ECS 210 Response #2 The theories of curriculum.

 Curriculum is a transmission, product, process, and praxis. Smith articulates curriculum as a complex piece of material, which is interpreted in many different ways. However, as Smith stated: we cannot assume that educators must adopt curricula theory and practice, but curriculum is still a useful tool because it is informative. Now, we know more about the four curriculum theories, how about we explore the benefits and disadvantages of all four (Smith, 2000, p. 1 – 2).

Curriculum as a transmission (Syllabus) is purely taught for the content, and thus, the content is where the main focus is. This causes less of a focus on a student’s development and relationship because of prioritizing content transmission. This unfortunately strictly, causes educators to plan with content considerations. However, using a Syllabus will provide better communication, organization, and structure for students, but a Syllabus did not inform or explain topic importance and order of study. Curriculum as a product functions like a factory because: objectives are decided, a lesson plan created, applied, and finally, graded outcomes produce products. The benefit of this theory is that it is well organized, structured, and systematic; especially, since it produces a clear notion of outcome. However, the disadvantages to this theory are: that the program is highly prioritized, the students lose a say or voice, the students follow a procedure, which is the teacher’s method, the students must meet behavioural objectives for lesson plan and student success, little to no opportunity for conversation and interaction (Formative) affect, and lastly, it can turn educators into technicians, which are judged by the results of their actions. Curriculum as a process is merely just the interactions between the instructors, students, and content or knowledge. This theory as a number of benefits: experimentation, different and dynamic experiences in the classroom, outcomes are no longer very important, and lastly, the students are not objectified for content absorbing. However, the disadvantages are: a lack in structure or uniformity, not enough attention is directed at the learning environment or context, too much of a reliance on quality educators, and finally, there is no explicit practical thinking being demonstrated or associated. Curriculum as a praxis (an evolution of the process theory) makes explicit connections to emancipation. This theory’s benefit is the reliance on action and reflection, which causes a passive improvement or change over time; this includes planning, actions, and evaluation being grouped into a process. However, the disadvantages are: a lack of focusing on collective situations, practices, and structural questions, no attention paid to commitments to instructor’s practice and values, and lastly, no exploration of an educator’s practice with their peers, so the main drawback is a lack of reflection, collective focus, and demonstration of a teacher’s values and practice. Now, we know more about the benefits and disadvantages, of the four curriculum theories. Let us explore some connections to the author’s life experience (Smith, 2000, p. 1 – 10).

The author experienced curriculum as a product and transmission. During elementary and middle years, the author experienced curriculum as a product. However mainly, curriculum as transmission was experienced in secondary and post-secondary education. When the author was in elementary, he found that the product theory helped organize and structure the classroom and content. However, there was an over reliance on ‘Summative’ assessment, and this caused a division between students achievement. Most of the students were under performing and were bullied by the teacher for it. The author found that this made content organization and presentation possible, but it was impossible for students to have a say, create an alternative or make changes for improvement, and lastly,  for students to develop and learn in their own ways. As an example, Smith described curriculum as a product: “was heavily influenced by the development of management thinking and practice.” In secondary education, the author found he experienced curriculum as transmission, and this made organization, communication, planning and expectations possible. However, the author noticed that content considerations were overly prioritized, educators were more concerned with content absorption, and finally, the course was static. In the end, curriculum as transmission made a dynamic and fluid classroom impossible (Smith, 2000, p. 1 – 5).

References

Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000) Curriculum theory and practice: the encyclopaedia of         Informal education. Retrieved from www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *