DEFINATIONS OF CURRICULUM

Defining the word curriculum is no easy matter. Perhaps the most common definition derives from the word’s Latin root, which means ‘racecourse’. Indeed, for many students, the school curriculum is a race to be run, a series of obstacles or hurdles (subjects) to be passed. It is important to keep in mind that schools in Western civilization have been heavily influenced since the fourth century BC by the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle and that the word

curriculum has been used historically to describe the subjects taught during the classical period of Greek civilization. The interpretation of the word curriculum broadened in the twentieth century to include subjects other than the classics. Today, school documents, newspaper articles, committee reports and many academic textbooks refer to any and all subjects offered or prescribed as ‘the curriculum of the school’.

In the 1970s Pinar (1974) produced a different term, ‘currere’ – the Latin infinitive of

curriculum, because he wanted to highlight the running (or lived experience). He has

subsequently elaborated on this term (Pinar et al., 1995; Pinar, 2004) and has emphasized its value in self-study via an autobiographical method.

One useful starting point when studying what is curriculum is to consider three levels,

namely the ‘planned curriculum’, the ‘enacted curriculum’ and the ‘experienced curriculum’

(Marsh and Willis, 2007). The planned curriculum is all about what knowledge is of most worth – the important goals and objectives. Campbell (2006) refers to this as ‘curricular authority’ – the legitimacy of standardized curricular guidelines.

The enacted curriculum deals with professional judgements about the type of curriculum to be implemented and evaluated. Teachers have to judge the appropriate pedagogical

knowledge to use. As noted by Campbell (2006), teachers’ professional authority in enacting the curriculum may cause conflicts with the planned curriculum. Harris (2005) describessome of the contestation that can occur between a curriculum plan (for example a history syllabus) and how it is implemented (enacted).

The experienced curriculum refers to what actually happens in the classroom. As noted by Smith and Lovat (2003), lived experience defies complete description either before or after it happens – it is individual, ongoing and unpredictable (Marsh and Willis, 2007). Kennedy (2005) notes that curriculum experiences are no longer confined to the classroom. There is an increasing gap now between “‘official’ school knowledge and real-world knowledge to which  students have access through information technology”. He suggests that a major issue for school curriculum in the twenty-first century is how to ‘create a sense of community and common values in a context where knowledge cannot be restricted in any way and where individual control is much more). McNeil (2003) concentrates upon the enacted curriculum but takes it further by highlighting

the live curriculum rather than the inert, dead curriculum. He contends that the live

curriculum is when teachers and students engage in classroom activities that are meaningful.

Much earlier, Whitehead (1929) used the metaphor of romance to characterize the rhythm of curriculum. As reported in Walker and Soltis (2004), he argued that ‘we should begin an engagement with any subject in a romantic way, feeling excitement in its presence, being aroused by its attractiveness, and enjoying its company’ (p. 44).

Tomlinson and Germundson (2007) elaborate on the rhythm of curriculum by comparing

teaching to creating jazz. The enacted curriculum for these authors is characterized by a teacher blending musical sounds: ‘blue notes for expressive purposes and syncopation and swing to surprise … to create curriculum with the soul of jazz – curriculum that gets under the skin of young learners’ (p. 27).

Some definitions of curriculum

Many writers advocate their own preferred definition of curriculum, which emphasizes other

meanings or connotations, particularly those the term has taken on recently.

According to Portelli (1987), more than 120 definitions of the term appear in the professional literature devoted to curriculum, presumably because authors are concerned about either delimiting what the term means or establishing new meanings that have become associated with it.

Hlebowitsh (1993) criticizes commentators in the curriculum field who focus ‘only on certain facets of early curriculum thought while ignoring others’ (p. 2).

We need to be watchful, therefore, about definitions that capture only a few of the various characteristics of curriculum (Toombs and Tierney, 1993), especially those that are partisan or biased.

Oliva (1997) also points out that definitions of curriculum can be conceived in narrow or

broad ways. He suggests that differences in the substance of definitions of curriculum are largely due to whether the emphasis is upon:

• purposes of goals of the curriculum (for example a curriculum is to develop reflective

thinking);

• contexts within which the curriculum is found (for example a curriculum is to develop the individual learner in all aspects of growth); or

• strategies used throughout the curriculum (for example a curriculum is to develop problemsolving processes).

