Thoughts on the Conceptions of Curriculum (Module 1)
Conceptions of Curriculum
 |
| Retrieved from: https://c.pxhere.com/photos/c9/cf/education_school_learn_learning_classroom-1201352.jpg!d |
The purpose of this Module 1 task is to develop a conceptual awareness of curriculum theory and design. In other words, to become familiar with the 'what' and the 'how' of learning.
Please keep in mind, I'm a new teacher, so I have limited professional experience, however, it has been valuable. This experience coupled with my understanding of key concepts presented in the readings have led me to a few interesting thoughts and further questions.
Prior to this course, I hadn't spent that much time considering the theory behind curriculum design. In my experience, I was more concerned with the practical application of what I'd become familiar with; in this case, the Ontario curriculum. After reading, I tried to group similar conceptions together in order to wrap my head around the main fields of thought, and how they relate to my own context. In essence, I will explain how certain conceptions have outlasted others. For this purpose, we have:
1) Humanistic/Student-Centered/Self-Actualization Conceptions (Eisner, McNeill, Sowell, Ornstein, Schiro)
2) Academic Rationalism/Scholar-Academic Conceptions (Eisner, Sowell, Schiro)
3) Standards-Based Approach (the Systemic Curriculum) (McNeil)
4) Social Reconstruction-Relevance (Eisner, McNeil, Sowell)
It should come as no surprise that in many academic contexts, the Academic Rationalism conception is dominant; especially in North America. For better or worse, we are a product of Literary, Economic, and Political traditions, which are a result of dominant civilizations (Greek/Roman Empires, 'Western Civilization'). As E. Eisner and E. Vallance state in their Conflicting Conceptions of Curriculum, this conception is "primarily concerned with enabling the young to acquire the tools to participate in the Western cultural tradition and with providing access to the greatest ideas and objects that man has created" (1974). Our broader understanding of Human history; how information/technological advances have been disseminated across space and time, helps us realize that this tradition would not have been possible if not for the positive influences of civilizations across the globe. That being said, this conception draws from significant accomplishments across a variety of fields, for example, Mathematics, Science, English, History. I would think that the very discoveries which have led us to this point in time, are worthy of passing down to future generations due to that very fact. Certain concepts and advancements have withstood the test of time. I believe that's what Eisner and Vallance were implying. What's more, the bodies of knowledge, for us, are becoming open to interpretation and revision. And as Nadya Al Mousa states in her paper, this approach is designed to "make the students thinkers; thinkers that can question, hypothesize, synthesize, and draw conclusions in any academic discipline" (2013). Surely, this is why the conception is so widespread; because it seems universal and somewhat dynamic, perhaps easier to implement.
As modern educators, we are fortunate enough to be alive in such a time that allows for critical, open reflection on what is necessary to teach, and how to teach it. As to why other conceptions, like the Humanist or Social Reconstruction approaches, are not as dominant is difficult for me to answer. Perhaps it's because they are newer approaches? Both approaches are products of the early 20th century. Or I wonder, could it be more difficult to match-up with a Standards-Based approach? This is where I'd like to tie in my context of practice, Ontario.
The benefit of this task is that it allows me to make connections to our current curriculum. I can reflect, and say to myself, "Interesting. This theory is evident in our curriculum through ___." As objectively as possible, I tried to examine our curriculum as a whole. Absolutely, the foundation is Academic Rationalism. We have specific subjects and content within each subject that is deemed critical for understanding. Moreover, the curriculum is linked to a Standards-Based approach. John McNeil in his Contemporary Curriculum in Thought and Action describes this is a series of prescribed goals and performance standards, linked to subjects and age groups (2009). In our curriculum, each grade and subject have overall and specific expectations that students should work towards. What's more, teachers are encouraged to assess students based on their progress in attaining these expectations. It's my understanding that this system allows teachers and administrators to held accountable for student achievement, and public education in general. In other words, it's easier to gather quantifiable data. That being said, I also see hints of Humanistic/Learner-Centered and Social Reconstruction conceptions.
In Ontario, and I think in Canadian education in general, there's been a push to center learning around the individual. To relate concepts to student experiences. In addition, the emphasis on Individual Education Plans, and presenting content in meaningful, accessible ways; where students experience learning in their own multi-modalities, is at its core, Humanistic. Strategies such as Inquiry-based learning and 'Makerspace' (Science, Tech., Engineering, Arts, and Math projects) attempt to recapture the student's love for learning and exploration. This, to me, is in the hopes of building confidence and providing students the tools to help themselves succeed in all aspects of life. As Eisner states, "It is child centered, autonomy and growth-oriented, and education is seen as an enabling process that would provide the means to personal liberation and development" (1974).
