PME 810: Module One

After completing the readings, I ended up with this graphic organizer that attempts to summarize the overlap between the various categorizations of the conceptions of curriculum. I tried to include the foundational points of each author's analysis while still forming links to the work of the others.

I did, however, feel that the various authors’ identification of ‘technological curriculum’ as a main concept type did not make sense in the context of the other identified conceptions. It seems out of place and more like a specific sub-section of one of the other concept areas. The best explanation for this was in Sowell’s work where the idea of technologically-based curriculum was tied to the cognitive-focused category; this allows for the method of communicating learning to be grouped within the larger question of how students learn. As a result, I left the technological point out of my organizer.

So, why is it that some of the conceptions are lasting and others are only transitory? To me, there is no single answer.

As Al Mousa suggests in her table (p. 34), some conceptions were simply replaced by a more evolved, perhaps more inclusive terminology as in the case of ‘self-actualization’ becoming ‘personal success or commitment.’ While this does point to alterations and evolution, the conceptualisation is still general the same. Curriculum openly rooted in the feminist school would, I would guess, be viewed as challenging to the status quo to a point that would be uncomfortable for many families if not overtly undesirable. Even within traditional, canonical curriculum there is already much chaffing at new reforms that include historical fact regarding the lives of feminist (and other, such as aboriginal) experiences. Perhaps it is simply that political bodies responsible for setting curriculum are unwilling to stake future election results on such highly-charged terminology regardless of benefits. By a similar notion, the idea of critically exploring the reality of teachers ‘on the ground’ and the realistic experiences of students in overcrowded, under-staffed classrooms might present a punishing assessment of ministry decisions and programming. Perhaps, however, it is simply that the prescribed feminist and exploratory conceptualizations could exist as small shifts of content within the broader curricular concept categories.

As to why the other conceptualizations last – the only common thread that I can see is the reliance on past production of knowledge. All three concept areas here lean on the exploration of existing knowledge whether in the form of historical study, classicist literature, or the teaching of effective research practices and independent exploration. The cynicism in me says that it is cheaper for students to explore what has been done, to read what has already been thought than it is to discover and fail and find out for themselves. That’s not really fair, however, considering that the constructivist or cognitive-focused conceptualization could well incorporate inquiry-based learning. The resilience of the politically-based, ideological category bears no further insight than the knowledge that political parties set curriculum at the provincial level and face re-election every four years.

In terms of how I would use these conceptions of curriculum to analyze and plan work within my own fields, I think the teacher-author portion of my work would benefit most obviously. In that capacity I am writing materials (from lesson plans to assessments to complete units and courses) for a very broad audience of curriculum environments. I need to be able to understand not just what a given province or state wants taught at what age level, but also the spirit and context of that content within the larger curriculum conceptualization. To use Al Mousa’s example, one curriculum might value applied skills while another more highly values theory, even though both programs of study teach the same subject matter to the same age group.

I’m not really sure about method, however. How do I tackle the understanding of such a huge spectrum of curriculum categorizations, particularly for my social studies products? My clients to date hail from all Canadian provinces and territories as well as 42 U.S. states. Perhaps I can start by using the graphic organizer I created above to peg each province or state?

Sources:

Al Mousa, N. (2013). An examination of cad use in two interior design programs from the perspectives of curriculum and instructors, pp. 21-37.
Brown, G. T. L. (2006). Conceptions of curriculum: A framework for understanding New Zealand’s Curriculum Framework and teachers’ opinions. Curriculum Matters, 2, 164-181.
Eisner, E., & Vallance, E. (Eds.). (1974). Five conceptions of the curriculum: Their roots and implications for curriculum planning. In E. Eisner & E. Vallance (Eds.), Conflicting conceptions of curriculum (pp. 1-18). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.
McNeil, J. D. (2009). Contemporary curriculum in thought and action (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Pages 1, 3-14, 27-39, 52-60, 71-74.
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2013). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Schiro, M. S. (2013). Introduction to the curriculum ideologies. In M. S. Schiro, Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns (2nd ed., pp. 1-13). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sowell, E. J. (2005). Curriculum: An integrative introduction (3rd ed., pp. 37-51). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Vallance. (1986). A second look at conflicting conceptions of the curriculum. Theory into Practice, 25(1), 24-30.