A Critical Look Into Traditional Curriculum

As a student who was put though the Canadian public school system growing up, I had a limited perspective as to what curriculum was, and how it may differ depending on where you live.  My experience with curriculum in school was very similar to the Tyler rationale.  We were told our aims and objectives at the beginning of the course, introduced to the content, taught the content through note-taking and projects, and then often assessed on our knowledge of said content through exams and tests.  For many of my classmates this way of learning made sense and worked for them, however I was unfortunately not one of those students.  I struggled with test anxiety throughout school, especially in the subjects of math and science, and this often reflected on lower marks in those classes.  This was not due to a lack of studying, completion of homework, or classroom focus, in fact it was quite the opposite.  I had tutors consistently throughout high school in an attempt to better myself in these courses, as well as always took the opportunities presented to me to have one-on-one time with my teachers (such as lunch hour help with the course content or coming in for help during my spares).  It seemed the more I focused on how I would perform on these end exams, the worse I would do.  I was unable to focus during the tests, constantly getting distracted by the turning of pages around me wondering, “how are they going so fast?”, and “has anyone noticed that I’m still on the same page?”.  I was unable to turn my attention from the clicking of the clock to the questions on the page, even though I knew I needed to complete them.  I was however fortunate enough to have many teachers who allowed me to take tests in separate rooms or offered me second chances on unit tests in my later years.

For students such as myself who do better with project based learning and assessments, the Tyler rationale is not a great fit.  I was able to shine in classes such as art where my teacher could assess my progress through consistent projects throughout the semester.  This allowed her to take note of whether or not I listened and applied her critiques to my work, and how I was grasping the concepts we were learning in class.  As said in this weeks lecture slide, “curriculum is never neutral”.  Although I did not excel in memorizing information and filling in the blanks of tests, I was able to succeed in other ways.  Students who take longer to process information then is allotted before exams, or who struggle with memorization of content, will have difficulty with the traditional perspective of curriculum.  However, many of my classmates and friends preferred this type of assessment and learning style.  It allowed them to clearly see what was expected of them in that course, study the syllabus that what was given to them, and regurgitate that information later on during their tests and exams.  Students who take well to note-taking and class lectures would also see a benefit to the traditional perspective of curriculum.

A quote that I found interesting in this weeks reading, Curriculum Theory and Practice written by Mark K. Smith was, “We also need to reflect on why curriculum theory and practice came into use by educators (as against policy-makers). It was essentially as a way of helping them to think about their work before, during and after interventions; as a means of enabling educators to make judgments about the direction their work was taking.” (pg. 7).  As well as one pertaining to process based learning, “It can never be directed towards an examination as an objective without loss of quality, since the standards of the examination then override the standards immanent in the subject. This does not mean that students taught on the process model cannot be examined, but it does mean that the examinations must be taken in their stride as they pursue other aspirations. And if the examination is a by-product there is an implication that the quality the student shows in it must be an under-estimate of his real quality. It is hence rather difficult to get the weak student through an examination using a process model. Crammers cannot use it, since it depends upon a commitment to educational aims. (Stenhouse 1975: 95)” (pg. 8).  As a future educator I will continue to learn and expand on my knowledge of curriculum, and continue to try and find a process that works for all learning styles.

Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000) ‘Curriculum theory and practice’ the encyclopaedia of informal
education, www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.