On the other hand, the Social Reconstruction approach has been picking up much steam, as of late. I can think of the push to "decolonize education" as some believe that traditional knowledge is a result of oppressive institutions. Critical Race theory, from what I understand, believes that there is an intersectional way of understanding racial inequities in society. It aims to reframe what we know and create a movement for 'Social Justice'. As Michael Shiro states in his book, Curriculum Theory, "Social Reconstructionists are conscious of the problems of our society and the injustices done to its members, such as those originating from racial, gender, social, and economic inequalities. They assume that the purpose of education is to facilitate the construction of a new and more just society that offers maximum satisfaction to all of its members" (2013). In Ontario, I can think of Project-Based learning which works to solve real-world problems, at the school, community, and world levels. I'm also reminded of culturally responsive education. This movement seeks to help students see themselves in their learning. This could involve incorporating texts from non-Euro-centric countries, highlighting the achievements of individuals who may sometimes be glossed over. There is also a call to present other ways of knowing, doing, and being in the world. This is certainly the case of First Nations, Metis, and Inuit education (one of my backgrounds). At its core, the push is to re-establish education in a more equitable light. A more holistic approach. How much of this would lead to a restructuring of society at large may be questionable. In short, Ontario's curriculum is on its way to becoming more holistic, as it implements pedagogies based on a wider variety of curriculum theories. The key question is, what is the right balance?
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 (Master’s Thesis)
Eisner, E., & Vallance, E. (Eds.). (1974). Five conceptions of the curriculum: Their roots and implications for curriculum planning.In E. Eisner & E. Vallance (Eds.), Conflicting conceptions of curriculum (pp. 1-18). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.
McNeil, J. D. (2009). Contemporary curriculum in thought and action (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Pages 1, 3-14, 27-39, 52-60, 71-74.
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.
1) Humanistic/Student-Centered/Self-Actualization Conceptions (Eisner, McNeill, Sowell, Ornstein, Schiro)
2) Academic Rationalism/Scholar-Academic Conceptions (Eisner, Sowell, Schiro)
3) Standards-Based Approach (the Systemic Curriculum) (McNeil)
4) Social Reconstruction-Relevance (Eisner, McNeil, Sowell)
It should come as no surprise that in many academic contexts, the Academic Rationalism conception is dominant; especially in North America. For better or worse, we are a product of Literary, Economic, and Political traditions, which are a result of dominant civilizations (Greek/Roman Empires, 'Western Civilization'). As E. Eisner and E. Vallance state in their Conflicting Conceptions of Curriculum, this conception is "primarily concerned with enabling the young to acquire the tools to participate in the Western cultural tradition and with providing access to the greatest ideas and objects that man has created" (1974). Our broader understanding of Human history; how information/technological advances have been disseminated across space and time, helps us realize that this tradition would not have been possible if not for the positive influences of civilizations across the globe. That being said, this conception draws from significant accomplishments across a variety of fields, for example, Mathematics, Science, English, History. I would think that the very discoveries which have led us to this point in time, are worthy of passing down to future generations due to that very fact. Certain concepts and advancements have withstood the test of time. I believe that's what Eisner and Vallance were implying. What's more, the bodies of knowledge, for us, are becoming open to interpretation and revision. And as Nadya Al Mousa states in her paper, this approach is designed to "make the students thinkers; thinkers that can question, hypothesize, synthesize, and draw conclusions in any academic discipline" (2013). Surely, this is why the conception is so widespread; because it seems universal and somewhat dynamic, perhaps easier to implement.
As modern educators, we are fortunate enough to be alive in such a time that allows for critical, open reflection on what is necessary to teach, and how to teach it. As to why other conceptions, like the Humanist or Social Reconstruction approaches, are not as dominant is difficult for me to answer. Perhaps it's because they are newer approaches? Both approaches are products of the early 20th century. Or I wonder, could it be more difficult to match-up with a Standards-Based approach? This is where I'd like to tie in my context of practice, Ontario.
The benefit of this task is that it allows me to make connections to our current curriculum. I can reflect, and say to myself, "Interesting. This theory is evident in our curriculum through ___." As objectively as possible, I tried to examine our curriculum as a whole. Absolutely, the foundation is Academic Rationalism. We have specific subjects and content within each subject that is deemed critical for understanding. Moreover, the curriculum is linked to a Standards-Based approach. John McNeil in his Contemporary Curriculum in Thought and Action describes this is a series of prescribed goals and performance standards, linked to subjects and age groups (2009). In our curriculum, each grade and subject have overall and specific expectations that students should work towards. What's more, teachers are encouraged to assess students based on their progress in attaining these expectations. It's my understanding that this system allows teachers and administrators to held accountable for student achievement, and public education in general. In other words, it's easier to gather quantifiable data. That being said, I also see hints of Humanistic/Learner-Centered and Social Reconstruction conceptions.