Portelli (1987), drawing on a metaphor developed by Soltis (1978), notes: ‘Those who look for the definition of curriculum are like a sincere but misguided centaur hunter, who even with a fully provisioned safari and a gun kept always at the ready, nonetheless will never require the services of a taxidermist’ (p. 364).

The incompleteness of any definition notwithstanding, certain definitions of the term can

provide insights about common emphases and characteristics within the general idea of

curriculum. Consider, for example, the following definitions of curriculum:

• Curriculum is the ‘permanent’ subjects that embody essential knowledge.

• Curriculum is those subjects that are most useful for contemporary living.

• Curriculum is all planned learnings for which the school is responsible.

• Curriculum is the totality of learning experiences so that students can attain general skills

and knowledge at a variety of learning sites.

• Curriculum is what the students construct from working with the computer and its various

networks, such as the Internet.

• Curriculum is the questioning of authority and the searching for complex views of human

situations.

Curriculum is such ‘permanent’ subjects as grammar, reading, logic, rhetoric, mathematics,

and the greatest books of the Western world that best embody essential knowledge.

An example is the National Curriculum enacted in the United Kingdom in 1988, which prescribed the curriculum in terms of three core and seven foundational subjects, including specific content and specific goals for student achievement in each subject.

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation introduced into the US in 2001 requires tests in reading and maths annually for students in grades 3–8 and once in high school. This is an unprecedented focus on two traditional subjects, reading and maths. What is not tested are subjects such as history, art, civics, music and physical education and these are deemed by many students as not worth knowing (Guilfoyle, 2006).

Problems posed by the definition This definition suggests that the curriculum is limited to only a few academic subjects. It assumes that what is studied is what is learned. It does not address questions such as: does the state of knowledge change? If so, shouldn’t the subjects making up the curriculum also change? What makes learning such subjects essential?

Goodson and Marsh (1996) point out that the National Curriculum in the United Kingdom is simply a reconstitution of the subjects included in the Secondary Regulations of 1904, suggesting that ‘historical amnesia allows curriculum reconstruction to be presented as curriculum revolution’ (p. 157).

Griffith (2000) contends that a knowledge-based curriculum such as the National Curriculum does not exist independently of space and time. It should not be considered ahistorically, for it is neither neutral, factual nor value free.

Curriculum is those subjects that are most useful for living in contemporary society.

The subjects that make up this curriculum are usually chosen in terms of major present-day issues and problems within society, but the definition itself does not preclude individual students from making their own choices about which subjects are most useful.

According to Rothstein, Wilder and Jacobsen (2007) a balanced curriculum should be

concerned about contemporary living skills such as critical thinking, project-based learning and social skills.

Wilson (2002) argues that curriculum must include higher-order skills such as teaching

students to think critically and to communicate complex ideas clearly.

Problems posed by the definition This definition seems to imply that what is contemporary has more value than what is long-lasting. It encourages schools and students to accommodate themselves to society as it exists instead of attempting to improve it. It leaves open questions such as: what accounts for stability in the curriculum? What is useful knowledge? If useful practical skills are increasingly emphasized, what becomes of intellectual development?

Curriculum is all planned learnings for which the school is responsible.

‘Planned learnings’ can be long written documents specifying content, shorter lists of

intended learning outcomes, or simply the general ideas of teachers about what students should know. Exponents of curriculum as a plan include Saylor,

Alexander, and Lewis(1981), Beauchamp (1981) and Posner (1998).

Problems posed by the definition This definition seems to assume that what is studied is learned. It may limit ‘planned learnings’ to those that are easiest to achieve, not those that are most desirable. It does not address questions such as: on what basis does the school select and take responsibility for certain learnings while excluding others? Is it possible for teachers to

separate the ends of instruction from the means? Are unplanned, but actual, learnings

excluded from the curriculum?

The NCLB Act in the USA is forcing schools to plan very carefully for the teaching of reading and maths (and science since 2007). By implication there is less pressure to plan for other subjects. There are penalties for schools if their students do not reach specified levels of proficiency. The National Literacy Strategy and the National Numeracy Strategy in the UK are also forcing schools to concentrate their planning and their respective school timetables on maths and literacy.

Armstrong (2007) suggests that education policy-makers are building a superhighway across today’s education landscape: ‘All byways in the journey from early childhood to early adulthood are now being aligned – test scores and benchmarks and accountability are the bulldozers, cement mixers and asphalt pavers that are constructing this curriculum

superhighway’.

