This is an interesting question, and it was something that I kept thinking about while i was plowing through this week’s texts. I know I’m not the only one who kept making connections in my head,

 

“oh, I use that approach when I teach texts,”

“I use that approach when I teach literary lenses”

“I use that approach when using socratic seminars in my classroom”

 

I think that over time, we all use different approaches at different times, but does this inconsistency affect student learning? (something I will learn more about as the class progresses)

 

I think that over the years, depending on what historical event was occuring: industrialization, war, women’s rights movements, globalization, etc., the  priorities of education and life in general were different, thus resulting in various views on the purpose of education: Is education meant to be child-centered? Society-centered?  Skills-based? Values-based? Content-based? To morally uplift? To meet  state/province/country standards? These are just some of the different views I read about in all of our readings. Based on the readings, and my own personal knowledge, I have organized why I THINK over the years, certain conceptions of curriculum were predominant in certain eras starting with the early 1900’s in Canada, after Confederation (not including the differences in Quebec’s education) I have also highlighted the conceptions of curriculum under each event:

​

Curriculum Timeline in Canada:

 

Before 1840, reading writing, math, “obedience, discipline” was taught, but a “formal curriculum” was only provided to the “elite” in society (Case & Tomkins, 2013)

 

• Perhaps the rationale of this type of curriculum was not to enlighten individuals, but to provide them with the basic skills needed to maintain societal expectations

• I think that this type of “curriculum” was solely focused on upholding societal expectations of that time and how children's main goal was to grow up and maintain society as it was.

 

After the 20th century-Egerson Ryerson, “founder of Canadian curriculum” advocated for the creation of classes, grades, school libraries, using Canadian texts in the classroom, and the importance of teacher education. The “common” curriculum here enabled all students “ to believe, to think and to behave in a similar way” (Case & Tomkins, 2013)

 

• If I was to guess, the rationale behind this type of curriculum was to create a system where all elements (classes, grades, libraries) depended on each other (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013 ) and that “the total organization entails the dynamic interaction of many subprocesses”. I am thinking that this type of approach enabled the curriculum that we know of today to start formulating

• I think that maybe the “cumulative tradition of organized knowledge” conception is what inspired this type of curriculum to be created in Canada, as integrating classes, and “disciples” into learning could help students acquire content knowledge, and thus learn to think (Sowell, 2005)

• Social Efficiency Ideology is another frame of thought that I believe connects well with this, as students are learning how to become “productive” members of society (Schiro, 2013)

​

Industrialization era- “new education” home economics, the concept of kindergarten, agriculture, training, etc. was introduced (Case & Tomkins, 2013)

​

• I think that perhaps at this time, individuals had realized that “basic reading, writing, and arithmetic” was not enough to flourish in society, but a holistic education needed to be provided to be able to keep up with the vast changing society

• I think that perhaps this “new education” was the result of child-centered methods which stemmed from the humanistic approach. The humanistic approach values the “personal and social” aspects of education and this can be applied to “formal” and “informal” education such as health, “arts, and humanities” (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013)

• Academic Rationalism’ point of view would argue that the this integration of “practical knowledge” is hindering hindiviaul’s ability to gain “Great meaning” to their lives (Eisner & Vallance, 1974).

Between WW1 and WW1- Business oriented mentality, administrative models were introduced, such as standardized tests (Case & Tomkins, 2013)

​

Post wars’-academic rigour: teaching basic structure,and concepts that were mostly borrowed from British and American models (Case & Tomkins, 2013)​

​

• I think that the behaviour approach is what inspired this change in Canadian education as the idea of being similar to American and the British was seen as a way to combat. The focus could have been less on content, and more so on the organization of what is being taught, hence the emphasis on “structure” (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013)

• I think that the conception of cognitive processes is apparent in this historical event as the honing of skills rather than understanding content is what enabled individuals to “adapt to future situations” (Eisner & Vallance, 1974)

