Curriculum Theory and Practice

The four models of curriculum as described in Smith’s article, ‘”Curriculum Theory and Practice”, are as follows: curriculum as a body of knowledge to be transmitted; curriculum as an attempt to achieve certain ends in students (a product); curriculum as a process; and curriculum as praxis. 

The first model, which sees curriculum as something to be transmitted (a syllabus) sets out the areas that may be examined in a course. Its main (only) focus is content and it relies quite a bit on the setting of behavioral objectives. A syllabus, however, can be quite general and often does not elaborate on what areas of study will be most important or the order they will be studied in. As well, as the article mentions, those who follow this model often use a ‘logical’ approach to the subject, teaching in the same order as the contents of the textbook they are using or a class they have previously participated in. Although this approach helps to focus on the content/body of knowledge that one is trying to transmit, it also can be limiting as this is the only thing they will focus on; it can be limiting and ineffective in a sense because it limits teachers to focusing on what they need to teach rather than how they can most effectively do so.

One of the most dominant models of curriculum is seeing curriculum as a product. With this model, the obvious focus is on the outcomes (products) of the applied objectives. This model mirrors industrial management strategies. It focuses on what needs to be taught in order for objectives to be met, and it can be seen as a systematic study/technical exercise. For this reason, it can be critiqued as it is not person-centered and it doesn’t focus on social aspects, rather it focuses on a plan for what needs to be accomplished in a certain amount of time; and for this reason, it can be quite limiting as it limits the voice and input of the learners – it does not allow for person-centered education and/or differentiated education. As well, since it focuses on certain outcomes, this model of curriculum can overlook other outcomes (i.e. things learned through the hidden curriculum, null curriculum, lived curriculum). One of the benefits of this model of education is how it provides clear outcomes that allow the content and methods of teaching to be organized and it allows one to easily evaluate the results. 

The third model of curriculum discussed in this article is curriculum as a process. This model sees curriculum as interactions that occur (between instructors, learners, and knowledge) rather than as something to implement. This model acknowledges that teachers enter the classroom with the knowledge of what they hope to teach and an idea/plan for how they will do that, which sets this model apart from things like informal education or a hidden curriculum (things that aren’t taught explicitly, but are learned from observations and experiences in the classroom). A downfall of this sort of definition of curriculum is that it can be too broad, and its meaning can be widened to almost any extent. It also makes it hard to evaluate learning and outcomes. As well, this model rests entirely upon the strengths and skills of the teachers (the quality of their teaching skills).

The final model of curriculum that the article discusses is curriculum as a praxis. This can be seen in some ways as a development of the process model of curriculum. In this model, the curriculum develops through the interaction of actions and reflection upon those actions. It is more than a set of plans, as it includes the interactions between “planning, acting, and evaluating” (Smith, 10). Simply put, it is curriculum through informed and committed actions. It focuses on individuals while also paying attention to the collective understandings, social injustices, and the exploration of different cultures/ways of thinking. 

In my own schooling, the syllabus model and the product model were most prevalent. This did not allow for many opportunities for student-centered learning. As well, it added stress on students with strict deadlines for what needed to be taught by when; and it did not allow for much flexibility in having in-depth discussions on the topics or elaborating to make it more relevant to the social context of the classroom and community. In other words, it did not allow an opportunity to stray far from the explicit curriculum. However, these models allowed for specific outcomes for assignments and tests, allowing students to prepare accordingly by working on the needed skills/knowledge. It also allowed for structure within the school year, knowing in advance what to expect and when certain things were expected of you.