Curriculum is the totality of learning experiences provided to students so that they can attain general skills and knowledge at a variety of learning sites.

Emphasis is on learning rather than teaching, especially learning skills and knowledge at sites other than schools. The assumption is that all sites – including workplace sites – can be conducive to learning general knowledge. This approach to curriculum has been heavily publicized in a number of countries and is usually supported for economic reasons by business organizations, other vocationally oriented groups and advocates of explicit competency standards.

Problems posed by the definition This definition usually leads to a narrow technicalfunctionalist approach to curriculum, requiring that unduly large numbers of outcomes and high levels of specificity be identified. Walker (1994) and Cairns (1992) are critical of the uniformity and the focus on minimum standards the definition encourages. Moore (2006) points out that the economic well-being of a nation depends on much besides vocational training.

Kennedy (2005) concludes that a curriculum which only focuses on key competencies for the world of paid employment is deficient. The curriculum should ‘include a full range of skills and competencies relevant throughout the life span’ (p. 56). Reid (2007) also takes a wider view of competencies, which he terms ‘capacities’, such as communication, civic participation, health and well-being.

Curriculum is what the student constructs from working with the computer and its various networks, such as the Internet.

Obviously, this is a modern definition. It assumes that computers are every-where – in the home, school and office – and students, perceiving them as part of the natural landscape, are thriving. Advocates argue that the new computing technologies have created a culture for increasingly active learning; students can construct their own meanings as they locate sources

on the Internet, explore issues and communicate with others. Social skills are also developed through chat groups, conferences and e-mail communications.

Problems posed by the definition Although some writers such as Vine et al. (2000) contend that schools in the near future will change drastically as students access more electronic resources from the home, others such as Reid (2000) and Westbury (2000) believe that schools will remain long-enduring institutions.

Pinar (2004) suggests that administrators are wrongly fantasizing the future as technological and information-based. He concludes that ‘information is not knowledge, of course, and without ethical and intellectual judgment – which cannot be programmed into a machine  the Age of Information is an Age of Ignorance’ (p. xii).

Budin (1999) reminds us that technology is not a neutral tool. What is now available on the Internet, for example, is not necessarily what should be on it or what will be on it tomorrow.

Furthermore, not all students have the same level of access to the Internet, and the learning it promotes may prove to be far more passive than is now commonly believed. We should, therefore, be wary of excessive claims about active or constructivist learning made possible by computers.

Curriculum is the questioning of authority and the searching for complex views of human situations.

This definition is consistent with the ancient Socratic maxim ‘the unexamined life is not

worth living’. However, it may also overly encourage rejection of what is, making it a

postmodernist definition. The term postmodernist implies opposition to widely used

(‘modern’) values and practices. Hence, postmodernists are disparate in their own views, usually sharing only a desire to challenge what is modern, a readiness to accept the unaccepted and a willingness to conceptualize new ways of thinking

Reynolds and Webber (2004) use such terms as ‘advocating multiplicity’ (p. 3); ‘the struggle is to keep finding lines that disrupt and overturn and tactically weave through the globalised corporate order’.

Problems posed by the definition Postmodernism reduced simply to the process of questioning may not be helpful in identifying in practice how students should spend their

time and energy. Although many authors are enthusiastic about the general potential of postmodernist thinking (Atkinson, 2000; Pinar, 2004), others

(Barrow, 1999) contend that it is overly general, vague and confused. It is subject to the charge of relativism.

Moore (2006) contends there is a fatal, internal contradiction among those postmodernists who state that all truth is relative, when this statement itself would have to be nonrelative in order to be true.

CONCEPT OF CURRICULUM

We make sense of our world and go about our daily lives by engaging in concept building. We acquire and develop concepts so that we can gain meaning about persons and events and in turn communicate these meaning to others.

Some concepts are clearly of more importance than others. The key concepts provide us with the power to explore a variety of situations and events and to make significant connections.

Other concepts may be meaningful in more limited situations but play a part in connecting unrelated facts.

Every field of study contains a number of key concepts and lesser concepts which relate to substantive and methodological issues unique to that discipline/ field of study. Not

unexpectedly, scholars differ over their respective lists of key concepts, but there is, nevertheless, considerable agreement (see, for example, Hayes, 2006). With regard to the curriculum field there is a moderate degree of agreement over key concepts.

Searching for key concepts

To be able to provide any commentary on key concepts in curriculum assumes of course that we have access to sources of information that enable us to make definitive statements.

A wide range of personnel are involved in making curriculum, including school personnel,

researchers, academics, administrators, politicians and various interest groups. They go about their tasks in various ways such as via planning meetings, informal discussions, writing reports, papers, handbooks, textbooks, giving talks, lectures, workshops, etc.

To ensure that a list of key concepts is comprehensive and representative of all these sources would be an extremely daunting task. A proxy often used by researchers is to examine textbooks, especially synoptic textbooks (those books which provide comprehensive accounts and summaries of a wide range of concepts, topics and issues in curriculum).

Schubert et al. (2002) undertook a detailed analysis of textbooks over the period 1861–2000 and this volume provides a valuable overview of curriculum thought over major historical periods. Marsh and Stafford (1988) provided a similar historical analysis of major curriculum books written by Australian authors over the period 1910–88. Green (2003) undertook a comprehensive review of Australian authors writing in the curriculum field.

Major synoptic texts published in the USA include Doll (1996), Oliva (2004) and Marsh and Willis (2007). All of these are longstanding texts in the USA and have undergone subsequent editions.

Pinar et al.’s (1995) Understanding Curriculum: An Introduction to the Study of Historical and Contemporary Curriculum Discourses, an encyclopaedic volume of diverse discourses, represents a very important but different form of synoptic text.

In subsequent volumes, Pinar (2004) and Reynolds and Webber (2004) continue with

presentations of diverse discourses – a complex, cacophonous chorus from competing theoretical points of view.

These texts tend to be very comprehensive and cover a number of key concepts within the broad categories of:

• conceptions of curriculum/models/approaches;

• curriculum history;

• curriculum policy and policy-makers, politics of curriculum;

• curriculum development procedures/change/improvement/planning steps;

• issues and trends/problems/future directions;

• discourses of gender, race – postmodern, political, historical, phenomenological (especially Pinar et al., 1995).

A text published in the United Kingdom (Ross, 2000), has a major focus upon historical

developments in curriculum in that country, but also includes sections on curriculum and

reproduction, hidden curriculum, content-driven, objectives-driven and process-driven

curricula.

In Australia, three major texts focus directly upon curriculum concepts. Brady and Kennedy (2007) examine social contexts, curriculum planning models, assessment and evaluation, and curriculum change. Marsh (2008) examines student learning, curriculum planning models, providing for individual differences, assessment and reporting, school culture, standards, innovation, and change. Smith and Lovat (2003) examine the origins and nature of curriculum, curriculum and ideology, curriculum and the foundational disciplines, critical theory, assessment and evaluation, curriculum change, and curriculum futures.

Taken overall, it is very evident that there are a number of common key concepts that are included in these synoptic texts.

Categories of concepts included in this volume

After examining a wide range of synoptic curriculum texts, including those described above, a decision was made to include material relating to two sets of categories:

1 generic issues in curriculum; and

2 alternative perspectives.

By concentrating upon a single concept in each chapter, it is possible, of course, to have many different groupings, and readers are encouraged to explore their own interests and swap around their order of reading chapters. Each chapter focuses upon a key concept in terms of its major characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. Follow-up questions and references are also included in each chapter.

Generic categories

The generic categories include the following:

• curriculum planning and development;

• curriculum management;

• teaching perspectives;

• collaborative involvement in curriculum;

• curriculum ideology.

Characteristics of curriculum

Some curriculum experts, such as Goodlad (1979), contend that an analysis of definitions is a useful starting point for examining the field of curriculum. Other writers argue that there are important concepts or characteristics that need to be considered and which give some insights into how particular value orientations have evolved and why (Westbury, 2007).

Walker (2003) argues that the fundamental concepts of curriculum include:

• content: which may be depicted in terms of concept maps, topics and themes, all of which are abstractions which people have invested and named;

• purpose: usually categorized as intellectual, social and personal; often divided into

superordinate purposes; stated purposes are not always reliable indicators of actions;

• organization: planning is based upon scope and sequence (order of presence over time); and can be tightly organized or relatively open-ended.

