think critically.

However, the hidden curriculum can also affect students’ academic performance and reinforce inequalities. The hidden curriculum can be the place where biases or prejudice are inadvertently passed on. The critical educator must constantly be evaluating their approaches to make sure that their practices align to their educational philosophy. The hidden curriculum is not easy to change, because it is unconscious, subtle, and pervasive. It can reinforce stereotypes and inequalities, and impact academic performance.

Paulo Freire and other critical theorists use the term critical consciousness to depict individuals deep understanding of the world, the ability to identify policitical and social interactions, and their dedication to taking action against those systems. As an educator, having a critical consciousness means regularly inspecting your own practices, the materials you choose, and the way you structure your classes. What messages and lessons are you sending your students? For example…

Think about a newly certified Social Studies teacher teaching Global History. A Social Studies teacher is certified to teach all history from the beginning of time to the present day, plus other courses like economics, sociology, civics and government. While many civilizations are included in the curriculum as written by the state, you notice the textbook is much more detailed about the Roman Empire than the Chinese dynasties. Perhaps the instructor is at a disadvantage as well, because their own teachers didn’t spend a lot of time covering the topics, so while they have ideas and resources for how to add to a unit on Rome, they are less prepared to teach about the cultures of Africa or Asia.

• While this story focuses on Social Studies, each certification area might have its own issues. What type of similar issues about content may come up in other classes?
• What message does it send to students if certain topics are given unequal time in the school year?
• Do students know when a topic is their teachers favorite vs something they have to cover?
• What steps could you take to improve this situation?

What’s the hidden curriculum mean to you?

As an education student you have had the experience of being a student and very soon you will be visiting classrooms as an observer. The hidden curriculum has important implications for the socialization of students, but also potential for inequalities.

The hidden curriculum can have different aspects, such as cultural expectations, gender inequalities, racial biases, class and social privileges, and other aspects. Reflect on your experience in school, interactions with instructors and other school staff, and in classes.

Consider when hidden messages are embedded into the way content is communicated or taught. In mathematics education, a traditional way of thinking prioritizes the learning and following of the instructors rules and procedures for a type of problem. Students may be expected to solve all problems of a particular type in a routine way. Students who follow the procedure, but get the problem wrong may even receive more points than students who got the right answer but did it a different way. What message may this instructor inadvertently be teaching their students about creativity?

As you consider these questions, think both about your own experiences and your future classroom.

• How does the hidden curriculum impact students’ learning, attitude, and behavior?
• How does the hidden curriculum reinforce or challenge mainstream ideas and traditional power relationships?
• How can students and educators transform the hidden curriculum to promote more inclusive and equitable education?

The purpose of education

The purpose of education is a fundamental question that guides the design and implementation of educational programs. However, there is no single answer to the question of what the purpose of education is and what curriculum should be. In this chapter we will explore three major categories of curriculum that reflect different emphases on the purpose of curriculum: the learner-centered curriculum, the society-centered curriculum, and the knowledge-centered curriculum.

As you read these next sections, think about your definition of education. While it is practical to categorize educational approaches, remember that these emphases are not mutually exclusive or incompatible. In practice, educators adopt a combination or balance of approaches.

Learner Centered Curriculum

Learner-Centered Curriculum An approach to curricular design where students interests determine the direction and design of the educational experience. Educators customize learning paths for individual students.

Doctrine of Interest The belief that student interests should be the deciding factor about what to study.

The central premise of the learner-centered curriculum entails designing instruction for the student’s needs, interests, and abilities. By fostering student engagement, teachers hope to encourage more autonomy in students’ own learning, developing their student’s talents and potential.

Practitioners of the learner-centered curriculum work hard to individualize instruction, differentiate it to each student, allowing students to have choices in their learning. The learner centered curriculum values the diversity and uniqueness of each student and seeks to create a supportive and respectful learning environment.

One of the guiding principles of learner centered curriculum is the doctrine of interest . The doctrine of interest is the idea that students should study what they want to study. In this mindset, the curriculum is built based on the individual student’s interest. Proponents of the doctrine of interest argue that forcing a student to learn what they aren’t interested in is largely a waste of time. Critics contend that to truly embrace the doctrine of interest, the teacher must trust that the students have the ability to choose wisely what will benefit them the most in the future.

The role of the instructor in the learner centered classroom has multiple responsibilities. They must ensure a learning environment that anticipates students’ needs, interests, and appropriately challenges their abilities. While providing autonomy in the learning process, the instructor needs to encourage active participation, promote collaboration, and suggest activities that balance the learners’ interests.

Explore more:

Many Educational Psychologists and Philosophers have contributed to the framework of the Learner Centered Curriculum. Explore some of the educators that have contributed to this framework.

John Dewey was a major educational reformer and college professor in the early 1900s. He advocated for a progressive educational system. Dewey advocated for education to be a social and collaborative endeavor, with hands on and real-life applications.

Additional Resources on Dewey

John Dewey: Portrait of a Progressive Thinker | The National Endowment for the Humanities (neh.gov)

Maria Montessori

Maria Montessori was an Italian physician and educator. She advocated for a method of education prioritized respecting the individuality of children, independence, and stimulating curiosity.

Additional Resources on Montessori Maria Montessori – Quotes, Theories & Facts (biography.com)

Montessori Education Learner-Centered Curriculum in Practice

Prepared Environment In Montessori Education, the prepared environment is a classroom with materials and manipulatives that the students can see, select, reach themselves, and begin to explore.

Montessori education is an example of a learner-centered curriculum. It is based on the idea that children are eager to learn. Students at Montessori schools can initiate and direct their own learning in a prepared environment that offers materials and activities based on a variety of interests. In Montessori education, the prepared environment refers to a learning space with educational activities at the ready which can be chosen and utilized by the students.

Montessori education emphasizes hands-on learning and real-world skills, and allows children to work at their own pace on activities they choose. Montessori education fosters independence, responsibility, and self-discipline, as well as cooperation, collaboration and social skills.

Walking into a Montessori classroom, you would not see a teacher in the front of the classroom or children of all the same age. Instead, children would be grouped in similar age ranges, typically 2-3 years apart, and there would be several teachers in the room, who are called guides. Students choose their own hands-on learning activities around the five main topics of Montessori education: Practical Life, Math, Language, Sensorial, and Cultural. Students have long work periods of 2-3 hours where they can work through activity-based lessons, or they have the freedom to move between several activities.

Montessori education prioritizes hands-on manipulatives to aid student learning through experiences. A well-designed Montessori activity integrates hands-on learning, includes multiple domains of knowledge and integrates them in a holistic way. A student who is interested in the solar system might pick for themselves materials off a shelf. There would be physical manipulatives for them to interact with, such as wood blocks that symbolize the planets, or cards with facts and information about each planet. Students would have tasks to do, such as classifying planets in different ways or placing them in order. The instructor would observe the student, try to identify if and when to intervene, and may attempt to give the student a new prompt or challenge to work through with the materials they have chosen.

Critics of Montessori education point to the large cost of running these schools. With one adult per every twelve children, Montessori schools are often private schools with long waiting lists and expensive tuition.

Project Based Learning Learner Centered Curriculum in Practice

Project Based Learning (PBL) An approach to education where students learn by completing projects that are designed to mimic real-world situations.

Project Based Learning (PBL) is a method of teaching where students investigate or respond to an authentic problem or question over an extended period of time. Not simply tacking on a project at the end of a unit, practitioners of Project Based Learning carefully design a project so that through completion of the project students engage with the important knowledge and skills that students need to learn.

A key part of courses that utilize project-based learning is that students work on an authentic or real-world problem. Students may then collaborate to develop what information they need to know and want to know to address the question. This may include working with experts and community members, research, and collaboration. The teacher would help the students create a project plan on how they will collaborate and how they will present their work.

An instructor using a project-based approach would be responsible for working with groups of students. While the students would be expected to come up with the questions, finding resources, and applying that information to their project, the instructor would be intervening when necessary, suggesting additional framing questions, aiding students to find resources, and making sure groups are working well together.

Ill-structured problem A real-world problem that may not have a clean or simple solution. Ill-structured problems require students to do research and creative thinking.

Many proponents of project-based learning believe that the public product or presentation is a key factor in the success of project-based learning. The public sharing of projects reinforces the idea that the students are working on real-world problems and that their work is intended for an audience greater than just their own teacher or class.

Project Based Learning can be integrated into a single course or may be used as an opportunity to collaborate between multiple subject areas. Proponents of PBL argue that it encourages students to deal with complex and ill-structured problems , integrate information from multiple sources, and have ownership over their learning. Critics say that PBL takes significant resources and time and that it may lead to missed content or gaps in knowledge due to the time projects require.

Society Centered Curriculum

Society-Centered Curriculum An approach to curricular design where the needs of the society are prioritized. Lessons and subjects are organized based on community needs or problems.

Progressive Educational Movement A movement in educational history that rejected rote learning and recall in favor of experiential learning and authentic tasks.

The society-centered curriculum is based on the idea that education should be designed around society concerns and community issues. In this approach to education, the purpose of education is centered around future needs of the community. This approach focuses to prepare students for their roles and responsibilities as citizens and also to address the problems and challenges that society faces.

The society-centered curriculum shares many aspects with the learner-centered curriculum. Both could be classified as part of the progressive educational movement , a reaction to earlier knowledge-centered approaches that prioritized education. Both learner-centered approaches and society-centered approaches seek to focus education on the whole person, making it more democratic, and empowering students.

While the learner-centered curriculum emphasizes the individual agency of students, the society-centered curriculum emphasizes collective well-being and the needs of the community. The society-centered curriculum targets societal issues and trends. Practitioners that favor a society-centered approach may state among their goals preparing students to be engaged citizens and prepared to interact with their government, may focus on leadership, advocacy and teamwork as key part of their classroom, or may emphasize subjects and topics where they see a need or shortage of workers.

Explore More:

Many Educational Psychologists and Philosophers have contributed to the framework of the Society Centered Curriculum. Explore some of the educators that have contributed to this framework.

Paulo Freire

Paulo Freire was a Brazilian educator and a leading scholar of critical pedagogy. His book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, was published in 1968, and outlined a new relationship between teachers and students with students acting as co-creators of knowledge. Freire believed that education and critical thinking were the essential foundation to democratic societies.

[B]ell hooks was an educator and social critic. She is best known for applying critical theory to the American education system. As a black feminist and educator, hooks wrote about the influences of race, capitalism, and gender on the educational system. Her 1994 book, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom, reflected on her time in segregated black schools, and then her time at integrated schools. [H]ooks describes her time in all black schools as joyful and her time at integrated schools as traumatic, challenging educators to understand how the school culture could be oppressive for students.

[B]ell hooks was born Gloria Jean Watkins. She took on the name bell hooks, which was her Great-Grandmother’s. She chooses not to capitalize her name to focus on the message, not the person.

Freire’s Brazil Society-Centered Curriculum for Societal Change

Freire’s philosophy on education was a direct reaction to the historical context of Brazil in the 1970s. At this time, Brazil was a third-world country in the original meaning of the term, meaning that they were not directly aligned with either the United States or the Soviet Union during the Cold War. From 1964 to 1985, Brazil was under a military dictatorship that saw gradual democratization, eventually leading to a new democratic constitution and government in 1988.

Working as an educator during those times of change, Freire saw education as a means to overcome all types of oppression: political, economic, and intellectual. The goal of his pedagogies were the intellectual liberation of both the oppressed from the colonialist and capitalist social structures. He hoped education would change the people’s mentalities and processes so that a truly democratic society could emerge. Freire warned that an uneducated society would be susceptible to misinformation, and that democracy would be fragile if the population made decisions based on emotional thinking rather than critical thinking.

To Freire, education should empower the people to:

• Discuss the real problems of their time and come up with solutions.
• To empower students to reevaluate constantly using scientific and systematic methods.
• To view themselves as part of and in conversation with their society.
• To assume a critical attitude towards the world and in doing so be prepared to change it.

To underscore the differences between his model of education, which sees students as partners in the classroom and emphasizes the knowledge each student brings to the table, Freire derisively used the phrase “the banking model of education” to describe past practices. In the banking model of education, students are treated as empty vessels, needing to be filled with information. Freire believed this mindset reinforced racist colonial attitudes. In The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, he wrote about an alternative, which was to respect student knowledge, to include their voice in the curriculum, and to empower them. Freire’s pedagogy is a criticism and reaction to colonialism where only the dominant culture’s ideas, literature, and ways of understanding are valued. Critical pedagogies roots are, then, an act of decolonial resistance to colonialism and oppression

STEM and P-TECH in New York Society Centered Curriculum for Workforce Training and Modernization

Another way to think about a Society-Centered Curriculum is to forecast future needs of the community and to promote additional emphasis to those topics throughout the curriculum. Integration of STEM throughout the curriculum is not a new push. In 1957, as a result of the Soviet Union launching the world’s first artificial satellite, the United States education system promoted Science and Mathematics education as an urgent need for national security because of fears of Soviet scientific superiority.

Today, the emphasis on technology, high-tech manufacturing, and coding skills can be attributed to a few factors: the high paying coding and computer engineering positions, a recognition that all careers are being influenced by changing technology, and a desire to own the supply chain for high tech products such as computer chips. In 2022, Congress passed the CHIPS and Science Act, an incentive program to bring chip manufacturing to the United States. One of the beneficiaries of the CHIPs act is Upstate New York where the company Micron has promised to build a semiconductor fabrication facility.

P-TECH Program A high school to community college pathway program meant to encourage students to prepare for high-paying tech manufacturing jobs.

Even before Micron’s announcement, New York State had an established P-TECH program (Pathways in Technology Early College High School). The structure of P-TECH programs varies, however many are accelerated high school and Associate degree program where students can earn a degree in a high demand field such as advanced manufacturing or cyber security. After Micron’s announcement to build one of the largest fabrication facilities in the United States, New York State announced an additional $31.5 Million to create advanced manufacturing classrooms and create partnerships between K-12 Districts, Community Colleges, and the state’s Technical Colleges.

P-TECH programs try to put students in authentic challenges in a very career focused way. Students may be collaborating with industry professionals, researching current issues, and applying problem solving to real situations. Students in these programs still have to fulfill the same general education requirements as their peers but may adapt the curriculum to focus more on the critical thinking, teamwork, and communication skills needed in their chosen sector.

Advocates of P-Tech and STEM education programs highlight the potential for students to walk into high growth and high demand jobs and satisfy a current crisis where technical and advanced manufacturing jobs may go unfilled because there aren’t enough qualified applicants. Critics may worry that students are specializing in careers too early and that if other areas of education are neglected, that graduates of programs like the P-TECH programs might not have the broad education needed to switch careers later in life or be missing out on the broad exposure to a wide variety of topics.

Knowledge Centered Curriculum

Knowledge-Centered Curriculum An approach to curricular design that is subject-based and aims to teach students disciplinary knowledge.

The goal of the knowledge-centered curriculum is to teach all students a broad range of subjects that are considered essential. In a knowledge-centered approach, there is a canon of agreed upon essential knowledge or skills that are scaffolded across the educational experience. Traditionally, students are taught a variety of disciplines separately including science, mathematics, the humanities, and art.

The knowledge-centered approach is deeply rooted in traditional educational philosophies. The focus is on skills and facts from academic subjects. Although there may be some interdisciplinary work, the majority of the time is spent working with teachers who are themselves specialists in one area or another. Proponents of the knowledge-centered curriculum believe that a foundation in math, science, literature, and history is the best preparation for life because the broad skillset will allow the educated person to adapt to multiple environments. While the academic curriculum isn’t opposed to career training, proponents of the knowledge-centered curriculum prefer that specific career training comes after high school, and students are not identified and tracked into groups who will go to college and those who will go directly into the workforce. This is because the advocates for the knowledge-centered curriculum believe that broad exposure to academic disciplines is the goal. The argument is that a well-educated and well-rounded person is adaptable and prepared for the future.

Textbooks as curriculum

One example of a knowledge-centered curriculum is the textbook. Modern textbooks consist of a multitude of learning materials, multimedia, question banks, supplementary resources, and teacher guides. A giant industry, three or four leading companies produce the majority of textbooks in the United States. Many of the curricular battles play out in what is included in the textbook. There has been a drive to make sure more diverse voices are present in all textbooks, to try to make sure students are exposed to a wide variety of cultures. This push for inclusion has also prompted a backlash from parent groups and lawmakers who feel that a progressive agenda is being pushed on students.

While there are legitimate fears of over-standardization and teachers being forced to use scripted or canned curriculum, textbooks are a ubiquitous part of most American schools. Textbooks have strengths. They are organized and supply a structure and sequence for complex subject matters. Teacher certifications can be very broad, and instructors can find themselves teaching several subjects and will likely not have the time to assemble resources of the appropriate difficulty and scope for their students.

Critical teachers must be aware of the strengths and limitations of textbooks. Part of building a critical consciousness is being aware that textbooks may contain biased coverage of certain topics, may not have problem-solving or higher-level activities for students, and may limit students’ exposure to a wide variety of resources because the textbook becomes the single source of information. Expert teachers make informed choices with their text, including when to use it, when to supplement with outside resources, and how to structure class with or without it.

Many Educational Psychologists and Philosophers have contributed to the framework of the Knowledge-Centered Curriculum. Explore some of the educators that have contributed to this framework.

E.D. Hirsch Jr.

Essentialism

E.D. Hirsch Jr. was a professor of English at the University of Virginia. Hirsch put forward the idea that knowledge, not competencies or skills, should be the goal of curriculum. Hirsch’s Core Knowledge Curriculum lays out what he considered to be essential for Americans to possess in common. His 2020 book How to Educate a Citizen is a follow up to his 1987 book Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know .

Mortimer Adler

Perennialism

Mortimer Adler is author of the Paideia Proposal (1982) in which he laid out the need for a classical education focused on the perennial or everlasting ideas from the greatest thinkers and philosophers. Adler’s approach calls for everyone to study the great thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas Aquinas.

The Committee of Ten Standardization of the American High Schools

In 1892, a group of American educators were brought together to make recommendations on the future of high school education. Drawing heavily from college’s and universities, and led by the president of Harvard University, the Committee of Ten made recommendations to standardize the high school curriculum. The central part of the recommendation was to create a core curriculum that would prepare students for higher education and the workforce.