In Ontario, and I think in Canadian education in general, there's been a push to center learning around the individual. To relate concepts to student experiences. In addition, the emphasis on Individual Education Plans, and presenting content in meaningful, accessible ways; where students experience learning in their own multi-modalities, is at its core, Humanistic. Strategies such as Inquiry-based learning and 'Makerspace' (Science, Tech., Engineering, Arts, and Math projects) attempt to recapture the student's love for learning and exploration. This, to me, is in the hopes of building confidence and providing students the tools to help themselves succeed in all aspects of life. As Eisner states, "It is child centered, autonomy and growth-oriented, and education is seen as an enabling process that would provide the means to personal liberation and development" (1974).
On the other hand, the Social Reconstruction approach has been picking up much steam, as of late. I can think of the push to "decolonize education" as some believe that traditional knowledge is a result of oppressive institutions. Critical Race theory, from what I understand, believes that there is an intersectional way of understanding racial inequities in society. It aims to reframe what we know and create a movement for 'Social Justice'. As Michael Shiro states in his book, Curriculum Theory, "Social Reconstructionists are conscious of the problems of our society and the injustices done to its members, such as those originating from racial, gender, social, and economic inequalities. They assume that the purpose of education is to facilitate the construction of a new and more just society that offers maximum satisfaction to all of its members" (2013). In Ontario, I can think of Project-Based learning which works to solve real-world problems, at the school, community, and world levels. I'm also reminded of culturally responsive education. This movement seeks to help students see themselves in their learning. This could involve incorporating texts from non-Euro-centric countries, highlighting the achievements of individuals who may sometimes be glossed over. There is also a call to present other ways of knowing, doing, and being in the world. This is certainly the case of First Nations, Metis, and Inuit education (one of my backgrounds). At its core, the push is to re-establish education in a more equitable light. A more holistic approach. How much of this would lead to a restructuring of society at large may be questionable. In short, Ontario's curriculum is on its way to becoming more holistic, as it implements pedagogies based on a wider variety of curriculum theories. The key question is, what is the right balance?
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 (Master’s Thesis)
Eisner, E., & Vallance, E. (Eds.). (1974). Five conceptions of the curriculum: Their roots and implications for curriculum planning.In E. Eisner & E. Vallance (Eds.), Conflicting conceptions of curriculum (pp. 1-18). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.
McNeil, J. D. (2009). Contemporary curriculum in thought and action (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Pages 1, 3-14, 27-39, 52-60, 71-74.
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.
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteI really liked hearing your perspective on this and your experiences teaching in Ontario so far. The way you ended your post really stood out to me. You said “In short, Ontario's curriculum is on its way to becoming more holistic, as it implements pedagogies based on a wider variety of curriculum theories. The key question is, what is the right balance?”. In my post I mentioned how I saw value in what many of the prevailing curriculum conceptions deemed the purpose of education. It is no surprise to me that you are noticing aspects from several curriculum theories at play in the Ontario curriculum.
The question you pose about balance is great, yet I don’t think we’re going to find an answer for this any time soon, at least not one that everyone can agree on. I think as educators we manage to find a balance that works for us inside our classrooms. This balance is likely shift throughout our careers as we have new experiences or work for different schools. It is important to acknowledge that what works for one person may not work the same for another. The important thing is that we approach teaching and learning with a growth-mindset. Furthermore, we must work together with our colleagues ,who may have different educational views to our own, in order to help students succeed.
Thanks again for sharing, your post was very thought provoking.
-Danny
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your blog and found your thoughts on equity very important. I truly believe that in order to create a world that is equitable, we as educators need to foster an environment that accepts everyone as equal regardless of skin colour or culture. I believe that the education system needs to address the historical inequalities and provide the opportunities for students to address how past inequalities can be changed in the future. I truly believe that this is one method to establish a community of respect for all people.
In addition, to equity, I was enjoyed reading your argument regarding student centered learning. As an educator of children with special needs, I believe that the school system needs establish other methods of learning for children who are unable to learn in a traditional format. Although the system of educating children with special needs is not perfect, it has come a long way. I believe that education is more open to students with exceptionalities and provides the opportunity for the students to learn based on what method of teaching works for them. It is important for me that the school system provide children with special needs with curriculum that is effective for these students to learn and to succeed to the best of their ability.