Other writers such as Beane (2001) produce principles of curriculum but they are more valueoriented and less generic. For example, he lists five major principles about curriculum:

• concern with the experiences of learners;

• making decisions about both content and process;

• making decisions about a variety of issues and topics;

• involving many groups;

• decision-making at many levels.

It is evident that these authors have a particular conception of curriculum; perhaps a

combination of student- and society-centred. Inevitably, if specific principles are given a high priority, then a particular conception of curriculum emerges.

Longstreet and Shane (1993) refer to four major conceptions of curriculum:

• society-oriented curriculum: the purpose of schooling is to serve society;

• student-centred curriculum: the student is the crucial source of all curriculum;

• knowledge-centred curriculum: knowledge is the heart of curriculum;

• eclectic curriculum: various compromises are possible, including mindless eclecticism!

The conceptions or orientations of curriculum produced by Eisner and Vallance (1974) are often cited in literature, namely:

• a cognitive process orientation: cognitive skills applicable to a wide range of intellectual problems;

• technological orientation: to develop means to achieve pre-specified ends;

• self-actualization orientation: individual students discover and develop their unique

identities;

• social reconstructionist orientation: schools must be an agency of social change;

• academic rationalist orientation: to use and appreciate the ideas and works of the various disciplines.

It is interesting to note that Vallance (1986) modified these orientations twelve years later by deleting ‘self-actualization’ and adding ‘personal success’ (pursuing a specific, practical end) and a ‘curriculum for personal commitment’ (pursuing learning for its inherent rewards).

These conceptions of curriculum are useful to the extent that they remind educators of some value orientations that they may be following, whether directly or indirectly. Yet others, such as Pinar et al. (1995), argue that these conceptions are stereotypes and are of little value.

Who is involved in curriculum?

Curriculum workers are many and include school-based personnel such as teachers,

principals and parents and university-based specialists, industry and community groups, and government agencies and politicians.

A large number of those working in the curriculum field are involved in serving the daily and technical needs of those who work in schools. This has been the traditional role over the

decades where the focus has been upon curriculum development for school contexts.

Pinar et al. (1995) refer to the ‘shifting domain of curriculum development as politicians,

textbook companies, and subject-matter specialists in the university, rather than school practitioners and university professors of curriculum, exercise leadership and control over curriculum development’ (p. 41). In a later publication, Pinar (2004) argues that ‘publicschool

teachers have been reduced to domestic workers instructed by politicians’ (p. xi) and that ‘[e]ducation professors are losing – have lost? – control of the curriculum we teach’

It is certainly the case in most OECD (developed) countries that a wider range of interest groups are now involved in curriculum development (Ross,

2000). Curriculum in the twenty-first century is indeed moving in many directions and some would assert that this reflects a conceptual advance (Jackson, 1992) and a more sophisticated view of the curriculum. Others would argue that curriculum as a field of study is still conceptually underdeveloped (Goodlad and Su, 1992) and rather like ‘trying to nail Jell-O to the wall’! (Wright, 2000).

Reflections and issues

1 There are very divergent views about the nature of curriculum. What definition of

curriculum do you support? Justify your choice.

2 Trying to clarify central concepts by proposing definitions for them has been popular in

many fields (Portelli, 1987). Have these concepts and definitions proven useful in the field of curriculum?

3 ‘The struggle over the definition of curriculum is a matter of social and political priorities as well as intellectual discourse’ (Goodson, 1988, p. 23). Reflect upon a particular period of time and analyse the initiatives, successes and failures which occurred in terms of curriculum development or policy development.

4 ‘If the curriculum is to be the instrument of change in education, its meanings and

operational terms must be clearer than they are currently’ (Toombs and Tierney, 1993,

5 ‘The term “social subjects” rarely occurs in the current formulations of the National

Curriculum or the whole curriculum in the United Kingdom; indeed the very word “society” is notable by its infrequency’ (Campbell, 1993, p. 137). This indicate deficiencies in the conceptions of curriculum incorporated into the National Curriculum.

REFERENCES

1.     Web Definitions for Curriculum, wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn – extracted 20 February2008.

2.     What is Curriculum?, www.uwsp.edu/education/wilson/curric/definigcurriculum.htm –extracted 20 February 2008. Issues of Teaching and Learning,

3.     www.csd.uwa.edu.au/newsleter/issue0795.html – extracted 20 February 2008.

4.     What Is Curriculum – Based Measurement?, www.studentprogress.org/families.asp –extracted 20 February 2008.