What
are the four models of curriculum described in the article, and what are the
main benefits and/or drawbacks of each? What model(s) of curriculum were
prominent in your own schooling experience? What did these models make
possible/impossible in the classroom?
`The first model of
curriculum Smith (1996, 2000) introduces is syllabus to be transmitted. This
model follows a set map of where the curriculum will lead. Usually, this
structure resembles those of university classes, culminating in an exam to test
the knowledge of the students. The main benefit of this model is the content is
laid out for students who will then be tested on the material. However, some
problems arise when there is truly a focus on content (Smith 1996, 2000). One
of the drawbacks stated in Smith (1996, 2000) is “where people still equate
curriculum with syllabus they are likely to limit their planning to a consideration
of the content or body of knowledge that they wish to transmit” (p. 3). In this
case, students are being presented the information, but there is little to no
personalization of the information.
The second model listed
is the curriculum as a product. Smith (1996, 2000) views this form as an
exercise as a set of objectives, plans which are applied then measured. The
main benefit of this process is that it is broken down into what learners need
to know and how they can obtain this. The article goes on to list several
drawbacks that ultimately outweigh the benefits. The first is because it is so
straightforward, there is no room for learners to have a voice and educators
have limited movement within the curriculum (Smith 1996, 2000). Second, Smith
(1996, 2000) mentions that when objectives are measured the assessment and
education become shrunken; with this judgment is sidelined. The most important
and problematic drawback is the heavy focus on goals that have been present,
leading to those involved not realizing what has occurred during their
interactions (Smith, 1996, 2000).
The third model is
curriculum as process. Smith (1996, 2000) describes this model as not
necessarily physical, instead, as interactions between three players: teachers,
students, and knowledge. One of the main benefits of this model is the
interaction between thinking and action. Smith (1996, 2000) highlights how this
process enables educators to make judgments and reflect on the direction their
work is taking.
The fourth and final model
presented in the text is that of the curriculum as praxis. This model very much
follows and expands on the curriculum as a process. There is a dynamic between
action and reflection (Smith 1996, 2000). Curriculum as praxis has the most
benefits out of all the models, with the positives outweighing the negatives. Smith (1996, 2000)
notes that praxis focus attention on understandings and practices, instead of
zeroing in on simply the person. One of the noticeable drawbacks is what Grundy
(1987) states that this model does fail to emphasize context.
The models that were
most present in my schooling career where curriculum as a syllabus to be
transmitted, and curriculum as a product and as a process. Upon reflection,
curriculum as a product was heavily present in math and science classes. What
was beneficial about these models in these classes where it was clearly defined
what we would learn and how to obtain the end goal through examination.
However, the only way you could succeed or make success possible was to be able
to present what you had learned through strong final grades. I feel personally
that by incorporating these practices does not benefit students who may
struggle with the examination. The student may understand the content but, is
unable to present it to the extent the curriculum expects. This does not
reflect a student’s intelligence or what the student has learned, but is
heavily focussed on a percentage. In language arts classes and social
studies curriculum was modeled after curriculum as a process. There was much
more of a focus on how students and knowledge bonded and the outcomes this lead
to.
Smith, M. K. (1996,
2000) ‘Curriculum theory and practice’ the encyclopaedia of informal education,
www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.