The committee’s recommendations centered on a core curriculum comprising of literature, classical languages, mathematics, science, and history. The recommendations of the committee of ten create a structure for high school that still might feel familiar to students. English, History, Math and Science. Math should be taught in a sequence of Algebra, Geometry, and Trigonometry. Science should be taught every year with a year each on Practical Geography, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics in that order. A major difference between the curriculum of the early 1900s and today would be the early curriculum’s emphasis on classical languages such as Greek and Latin. A high schooler would have taken both Greek and Latin, as well as two modern languages, usually French and German.

The committee of Ten’s work laid the foundation for the structuring of high school in the United States, setting the precedent for core subjects. While there has been extensive reforms to education over the years, the initial structure recommended by the Committee of Ten is still visible.

The legacy of the committee lives on in a few different ways. The High School schedule still bears a close resemblance to the committees recommendations, but perhaps the more important and enduring legacy is the idea that every student should take this college preparatory curriculum. An ongoing debate since the release of the Committee of Ten’s initial report has been the need to balance between standardized curriculums and the need for flexibility and student-centered approaches in modern education.

Advanced Placement (AP) Tests

Each year, more than a million students challenge demanding Advanced Placement tests in high school hoping to gain college credit for taking an advanced high school course. Run by the organization The College Board, the same organization that runs the SATs, Advanced Placement tests have become a benchmark by which students and schools are judged. These high stakes exams are marketed towards high schoolers and their parents as a way to show rigor in their high school education and a way to stand out in the college admission process.

To be able to teach an AP Course at a high school, the school must apply to the college board, submit a detailed curriculum outlining alignment to the AP test, and must choose a textbook that has been approved by the College Board. AP Courses are available in Math, Science, History, English, World Languages, and a newer capstone program in research methodology.

Students in AP Courses are challenged with a broad curriculum that includes all the topics typically taught in a college introductory course. Critics of the AP Exams have said that AP courses focus too much on a wide breath of materials, but lack the time to do a deep and thorough analysis of individual topics.

The number of AP courses taught and how the students score on them feature prominently in how American high schools are compared to each other in ratings such as the US News ratings of High Schools. School administrators attach letters in their students college applications stating how many advanced courses are available at their institutions. 35% of high school students who graduated in 2022 took at least 1 AP course, and college credit for high school courses has continued to grow as a trend and expectation in the American High School experience.

The International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma Program

The International Baccalaureate Organization is a non-profit educational organization based out of Switzerland. Since the 1960s, the IB Diploma program has been utilized in international schools catered to the families of multinational corporations, military families and mobile groups. In the United States, IB diploma programs are often used as an accelerated learning opportunity for exceptional students.

The IB Program consists of coursework in 6 main areas: Language, Second Language, Individuals and Societies, Mathematics or Computer Science, Experimental Sciences, and The Arts. In addition to the coursework, all students take a required Theory of Knowledge Course, have to do experiential learning through their Creativity Action Service requirement, and do an independent research project or extended essay of 4,000 words.

The purpose of the IB diploma is to have an internationally recognized qualification that could be recognized all over the world, to have an international intellectual framework, to educate the whole person, and to develop inquiry and thinking skills. The IB diploma is recognized and well regarded, with similar prestige for graduates as those who score highly on Advanced Placement or AP tests through the College Board. A major difference between the IB programs and Advanced Placement programs is that the AP Tests are single high stakes tests, while in the IB program testing is integrated throughout the school year, with external graders used to rate students and the schools.

For a high school to participate in the IB Diploma program, administrators and teachers must be certified by the IB Organization, attend additional professional development, and continual education.

Advocates for the use of IB program and its high standards praise the international focus, rigor, and emphasis on critical thinking and research. Critics bring concerns about the demanding nature of the IB curriculum and stress on students.

Teacher Agency in Curriculum

In education, the concept of curriculum is an important thing for the future teacher to consider. Educators must constantly be examining and reflecting on their curricular goals and analyzing their teaching tools and methods to make sure that all parts of the students’ experience, both the explicit plans and the hidden lessons conveyed match their purpose of education.

Remember the warning as we introduced the learner centered, society-centered, and knowledge-centered classification. While classification systems are convenient, the truth is that most educators will incorporate a spectrum of approaches, and the examples given in the chapter may represent the extreme implementation of these philosophies. The main takeaways may be the ideals that each approach embodies from individual empowerment and societal reconstruction to comprehensive knowledge and exchange. There are ways to give learners voice and control in their education that are not Montessori education or implementing full Project Based Learning.

The majority of the American Educational System is run majority in a knowledge-centered manner, with an articulated curriculum of facts, competencies, and skills that students should be able to demonstrate their mastery of. However, there is space in this curriculum for instructors to use their discretion and expertise.

As educators, it is those instructional choices that wield substantial power in shaping the student experience and our schools. It is essential to build a critical consciousness, continually evaluating practices and questioning the impact of those choices. By embracing this agency, educators can blend curricular and instructional philosophies and find their personal approach to meeting diverse student needs, to giving students voice and choice in the curriculum, and making sure that today’s students are tomorrow’s citizens and neighbors.

Being able to articulate one’s purpose of education is the cornerstone, and next is the critical awareness to make sure that the instructional methods and content match the stated purpose. As agents of change, educators have the opportunity to influence and shape curricular choices that shape our students, schools, and societies.

Activity: Your Philosophy of Education

What is your teaching philosophy? What do you feel your role should be as a teacher in our educational system? Teacher candidates are often asked to explain their philosophy of education as part of the application and interview process.

Your teaching philosophy should be 2-3 pages in length and written in first person and in present tense. You will want to include examples and descriptions so your reader can “see” you in your classroom—these may be specific teaching strategies you use, assignments you integrate, discussions you have with students, or the physical environment you create.

Some questions to get you started:

• Begin by making a list of what you feel education should do—what is the purpose of education or what are the goals of education? Are there specific educational theories that you believe in strongly?
• Make another list of teaching methods you feel best help you to reach this purpose. How do you interact with students? What does your classroom look and feel like? What kind of assignments do you believe are best? How do you support your students? How do you assess learning has taken place? What kind of strategies do you use to teach your specific discipline?
• Jot down two to three specific examples of your teaching methods and describe how you apply these in the classroom. What does this specifically look like?
• Also, write a justification of how you feel that your particular teaching methods help your students to reach your chosen goals of education. Why do you feel these are the best strategies for reaching the ideal education?

Once you have these portions written, go through these and select the teaching methods and the examples of these that you feel most fully convey your style of teaching.

Adapted from Writing a Philosophy of Education by the University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center was shared with a Creative Commons Attribution License .

ReStorying Education Copyright © 2024 by Ed Beck is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

education, community-building and change

What is curriculum? Exploring theory and practice

Curriculum theory and practice.the organization of schooling and further education has long been associated with the idea of a curriculum.  but what actually is curriculum, and how might it be conceptualized we explore curriculum theory and practice and its relation to informal education..

Contents : introduction ·  curriculum as transmission · curriculum as product ·  curriculum as process ·  curriculum as praxis · curriculum and context · curriculum and informal education · further reading · links  · how to cite this article

The idea of curriculum is hardly new – but the way we understand and theorize it has altered over the years – and there remains considerable dispute as to meaning. It has its origins in the running/chariot tracks of Greece. It was, literally, a course. In Latin curriculum was a racing chariot; currere was to run. A useful starting point for us here might be the definition offered by John Kerr and taken up by Vic Kelly in a standard work on the subject. Kerr defines curriculum as, ‘All the learning which is planned and guided by the school, whether it is carried on in groups or individually, inside or outside the school. (quoted in Kelly 1983: 10; see also, Kelly 1999). This gives us some basis to move on – and for the moment all we need to do is highlight two of the key features:

L earning is planned and guided . We have to specify in advance what we are seeking to achieve and how we are to go about it.

The definition refers to schooling. We should recognize that our current appreciation of curriculum theory and practice emerged in the school and in relation to other schooling ideas such as subject and lesson.

In what follows we are going to look at four ways of approaching curriculum theory and practice:

1. Curriculum as a body of knowledge to be transmitted . 2. Curriculum as an attempt to achieve certain ends in students – product . 3. Curriculum as process . 4. Curriculum as praxis .

It is helpful to consider these ways of approaching curriculum theory and practice in the light of Aristotle’s influential categorization of knowledge into three disciplines: the theoretical , the productive and the practical .

Here we can see some clear links – the body of knowledge to be transmitted in the first is that classically valued as ‘the canon’; the process and praxis models come close to practical deliberation; and the technical concerns of the outcome or product model mirror elements of Aristotle’s characterization of the productive. More this will be revealed as we examine the theory underpinning individual models.

Curriculum as a syllabus to be transmitted

Many people still equate a curriculum with a syllabus. Syllabus, naturally, originates from the Greek (although there was some confusion in its usage due to early misprints). Basically it means a concise statement or table of the heads of a discourse, the contents of a treatise, the subjects of a series of lectures. In the form that many of us will have been familiar with it is connected with courses leading to examinations – teachers talk of the syllabus associated with, say, the Cambridge Board  French GSCE exam. What we can see in such documents is a series of headings with some additional notes which set out the areas that may be examined.

A syllabus will not generally indicate the relative importance of its topics or the order in which they are to be studied. In some cases as Curzon (1985) points out, those who compile a syllabus tend to follow the traditional textbook approach of an ‘order of contents’, or a pattern prescribed by a ‘logical’ approach to the subject, or  – consciously or unconsciously – a the shape of a university course in which they may have participated. Thus, an approach to curriculum theory and practice which focuses on syllabus is only really concerned with content. Curriculum is a body of knowledge-content and/or subjects. Education in this sense, is the process by which these are transmitted or ‘delivered’ to students by the most effective methods that can be devised (Blenkin et al 1992: 23).