• 1965-Child-centered elementary school, questioning of status quo and traditional teaching methods, this lead to the push of multicultural, bilingual education, and education that combated discrimination based on race and sex. There was a push of “values education” (liberal-minded), but some also advocated for, Christian values to be included in the curriculum (conservative) (Case & Tomkins, 2013)

• Perhaps self-actualization and social reconstructive relevance conceptions were what inspired this push of schools to recognize that their curriculum has a role which can lead to “personal liberation and development” (Eisner & Vallance, 1974 )

• I think that the idea of educating individuals on political issues, in order to not only help them adapt to what the uncertain future holds, but also maybe, actively help shape the future seems to also connect well (Eisner & Vallance, 1974)

​​

1980-more centralized, again push towards provincial standardized tests on reading, writing, and arithmetic→ a push towards scientific curriculum objectives, standards, behaviours, hierarchy of classes etc. (Case & Tomkins, 2013)

​

• I thought that this idea of standardized test, scientific methods of organization, standards, etc can be tied with the conception of technology as the emphasis is on the HOW rather than the WHAT-how can a skill be taught in order to meet the needs of the state/provincial standards? Thus, this outcome-based education was clearly important in the 1980’s (McNeil, 2009)

• The managerial/systems approach states that the emphasis is less on the content, and more on the results, thus, the outcome, the system, the processes, and what can be done to improve the “system” of the school all together  yield effective results (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013)

​​

1990’s-Curriculum writers not happy with how Canada stand against the rest of the world (fixation with global standards), and in addition, there is a high dropout rate, so as a result, we need to reform so students are ready for the 21st century. We need to engage the disengaged! (Case & Tomkins, 2013)

​

I like to think that the 1990’s was when there was an emphasis on both the importance of upholding global standards of education, but also transforming education to liberate the mind, thus the humanistic approach  and the self-actualization conception is what I see clearly as the driving force.

​

 Explain the 5 conceptions in my context as an English teacher

 

A) Cognitive processes (C): curriculum is about the development of the skills mentally processed

 

B) Technological processes (T): curriculum is about utilizing technology to logically, and succinctly grasp knowledge;maximizing the result

 

C) Self-actualization (SA): curriculum is about the content that helps one feel autonomous and helps one maximize their potential

 

D) Social reconstruction-relevance (SR): curriculum is about understanding the importance of social justice but also shaping society to achieve this for all

 

E) Academic Rationalism (AR): curriculum is about intellectually stimulating individuals by acquiring the best of knowledge (not subjects like home economics)

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

SOURCES:

​

​

Works Cited:

 

Al Mousa, N. (2013). An examination of cad use in two interior design programs from the perspectives of curriculum and instructors, pp. 21-37 (Master’s Thesis).

​

Brown, G. T. L. (2006). Conceptions of curriculum: A framework for understanding New Zealand’s Curriculum Framework and teachers’ opinions. Curriculum Matters, 2, 164-181

​

Case, R., & Tomkins, G. (2013, August 14). Curriculum Development. Retrieved July 4, 2018, from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/curriculum-development/

 

Eisner, E., & Vallance, E. (Eds.). (1974). Five conceptions of the curriculum: Their roots and implications for curriculum planning.In E. Eisner & E. Vallance (Eds.), Conflicting conceptions of curriculum (pp. 1-18). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.

​

McNeil, J. D. (2009).  Contemporary curriculum in thought and action (7th ed.).  Hoboken, NJ:  John Wiley. Pages 1, 3-14, 27-39, 52-60, 71-74.

​

Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2013). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Read part of Chapter 1, pp. 1-8.

​

Schiro, M. S. (2013).  Introduction to the curriculum ideologies.  In M. S. Schiro, Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns (2nd ed., pp. 1-13). Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage.

​

Sowell, E. J. (2005). Curriculum: An integrative introduction (3rd ed., pp. 37-51). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​