The views on curriculum theory have changed, as the view on the purpose of education has changed. This very readable paper, takes us through definitions of curriculum through the ages, their influences and the possible impacts of their adoption on practice. It also looks at the consequence of taking views on curriculum from formal to informal learning.
Four views of curriculum theory and practice were examined in detail:
- 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.
Comparison of curriculum as product and curriculum as process show both have issues; for instance, the former as it potentially lacks sufficient reference to local context; the later as it is incompatible with assessment (without loss of quality), resists attempts at uniformity (if needed) and quality rests heavily on the quality of the teacher.
Curriculum as praxis aims to see the curriculum always related to the widest possible context (e.g. race, abuse of power, inequality); the paper suggests how we might spot evidence of this approach to curriculum in practice.
Usefully, Smith does talk about the difficulties in definitions made so broad that they are meaningless: ‘… a danger of widening the meaning of the term so much that it embraces almost everything and hence means very little.’; and redefining terms to suit different purposes forgetting to what they owe their existence: ‘Curriculum theory and practice only makes sense when considered alongside notions like class, teacher, course, lesson and so on. …It is not a concept that stands on its own. It developed in relation to teaching and within particular organizational relationships and expectations.’
References
Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000) ‘Curriculum theory and practice’ The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm. (Accessed: 10/10/2020)