Where people still equate curriculum with a syllabus they are likely to limit their planning to a consideration of the content or the body of knowledge that they wish to transmit. ‘It is also because this view of curriculum has been adopted that many teachers in primary schools’, Kelly (1985: 7) claims, ‘have regarded issues of curriculum as of no concern to them, since they have not regarded their task as being to transmit bodies of knowledge in this manner’.

Curriculum as product

The dominant modes of describing and managing education are today couched in the productive form.  Education is most often seen as a technical exercise.  Objectives are set, a plan drawn up, then applied, and the outcomes (products) measured.  It is a way of thinking about education that has grown in influence in the United Kingdom since the late 1970s with the rise of vocationalism and the concern with competencies.  Thus, in the late 1980s and the 1990s many of the debates about the National Curriculum for schools did not so much concern how the curriculum was thought about as to what its objectives and content might be.

It is the work of two American writers Franklin Bobbitt (1918; 1928) and Ralph W. Tyler (1949) that dominate theory and practice within this tradition.  In The Curriculum  Bobbitt writes as follows:

The central theory [of curriculum] is simple.  Human life, however varied, consists in the performance of specific activities.  Education that prepares for life is one that prepares definitely and adequately for these specific activities.  However numerous and diverse they may be for any social class they can be discovered.  This requires only that one go out into the world of affairs and discover the particulars of which their affairs consist.  These will show the abilities, attitudes, habits, appreciations and forms of knowledge that men need.  These will be the objectives of the curriculum.  They will be numerous, definite and particularized.  The curriculum will then be that series of experiences which children and youth must have by way of obtaining those objectives.  (1918: 42)

This way of thinking about curriculum theory and practice was heavily influenced by the development of management thinking and practice.  The rise of ‘scientific management’ is often associated with the name of its main advocate F. W. Taylor.  Basically what he proposed was greater division of labour with jobs being simplified; an extension of managerial control over all elements of the workplace; and cost accounting based on systematic time-and-motion study.  All three elements were involved in this conception of curriculum theory and practice.  For example, one of the attractions of this approach to curriculum theory was that it involved detailed attention to what people needed to know in order to work, live their lives and so on.  A familiar, and more restricted, example of this approach can be found in many training programmes, where particular tasks or jobs have been analyzed – broken down into their component elements – and lists of competencies drawn up.  In other words, the curriculum was not to be the result of ‘armchair speculation’ but the product of systematic study.  Bobbitt’s work and theory met with mixed responses.  One telling criticism that was made, and can continue to be made, of such approaches is that there is no social vision or programme to guide the process of curriculum construction.  As it stands it is a technical exercise.  However, it wasn’t criticisms such as this which initially limited the impact of such curriculum theory in the late 1920s and 1930s.  Rather, the growing influence of ‘progressive’, child-centred approaches shifted the ground to more romantic notions of education.  Bobbitt’s long lists of objectives and his emphasis on order and structure hardly sat comfortably with such forms.

The Progressive movement lost much of its momentum in the late 1940s in the United States and from that period the work of Ralph W. Tyler, in particular, has made a lasting impression on curriculum theory and practice.  He shared Bobbitt’s emphasis on rationality and relative simplicity.  His theory was based on four fundamental questions:

1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?

2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes?

3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?

4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?  (Tyler 1949: 1)

Like Bobbitt he also placed an emphasis on the formulation of behavioural objectives.

Since the real purpose of education is not to have the instructor perform certain activities but to bring about significant changes in the students’ pattern of behaviour, it becomes important to recognize that any statements of objectives of the school should be a statement of changes to take place in the students.  (Tyler 1949: 44)

We can see how these concerns translate into a nicely-ordered procedure:  one that is very similar to the technical or productive thinking set out below.

Step 1 : Diagnosis of need Step 2 : Formulation of objectives Step 3 : Selection of content Step 4 : Organization of content Step 5 : Selection of learning experiences Step 6 : Organization of learning experiences Step 7 : Determination of what to evaluate and of the ways and means of doing it. (Taba 1962)

The attraction of this way of approaching curriculum theory and practice is that it is systematic and has considerable organizing power.  Central to the approach is the formulation of behavioural objectives – providing a clear notion of outcome so that content and method may be organized and the results evaluated.

There are a number of issues with this approach to curriculum theory and practice. The first is that the plan or programme assumes great importance.  For example, we might look at a more recent definition of curriculum as: ‘A programme of activities (by teachers and pupils) designed so that pupils will attain so far as possible certain educational and other schooling ends or objectives (Grundy 1987: 11). The problem here is that such programmes inevitably exist prior to and outside the learning experiences.  This takes much away from learners.  They can end up with little or no voice.  They are told what they must learn and how they will do it.  The success or failure of both the programme and the individual learners is judged on the basis of whether pre-specified changes occur in the behaviour and person of the learner (the meeting of behavioural objectives).  If the plan is tightly adhered to, there can only be limited opportunity for educators to make use of the interactions that occur. It also can deskill educators in another way.  For example, a number of curriculum programmes, particularly in the USA, have attempted to make the student experience ‘teacher proof’.  The logic of this approach is for the curriculum to be designed outside of the classroom or school, as is the case with the National Curriculum in the UK.  Educators then apply programmes and are judged by the products of their actions.  It turns educators into technicians.

Second, there are questions around the nature of objectives.  This model is hot on measurability.  It implies that behaviour can be objectively, mechanistically measured.  There are obvious dangers here – there always has to be some uncertainty about what is being measured.  We only have to reflect on questions of success in our work.  It is often very difficult to judge what the impact of particular experiences has been.  Sometimes it is years after the event that we come to appreciate something of what has happened.  For example, most informal educators who have been around a few years will have had the experience of an ex-participant telling them in great detail about how some forgotten event (forgotten to the worker that is) brought about some fundamental change.  Yet there is something more.

In order to measure, things have to be broken down into smaller and smaller units.  The result, as many of you will have experienced, can be long lists of often trivial skills or competencies.  This can lead to a focus in this approach to curriculum theory and practice on the parts rather than the whole; on the trivial, rather than the significant.  It can lead to an approach to education and assessment which resembles a shopping list.  When all the items are ticked, the person has passed the course or has learnt something.  The role of overall judgment is somehow sidelined.

Third, there is a real problem when we come to examine what educators actually do in the classroom, for example.  Much of the research concerning teacher thinking and classroom interaction, and curriculum innovation has pointed to the lack of impact on actual pedagogic practice of objectives (see Stenhouse 1974; and Cornbleth 1990, for example).   One way of viewing this is that teachers simply get it wrong – they ought to work with objectives.  I think we need to take this problem very seriously and not dismiss it in this way.  The difficulties that educators experience with objectives in the classroom may point to something inherently wrong with the approach – that it is not grounded in the study of educational exchanges.  It is a model of curriculum theory and practice largely imported from technological and industrial settings.

Fourth, there is the problem of unanticipated results.  The focus on pre-specified goals may lead both educators and learners to overlook learning that is occurring as a result of their interactions, but which is not listed as an objective.

The apparent simplicity and rationality of this approach to curriculum theory and practice, and the way in which it mimics industrial management have been powerful factors in its success.  A further appeal has been the ability of academics to use the model to attack teachers:

I believe there is a tendency, recurrent enough to suggest that it may be endemic in the approach, for academics in education to use the objectives model as a stick with which to beat teachers.  ‘What are your objectives?’ is more often asked in a tone of challenge than one of interested and helpful inquiry.  The demand for objectives is a demand for justification rather than a description of ends… It is not about curriculum design, but rather an expression of irritation in the problems of accountability in education.  (Stenhouse 1974: 77)

So what are the other alternatives?

Curriculum as process

We have seen that the curriculum as product model is heavily dependent on the setting of behavioural objectives.  The curriculum, essentially, is a set of documents for implementation.  Another way of looking at curriculum theory and practice is via process.  In this sense curriculum is not a physical thing, but rather the interaction of teachers, students and knowledge.  In other words, curriculum is what actually happens in the classroom and what people do to prepare and evaluate.  What we have in this model is a number of elements in constant interaction.   It is an active process and links with the practical form of reasoning set out by Aristotle.

Perhaps the two major things that set this apart from the model for informal education are first, the context in which the process occurs (‘particular schooling situations’); and second, the fact that teachers enter the classroom or any other formal educational setting with a more fully worked-through idea of what is about to happen.  Here I have described that as entering the situation with ‘a proposal for action which sets out essential principles and features of the educational encounter’.

This form of words echoes those of Lawrence Stenhouse (1975) who produced one of the best-known explorations of a process model of curriculum theory and practice. He defined curriculum tentatively: ‘A curriculum is an attempt to communicate the essential principles and features of an educational proposal in such a form that it is open to critical scrutiny and capable of effective translation into practice’. He suggests that a curriculum is rather like a recipe in cookery.

It can be criticized on nutritional or gastronomic grounds – does it nourish the students and does it taste good? – and it can be criticized on the grounds of practicality – we can’t get hold of six dozen larks’ tongues and the grocer can’t find any ground unicorn horn!  A curriculum, like the recipe for a dish, is first imagined as a possibility, then the subject of experiment.  The recipe offered publicly is in a sense a report on the experiment.  Similarly, a curriculum should be grounded in practice.  It is an attempt to describe the work observed in classrooms that it is adequately communicated to teachers and others.  Finally, within limits, a recipe can varied according to taste.  So can a curriculum.  (Stenhouse 1975: 4-5)

Stenhouse shifted the ground a little bit here.  He was not saying that curriculum is the process, but rather the means by which the experience of attempting to put an educational proposal into practice is made available.  The reason why he did this, I suspect, is that otherwise there is a danger of widening the meaning of the term so much that it embraces almost everything and hence means very little.  For example, in a discussion of the so-called ‘youth work curriculum’ (Newman & Ingram 1989), the following definition was taken as a starting point: ‘those processes which enhance or, if they go wrong, inhibit a person’s learning’. This was then developed and a curriculum became: ‘an organic process by which learning is offered, accepted and internalized’ (Newman & Ingram 1989: 1). The problem with this sort of definition, as Robin Barrow (1984) points out, is that what this does is to widen the meaning of the term to such an extent that it just about becomes interchangeable with ‘education’ itself.  More specifically, if curriculum is process then the word curriculum is redundant because process would do very nicely!   The simple equation of curriculum with process is a very slap-happy basis on which to proceed.

We also need to reflect on why curriculum theory and practice came into use by educators (as against policy-makers).  It was essentially as a way of helping them to think about their work before, during and after interventions; as a means of enabling educators to make judgments about the direction their work was taking.  This is what Stenhouse was picking up on.

There are a number of contrasts in this model of curriculum theory and practice as compared with the product model.  First, where the product model appeals to the workshop for a model, this process model looks to the world of experimentation.

The idea is that of an educational science in which each classroom is a laboratory, each teacher a member of the scientific community…  The crucial point is that the proposal is not to be regarded as an unqualified recommendation but rather as a provisional specification claiming no more than to be worth putting to the test of practice,  Such proposals claim to be intelligent rather than correct.  (Stenhouse 1975: 142)

Thus, in this sense, a curriculum is a particular form of specification about the practice of teaching.  It is not a package of materials or a syllabus of ground to be covered.  ‘It is a way of translating any educational idea into a hypothesis testable in practice.  It invites critical testing rather than acceptance’ (Stenhouse 1975: 142).

Second, and associated with the above, given the uniqueness of each classroom setting, it means that any proposal, even at school level, needs to be tested, and verified by each teacher in his/her classroom ( ibid : 143).  It is not like a curriculum package which is designed to be delivered almost anywhere.

Third, outcomes are no longer the central and defining feature.  Rather than tightly specifying behavioural objectives and methods in advance, what happens in this model of curriculum theory and practice is that content and means develop as teachers and students work together.

Fourth, the learners in this model are not objects to be acted upon.  They have a clear voice in the way that the sessions evolve.  The focus is on interactions.  This can mean that attention shifts from teaching to learning.  The product model, by having a pre-specified plan or programme, tends to direct attention to teaching.  For example, how can this information be got over?  A process approach to curriculum theory and practice, it is argued by writers like Grundy (1987), tends towards making the process of learning the central concern of the teacher.  This is because this way of thinking emphasizes interpretation and meaning-making.  As we have seen each classroom and each exchange is different and has to be made sense of.

However, when we come to think about this way of approaching curriculum in practice, a number of possible problems do arise.  The first is a problem for those who want some greater degree of uniformity in what is taught.  This approach to the theory of curriculum, because it places meaning-making and thinking at its core and treats learners as subjects rather than objects, can lead to very different means being employed in classrooms and a high degree of variety in content.   As Stenhouse comments, the process model is essentially a critical model, not a marking model.

It can never be directed towards an examination as an objective without loss of quality, since the standards of the examination then override the standards immanent in the subject.  This does not mean that students taught on the process model cannot be examined, but it does mean that the examinations must be taken in their stride as they pursue other aspirations.  And if the examination is a by-product there is an implication that the quality the student shows in it must be an under-estimate of his real quality.  It is hence rather difficult to get the weak student through an examination using a process model.  Crammers cannot use it, since it depends upon a commitment to educational aims.  (Stenhouse 1975: 95)

To some extent variation is limited by factors such as public examinations.  The exchange between students and teachers does not float free of the context in which it arises.  At the end of the day many students and their families place a high premium on exam or subject success and this inevitably enters into the classroom.  This highlights a second problem with the model we have just outlined – that it may not pay enough attention to the context in which learning takes place (more of this later).

Third, there is the ‘problem’ of teachers.   The major weakness and, indeed, strength of the process model is that it rests upon the quality of teachers.  If they are not up to much then there is no safety net in the form of prescribed curriculum materials.  The approach is dependent upon the cultivation of wisdom and meaning-making in the classroom.  If the teacher is not up to this, then there will be severe limitations on what can happen educationally.  There have been some attempts to overcome this problem by developing materials and curriculum packages which focus more closely on the ‘process of discovery’ or ‘problem-solving’, for example in science.  But there is a danger in this approach.  Processes become reduced to sets of skills – for example, how to light a bunsen burner.  When students are able to demonstrate certain skills, they are deemed to have completed the process.  As Grundy comments, the actions have become the ends; the processes have become the product.  Whether or not students are able to apply the skills to make sense of the world around them is somehow overlooked (Grundy 1987: 77).

Fourth, we need to look back at our process model of curriculum theory and practice and what we have subsequently discussed, and return to Aristotle and to Freire.  The model we have looked at here does not fully reflect the process explored earlier.  In particular, it does not make explicit the commitments associated with phronesis.  And it is to that we will now turn.

Curriculum as praxis

Curriculum as praxis is, in many respects, a development of the process model.  While the process model is driven by general principles and places an emphasis on judgment and meaning making, it does not make explicit statements about the interests it serves.   It may, for example, be used in such a way that does not make continual reference to collective human well-being and to the emancipation of the human spirit.  The praxis model of curriculum theory and practice brings these to the centre of the process and makes an explicit commitment to emancipation.   Thus action is not simply informed, it is also committed.  It is praxis.

Critical pedagogy goes beyond situating the learning experience within the experience of the learner: it is a process which takes the experiences of both the learner and the teacher and, through dialogue and negotiation, recognizes them both as problematic…  [It] allows, indeed encourages, students and teachers together to confront the real problems of their existence and relationships… When students confront the real problems of their existence they will soon also be faced with their own oppression. (Grundy 1987: 105)

We can amend our ‘curriculum as process’ model to take account of these concerns.

In this approach the curriculum itself develops through the dynamic interaction of action and reflection. ‘That is, the curriculum is not simply a set of plans to be implemented, but rather is constituted through an active process in which planning, acting and evaluating are all reciprocally related and integrated into the process’ (Grundy 1987: 115). At its centre is praxis : informed, committed action.

How might we recognize this? First, I think we should be looking for practice which does not focus exclusively on individuals, but pays careful attention to collective understandings and practices and to structural questions.  For example, in sessions which seek to explore the experiences of different cultural and racial groups in society, we could be looking to see whether the direction of the work took people beyond a focus on individual attitudes.  Are participants confronting the material conditions through which those attitudes are constituted, for example?

Second, we could be looking for a commitment expressed in action to the exploration of educators’ values and their practice.  Are they, for example, able to say in a coherent way what they think makes for human well-being and link this with their practice?  We could also be looking for certain values – especially an emphasis on human emancipation.

Third, we could expect practitioners committed to praxis to be exploring their practice with their peers.  They would be able to say how their actions with respect to particular interventions reflected their ideas about what makes for the good, and to say what theories were involved.

Curriculum in context

To round off this discussion of curriculum we do need to pay further attention  to the social context in which it is created.  One criticism that has been made of the praxis model (especially as it is set out by Grundy) is that it does not place a strong enough emphasis upon context.  This is a criticism that can also be laid at the door of the other approaches.  In this respect the work of Catherine Cornbleth (1990) is of some use.  She sees curriculum as a particular type of process.  Curriculum for her is what actually happens in classrooms, that is, ‘an ongoing social process comprised of the interactions of students, teachers, knowledge and milieu’ (1990: 5).  In contrast, Stenhouse defines curriculum as the attempt to describe what happens in classrooms rather than what actually occurs.  Cornbleth further contends that curriculum as practice cannot be understood adequately or changed substantially without attention to its setting or context.  Curriculum is contextually shaped.   While I may quibble about the simple equation of curriculum with process, what Cornbleth does by focusing on the interaction is to bring out the significance of context.

First, by introducing the notion of milieu into the discussion of curriculum she again draws attention to the impact of some factors that we have already noted.  Of especial significance here are examinations and the social relationships of the school – the nature of the teacher-student relationship, the organization of classes, streaming and so on.  These elements are what are sometimes known as the hidden curriculum.  This was a term credited to Philip W. Jackson (1968) but it had been present as an acknowledged element in education for some time before.  For example, John Dewey in Experience and Education referred to the ‘collateral learning’ of attitudes that occur in schools, and that may well be of more long-range importance than the explicit school curriculum (1938: 48).  A fairly standard (product) definition of the ‘hidden curriculum’ is given by Vic Kelly.  He argues it is those things which students learn, ‘because of the way in which the work of the school is planned and organized but which are not in themselves overtly included in the planning or even in the consciousness of those responsible for the school arrangements (1988: 8). The learning associated with the ‘hidden curriculum’ is most often treated in a negative way.  It is learning that is smuggled in and serves the interests of the status quo.  The emphasis on regimentation, on bells and time management, and on streaming are sometimes seen as preparing young people for the world of capitalist production.  What we do need to recognize is that such ‘hidden’ learning is not all negative and can be potentially liberating. ‘In so far as they enable students to develop socially valued knowledge and skills… or to form their own peer groups and subcultures, they may contribute to personal and collective autonomy and to possible critique and challenge of existing norms and institutions’  (Cornbleth 1990: 50). What we also need to recognize is that by treating curriculum as a contextualized social process, the notion of hidden curriculum becomes rather redundant.  If we need to stay in touch with milieu as we build curriculum then it is not hidden but becomes a central part of our processes.

Second, by paying attention to milieu, we can begin to get a better grasp of the impact of structural and socio-cultural process on teachers and students.  As Cornbleth argues, economic and gender relations, for example, do not simply bypass the systemic or structural context of curriculum and enter directly into classroom practice.  They are mediated by intervening layers of the education system (Cornbleth 1990: 7).  Thus, the impact of these factors may be quite different to that expected.

Third, if curriculum theory and practice is inextricably linked to milieu then it becomes clear why there have been problems about introducing it into non-schooling contexts like youth work; and it is to this area which we will now turn.

Curriculum as the boundary between formal and informal education

Jeffs and Smith (1990; 1999) have argued that the notion of curriculum provides a central dividing line between formal and informal education.  They contend that curriculum theory and practice was formed within the schooling context and that there are major problems when it is introduced into informal forms of pedagogy.

The adoption of curriculum theory and practice by some informal educators appears to have arisen from a desire to be clear about content.  Yet there are crucial difficulties with the notion of curriculum in this context. These centre around the extent to which it is possible to have a clear idea, in advance (and even during the process), of the activities and topics that will be involved in a particular piece of work.

At any one time, outcomes may not be marked by a high degree of specificity.  In a similar way, the nature of the activities used often cannot be predicted.  It may be that we can say something about how the informal educator will work.  However, knowing in advance about broad processes and ethos isn’t the same as having a knowledge of the programme.  We must, thus, conclude that approaches to the curriculum which focus on objectives and detailed programmes appear to be incompatible with informal education. ( Jeffs & Smith 1990 : 15)

In other words, they are arguing that a product model of curriculum is not compatible with the emphasis on process and praxis within informal education.

However, process and praxis models of curriculum also present problems in the context of informal education.  If you look back at at our models of process and compare them with the model of informal education presented above then it is clear that we can have a similar problem with pre-specification.  One of the key feature that differentiates the two is that the curriculum model has the teacher entering the situation with a proposal for action which sets out the essential principles and features of the educational encounter. Informal educators do not have, and do not need, this element.  They do not enter with a clear proposal for action.  Rather, they have an idea of what makes for human well-being, and an appreciation of their overall role and strategy (strategy here being some idea about target group and broad method e.g. detached work).  They then develop their aims and interventions in interaction.  And what is this element we have been discussing?  It is nothing more nor less than what Stenhouse considers to be a curriculum!

The other key difference is context.  Even if we were to go the whole hog and define curriculum as process there remain substantive problems.  As Cornbleth (1990), and Jeffs and Smith (1990, 1999) have argued, curriculum cannot be taken out of context, and the context in which it was formed was the school.  Curriculum theory and practice only makes sense when considered alongside notions like class, teacher, course, lesson and so on.  You only have to look at the language that has been used by our main proponents: Tyler, Stenhouse, Cornbleth and Grundy, to see this.  It is not a concept that stands on its own.  It developed in relation to teaching and within particular organizational relationships and expectations.  Alter the context and the nature of the process alters .  We then need different ways of describing what is going on.  Thus, it is no surprise that when curriculum theory and practice are introduced into what are essentially informal forms of working such as youth work and community work, their main impact is to formalize significant aspects of the work.   One of the main outcome of curriculum experiments within youth work has been work, for example in the field of health promotion, which involve pre-specified activities, visiting workers, regular meetings and so on.   Within the language of youth work these are most often called programmes or projects ( Foreman 1990 ).  Within a school they would be called a course.

What is being suggested here is that when informal educators take on the language of curriculum they are crossing the boundary between their chosen specialism and the domain of formal education.  This they need to do from time to time.  There will be formal interludes in their work, appropriate times for them to mount courses and to discuss content and method in curriculum terms.  But we should not fall into the trap of thinking that to be educators we have to adopt curriculum theory and practice.  The fact that so many have been misled into believing this demonstrates just how powerful the ideas of schooling are.  Education is something more than schooling.

We have explored four different approaches to curriculum theory and practice:

Curriculum as a body of knowledge to be transmitted . Curriculum as an attempt to achieve certain ends in students – product . Curriculum as process . Curriculum as praxis .

In a number of respects these different bodies of curriculum theory and practice link to the four main forces in North American curriculum-making in the twentieth century: the liberal educators; the scientific curriculum makers; the developmental/person-centred; and the social meliorists (those that sought more radical social change) (after Kliebart 1987).

We shouldn’t push the similarities too far – but there are some interesting overlaps – and this does alert us both to the changing understanding and to shifting policy orientations over time.

For the moment we are having to operate within a policy environment that prizes the productive and technical. Furthermore, the discourse has become so totalizing that forms of education that do not have a curricula basis are squeezed. The temptation is always there to either be colonized by curriculum theory or adopt ways of describing practice that do not make sense in terms of the processes and commitments involved. Kleibart’s analysis provides us with some hope – things will change. However, there is no guarantee that they will move in a more edifying direction.

Further reading and references

I have picked out some books that have the greatest utility for those concerned with informal education and lifelong learning.

Caffarella, R. S. (1994) Planning Programs for Adult Learners. A practical guide for educators, trainers and staff developers , San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 248 pages. Just what the title says – but has the advantage of many manuals in this area in that the underlying model is dynamic and interactive and avoids some of the problems with linear planning models. Clearly written with plenty of worksheets etc.

Griffin, C. (1987) Curriculum Theory in Adult and Lifelong Education , London: Croom Helm. 218 pages. Explores the use of curriculum theory and practice in non-school settings. Particular attention is paid to Illich, Freire, Gelpi etc.

Grundy, S. (1987) Curriculum: Product or Praxis , Lewes: Falmer. 209 + ix pages. Good discussion of the nature of curriculum theory and practice from a critical perspective. Grundy starts from Habermas’ theorisation of knowledge and human interest and makes use of Aristotle to develop a models of curriculum around product, process and praxis.

Houle, C. O. (1972) The Design of Education , San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 323 pages. Influential statement of theory and practice with regard to a fundamental structure for program design. Identifies basic situations (eleven in all) in which programs are planned and discusses their operation.

Kliebard, H. M. (1987) The Struggle for the American Curriculum 1893 – 1958 , New York: Routledge. 300 + xvii pages. A cracker of a book which charts the development of different curricula traditions and the political and social context in which they arose. He unpicks suspect notions such as ‘progressive education’ and demonstrates how Dewey in particular is positioned outside the main competing traditions. The movement between mental discipline, child centredness, scientific curriculum making (Taylorism) and social meliorism provides a very helpful set of insights into the theory and process of curriculum making within adult education.

Knowles, M. S. (1980) The Modern Practice of Adult Education. From pedagogy to andragogy 2e, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Cambridge/Prentice Hall. 400 pages. Pretty much the standard US work on practical program design in the 1970s and 1980s. Based around Knowles’ assumptions concerning the way adults learn with some leanings to behaviouralism. Part one explores the emerging role and technology of adult education; Part two organizing and administering comprehensive programs of adult education; and Part three reflects on helping adults learn. Extensive appendices provide various exhibits and additional models. See also Knowles (1950) Informal Adult Education. A guide for administrators, leaders and teachers , New York: Association Press (272 pages) for an early but still useful review of program design and implementation within an NGO (Chicago YMCA).

Langenbach, M. (1988) Curriculum Models in Adult Education , Malibar: Krieger. 228 pages. Argues that adult educators must have a sound understanding of program design. Reviews different models of curriculum theory and practice (largely US) and assesses some specific areas of practice such as continuing professional education and literacy education.

Ross, A. (2000) Curriculum: Construction and critique , London: Falmer Press. 187 + xiii pages. Helpful overview of the history of curriculum development in Britain

Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development , London: Heinemann. 248 + viii pages. Classic statement of a process approach to the theory and practice of curriculum making. Chapters explore the nature of the curriculum problem; the content of education; teaching; the school as an institution; behavioural objectives and curriculum development; a critique of the objectives model; the process model; evaluation; a research model of curriculum development; the teacher as researcher; and the school and innovation.

Thornton, S. J. and Flinders, D. J. (eds.) (1997) The Curriculum Studies Reader , London: Routledge. 416 pages. Excellent collection of 30 readings that provides both a sample of enduring work and more recent material around curriculum theory and practice. Includes: Bobbitt, Dewey, Counts, Kliebard, Eisner, Jackson, Schwab, Greene, Freire, McLaughlin, Ravitch, Glazer, Apple, Lieberman and more.

Tyler, R. W. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction , Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 128 pages. Important discussion of product-oriented curriculum building. The process is clear from the chapter titles: what educational purposes should the school seek to attain? How can learning experiences be selected which are likely to be useful in attaining these objectives? How can learning experiences be organized for effective instruction? How can the effectiveness of learning experiences be evaluated? How a school or college staff may work on curriculum building.

Wragg, T. (1997) The Cubic Curriculum, London: Routledge. 120 + x pages. Put aside the naff tittle – this book provides an accessible model of cur riculum building that attempts to incorporate a ‘vision of the future’; a recognition that there are escalating demands on citizens, a belief that (children’s) learning must be inspired by several influences; and lastly that it is essential to see the curriculum as much more than a mere collection of subjects and syllabuses. Wragg’s ‘cubic curriculum’ has three dimensions: subject matter; cross-curricular themes and issues that influence children’s general development; and the different methods of teaching and learning that can be employed. The concern is to provide a model for practice – so the book is a bit lightweight with regard to competing conceptualizations of curriculum and alternatives to curriculum thinking.

Aristotle (1976) The Nicomachean Ethics (‘Ethics’),  Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Barnes, J. (1976) ‘Introduction’ to Aristotle The Nicomachean Ethics (‘Ethics’),  Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Barrow, R. (1984) Giving Teaching back to Teachers. A critical introduction to curriculum theory , Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.

Blenkin, G. M. et al (1992) Change and the Curriculu, , London: Paul Chapman.

Bobbitt, F. (1918) The Curriculum ,  Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Bobbitt, F. (1928) How to Make a Curriculum , Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical. Education, knowledge and action research , Lewes: Falmer Press

Cornbleth, C. (1990) Curriculum in Context , Basingstoke: Falmer Press.

Curzon, L. B. (1985) Teaching in Further Education. An outline of principles and practice 3e, London: Cassell.

Dewey, J. (1902) The Child and the Curriculum , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education , New York: Macmillan.

Eisner, E. W. (1985) The Art of Educational Evaluation , Lewes: Falmer Press.

Foreman, A. (1990) ‘Personality and curriculum’ in T. Jeffs. & M. Smith (eds.) (1990) Using Informal Education.  An alternative to casework, teaching and control? Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Also in the archives .

Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Grundy, S. (1987) Curriculum: product or praxis? Lewes: Falmer Press.

Jackson, P. W. (1968) Life in Classrooms , New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Jeffs, T. & Smith, M. (eds.) (1990) Using Informal Education.  An alternative to casework, teaching and control? Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Jeffs, T. J. and Smith, M. K. (1999) Informal Education. Conversation, democracy and learning , Ticknall: Education Now.

Kelly, A. V. (1983; 1999) The Curriculum. Theory and practice 4e, London: Paul Chapman.

Stenhouse, L. (1975) An introduction to Curriculum Research and Development , London: Heineman.

Newman, E. & G. Ingram (1989) The Youth Work Curriculum , London: Further Education Unit (FEU).

Taba, H. (1962) Curriculum Development: Theory and practice , New York: Harcourt Brace and World.

Tyler, R. W. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Usher, R. & I. Bryant (1989) Adult Education as Theory, Practice and Research. The captive triangle , London: Routledge.

Acknowledgements:  Picture: rubber bands by eek the cat. Sourced from Flickr and reproduced here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0)  Licence. http://www.flickr.com/photos/eek/76924263

How to cite this article : Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000) ‘Curriculum theory and practice’ The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm .

© Mark K. Smith 1996, 2000

Last Updated on June 4, 2018 by infed.org

Created by the Great Schools Partnership , the GLOSSARY OF EDUCATION REFORM is a comprehensive online resource that describes widely used school-improvement terms, concepts, and strategies for journalists, parents, and community members. | Learn more »

The term curriculum refers to the lessons and academic content taught in a school or in a specific course or program. In dictionaries, curriculum is often defined as the courses offered by a school, but it is rarely used in such a general sense in schools. Depending on how broadly educators define or employ the term, curriculum typically refers to the knowledge and skills students are expected to learn, which includes the  learning standards or  learning objectives  they are expected to meet; the units and lessons that teachers teach; the assignments and projects given to students; the books, materials, videos, presentations, and readings used in a course; and the tests,  assessments , and other methods used to evaluate student learning. An individual teacher’s curriculum, for example, would be the specific learning standards, lessons, assignments, and materials used to organize and teach a particular course.

When the terms curriculum or curricula are used in educational contexts without qualification, specific examples, or additional explanation, it may be difficult to determine precisely what the terms are referring to—mainly because they could be applied to either all or only some of the component parts of a school’s academic program or courses.

In many cases, teachers develop their own curricula, often refining and improving them over years, although it is also common for teachers to adapt lessons and syllabi created by other teachers, use curriculum templates and guides to structure their lessons and courses, or purchase prepackaged curricula from individuals and companies. In some cases, schools purchase comprehensive, multigrade curriculum packages—often in a particular subject area, such as mathematics—that teachers are required to use or follow. Curriculum may also encompass a school’s academic requirements for graduation, such as the courses students have to take and pass, the number of credits students must complete, and other requirements, such as completing a capstone project or a certain number of community-service hours. Generally speaking, curriculum takes many different forms in schools—too many to comprehensively catalog here.

It is important to note that while curriculum encompasses a wide variety of potential educational and instructional practices, educators often have a very precise, technical meaning in mind when they use the term. Most teachers spend a lot of time thinking about, studying, discussing, and analyzing curriculum, and many educators have acquired a specialist’s expertise in curriculum development—i.e., they know how to structure, organize, and deliver lessons  in ways that facilitate or accelerate student learning. To noneducators, some curriculum materials may seem simple or straightforward (such as a list of required reading, for example), but they may reflect a deep and sophisticated understanding of an academic discipline and of the most effective strategies for learning acquisition and classroom management .

For a related discussion, see hidden curriculum .

Since curriculum is one of the foundational elements of effective schooling and teaching, it is often the object of reforms, most of which are broadly intended to either mandate or encourage greater curricular standardization and consistency across states, schools, grade levels, subject areas, and courses. The following are a few representative examples of the ways in which curriculum is targeted for improvement or used to leverage school improvement and increase teacher effectiveness:

• Standards requirements: When new learning standards are adopted at the state, district, or school levels, teachers typically modify what they teach and bring their curriculum into “ alignment ” with the learning expectations outlined in the new standards. While the technical alignment of curriculum with standards does not necessarily mean that teachers are teaching in accordance with the standards—or, more to the point, that students are actually achieving those learning expectations—learning standards remain a mechanism by which policy makers and school leaders attempt to improve curriculum and teaching quality. The Common Core State Standards Initiative , for example, is a national effort to influence curriculum design and teaching quality in schools through the adoption of new learning standards by states.
• Assessment requirements: Another reform strategy that indirectly influences curriculum is assessment, since the methods used to measure student learning compel teachers to teach the content and skills that will eventually be evaluated. The most commonly discussed examples are standardized testing and high-stakes testing , which can give rise to a phenomenon informally called “teaching to the test.” Because federal and state policies require students to take standardized tests at certain grade levels, and because regulatory penalties or negative publicity may result from poor student performance (in the case of high-stakes tests), teachers are consequently under pressure to teach in ways that are likely to improve student performance on standardized tests—e.g., by teaching the content likely to be tested or by coaching students on specific test-taking techniques. While standardized tests are one way in which assessment is used to leverage curriculum reform, schools may also use rubrics and many other strategies to improve teaching quality through the modification of assessment strategies, requirements, and expectations.
• Curriculum alignment: Schools may try to improve curriculum quality by bringing teaching activities and course expectations into “ alignment ” with learning standards and other school courses—a practice sometimes called “curriculum mapping.” The basic idea is to create a more consistent and coherent academic program by making sure that teachers teach the most important content and eliminate learning gaps that may exist between sequential courses and grade levels. For example, teachers may review their mathematics program to ensure that what students are actually being taught in every Algebra I course offered in the school not only reflects expected learning standards for that subject area and grade level, but that it also prepares students for Algebra II and geometry. When the curriculum is not aligned, students might be taught significantly different content in each Algebra I course, for example, and students taking different Algebra I courses may complete the courses unevenly prepared for Algebra II. For a more detailed discussion, see coherent curriculum .
• Curriculum philosophy: The design and goals of any curriculum reflect the educational philosophy—whether intentionally or unintentionally—of the educators who developed it. Consequently, curriculum reform may occur through the adoption of a different philosophy or model of teaching by a school or educator. Schools that follow the Expeditionary Learning model, for example, embrace a variety of approaches to teaching generally known as project-based learning , which encompasses related strategies such as  community-based learning  and authentic learning . In Expeditionary Learning schools, students complete multifaceted projects called “expeditions” that require teachers to develop and structure curriculum in ways that are quite different from the more traditional approaches commonly used in schools.
• Curriculum packages: In some cases, schools decide to purchase or adopt a curriculum package that has been developed by an outside organization. One well-known and commonly used option for American public schools is International Baccalaureate , which offers curriculum programs for elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools. Districts may purchase all three programs or an individual school may purchase only one, and the programs may be offered to all or only some of the students in a school. When schools adopt a curriculum package, teachers often receive specialized training to ensure that the curriculum is effectively implemented and taught. In many cases, curriculum packages are purchased or adopted because they are perceived to be of a higher quality or more prestigious than the existing curriculum options offered by a school or independently developed by teachers.
• Curriculum resources: The resources that schools provide to teachers can also have a significant affect on curriculum. For example, if a district or school purchases a certain set of textbooks and requires teachers to use them, those textbooks will inevitably influence what gets taught and how teachers teach. Technology purchases are another example of resources that have the potential to influence curriculum. If all students are given laptops and all classrooms are outfitted with interactive whiteboards, for example, teachers can make significant changes in what they teach and how they teach to take advantage of these new technologies (for a more detailed discussion of this example, see one-to-one ). In most cases, however, new curriculum resources require schools to invest in professional development that helps teachers use the new resources effectively, given that simply providing new resources without investing in teacher education and training may fail to bring about desired improvements. In addition, the type of professional development provided to teachers can also have a major influence on curriculum development and design.
• Curriculum standardization: States, districts, and schools may also try to improve teaching quality and effectiveness by requiring, or simply encouraging, teachers to use either a standardized curriculum or common processes for developing curriculum. While the strategies used to promote more standardized curricula can vary widely from state to state or school to school, the general goal is to increase teaching quality through greater curricular consistency. School performance will likely improve, the reasoning goes, if teaching methods and learning expectations are based on sound principles and consistently applied throughout a state, district, or school. Curriculum standards may also be created or proposed by influential educational organizations—such as the National Science Teachers Association or the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics , for example—with the purpose of guiding learning expectations and teaching within particular academic disciplines.
• Curriculum scripting: Often called “scripted curriculum,” the scripting of curriculum is the most prescriptive form of standardized, prepackaged curriculum, since it typically requires teachers to not only follow a particular sequence of preprepared lessons, but to actually read aloud from a teaching script in class. While the professional autonomy and creativity of individual teachers may be significantly limited when such a curriculum system is used, the general rationale is that teaching quality can be assured or improved, or at least maintained, across a school or educational system if teachers follow a precise instructional script. While not every teacher will be a naturally excellent teacher, the reasoning goes, all teachers can at least be given a high-quality curriculum script to follow. Scripted curricula tend to be most common in districts and schools that face significant challenges attracting and retaining experienced or qualified teachers, such as larger urban schools in high-poverty communities.

Alphabetical Search

Definitions of Curriculum

• A brief answer is hard to give as curriculum can be both written and unwritten. Essentially, curriculum is what the school is attempting to teach, which might include social behaviors as well as content and thinking skills.
• A course of study that will enable the learner to acquire specific knowledge and skills.
• A curriculum consists of the "roadmap" or "guideline" of any given discipline. Both the philosophy of teaching of the instructors as well as of the educational institution serve as two of the principles upon which a curriculum is based.
• A curriculum is the combination of instructional practices, learning experiences, and students' performance assessment that are designed to bring out and evaluate the target learning outcomes of a particular course.
• A detailed plan for instruction set by policy-makers.
• A selection of information, segregated into disciplines and courses, typically designed to achieve a specific educational objective.
• As applied to education, curriculum is the series of things that students must do and experience by way of developing abilities to do the things well that adults do in life; and to be in all ways the people that they should be as adults.
• Curriculum encompasses a variety of technical and non technical courses that are required to complete a specific degree.
• Curriculum includes everything that takes place, and everything that does not take place, within the purview of the school.
• Curriculum is a framework that sets expectations for student learning. It serves as a guide for teachers, a roadmap if you will, that establishes standards for student performance and teacher accountability.
• Curriculum is a group of courses offered in a particular field of study.
• Curriculum is a set of courses (offered by an educational institution) that are required to complete an area of specialization.
• Curriculum is a set of courses that comprise a given area or specialty of study. I see curriculum as the framework of content or ingredients that relate to that given area of study. Curriculum often conjures up words such as format, guidelines, content of "what to teach," and "what the student needs to learn." I see curriculum in both formal and informal ways, i.e., as a body of related information that an educator needs to convey, but with latitude in the strategies that an educator may use to convey the information.
• Curriculum is all of the courses of study offered ( science, math, reading, etc.) and those guidelines for teaching and learning set forth for a particular educational institution.
• Curriculum is any criteria, element, aspect, that aids in children's learning.
• Curriculum is specifically what you teach within each discipline and at each level.
• Curriculum is the "floor plan" or blueprint for what is going to be taught/learned/experienced ... in the academic classroom over a period of time.
• Curriculum is the delivery component of an institutions' educational mission, values, and theory of learning. It should follow in-depth discussions regarding "what a student should learn" and "how a student can best learn."
• Curriculum is the expectations for what will be taught and what students will do in a program of study. It includes teacher-made materials, textbooks, and national and state standards.
• Curriculum is the gathered information that has been considered relevant to a specific topic. It can always be changed or added to in order to become relevant to the times.
• Curriculum is the goals, assessments, methods, and materials used to teach a particular skill or subject. I include thinking under "skill."
• Curriculum is the guidelines by which different content matters are taught and assessed.
• Curriculum is the outline of concepts to be taught to students to help them meet the content standards.
• Curriculum is what is taught in a given course or subject.
• Curriculum refers to an interactive system of instruction and learning with specific goals, contents, strategies, measurement, and resources. The desired outcome of curriculum is successful transfer and/or development of knowledge, skills, and attitudes.
• Everything that is written, taught and tested in an educational program of study.
• General course design or syllabus, including goals and standards for proficiency.
• Guidelines for course instruction with attention to content, teaching style and academic standards.
• I feel that curriculum is anything which is planned and designed to sequentially improve students' knowledge and skills.
• I guess curriculum represents the courses offered for any educational program. The curriculum's design is based on what past/current educators believe is important for students to know. Importance may be based on content that is covered in the course which is (1) competitive with other institutions (2)usable in the future career, or (3) what the school/faculty feel is an interesting topic to cover. I'm sure there are other reasons for importance but none come to mind at this time.
• I suppose that my definition would speak not only to the objectives of the school program and the means by which those goals are to be reached, it would also include the philosophical construct underlying the goals and methods. For example, late in my career as a math teacher I became very interested in having the students "feel" mathematics. I wanted the students to experience the "why's" and "how's" that would build a higher level of understanding. In my view, curriculum is more than just what is done, it's WHY it's done ? on a deeper level than just to cover the text or get the kids to pass the DSTP.
• I think of curriculum in two ways. One: the organized method of placing nursing and related courses to meet the goal of successful completion of the nursing program competencies. The other view I have about curriculum is organizing courses around a faculty adopted conceptual framework. The faculty develop concepts and subconcepts. From this framework the course objectives/ competencies and learning activities are developed. There is a logical progression of learning.
• In a spectrum from abstract to concrete, curriculum lies in the fuzzy middle. The curriculum is sandwiched between abstract standards (usually content-based) and super-practical lesson plans and activites. Curriculum embodies the "what" and, explicity or implicitly, the "how" of teaching. Although usually containing "what" is to be taught, curriculum directly suggests or indirectly implies how it should be taught. For example, a curriculum with an inordinate amount of targets and content to be taught is more likely to be taught in a traditional (discussion or lecture-centered) approach than in a constructivist (pedagogy) approach.
• Officially, curriculum is the formal delineation of what is to be taught and how it is to be taught. Beyond that, however, there lots of questions and caveats regarding the formal, written curriculum as compared to the curriculum as actually delivered in the classroom. Is there, for example, a difference between what a school's official curriculum and another "hidden curriculum" representing what the system or the teacher "really" wants students to learn? If there is no formal curriculum document but students are still learning good things from teachers, is it meaningful to say that there is a de facto curriculum that has somehow come about to fill the void? To what extent is methodology a matter of formal curriculum and to what extent is it a matter of individual teacher academic freedom?
• On a concrete level, curriculum is that list of "stuff" we ask students to do to demonstrate learning and outcomes. It's also the list of "stuff" that we want to tell them.    On a less concrete--but even more important--level, curriculum is the philosophy that drives us to create the "stuff" above. That is, I think that curriculum is, at its best, a collection of "stuff" that is derived from carefully thinking about the big picture. What do we want students to know and how will it be relevant to them once they're gone? If it's not relevant to them, then the question is whether they became better thinkers. And if they are better thinkers, then I'd wager that the "stuff" was driven by the principles behind it (and not the other way around)
• Personally I think curriculum is a kind of design, setup, offering, or arrangement of subjects and courses.
• Scope and sequence or essential concepts and content that required in educational programs. Curriculum includes methods and materials used in delivery of essential content.
• Technically "curriculum" may be considered the "what" of an education-however it is I think intertwined with the "how" or the pedagogy/theory (of method) as well.
• The course an academic program follows.
• The curriculum is the program of instruction. It should be based on both standards and best practice research. It should be the framework that teachers use to plan instruction for their students.
• The dictionary definition of "curriculum" is the following: all the courses of study offered at a university or school. I totally don't agree with that. This would be a good definition for someone who is not in education to understand. I believe that it is more specific In my line of work objectives, performance indicators, philosophies and ways to approach these objectives are all aspects under the scope and sequence of a curriculum.
• the structure and/or materials used to convey information to students.
• The written curriculum is a plan of what is to be taught. It is a focus for what teachers do. Dr. Fenwick English, Purdue University, believes there are three types of curriculum: written, taught, and tested. They must be the same.
• What we teach, both written and unwritten