Conceptions of Curriculum

Ornstein and Hunkins (2013) explain, “Curriculum results from social activity. It is designed for both present and emerging purposes. Curriculum is a dynamic field” (p.1). By considering the dynamic nature of curriculum one can explain how conceptions of curriculum have evolved and changed over time to reflect and meet the needs of society. Schiro (2013) states, “each of the curriculum ideologies has a history” (p.7). By digging deeper into the historical and social context of conceptions of curriculum one can better explain why some conceptions of curriculum remain applicable to the current educational landscape while others have not. The conceptions of the curriculum which are considered mainstream are ones that have remained relevant and enduring over time. While other conceptions have been modified or removed over time as the social, cultural, or political landscape have changed to such a degree that the conception is no longer viewed as relative in the mainstream in education. Vallance (1986) points to academic rationalism as an enduring conception of the curriculum as, “schools commitment to teaching the traditions of the western intellectual heritage remains strong” ( p. 26). Academic rationalism is also supported by numerous national studies (Vallace 1986, p. 26). Self-actualizing perspectives, on the other hand, have not persisted overtime. Vallance (1986) explains, “self-actualizing perspectives has probably suffered the most, losing its saliency to the changes of society becoming increasingly practical and job orientated in its demands on the curriculm” (p. 26). Through these examples, we can see how the popularity of conceptions of curriculum is rooted in the dynamic and ever-changing landscape of education which is impacted by research, political climate, social beliefs, and cultural perspectives. 

According to McNeil (1996), conceptions of curriculum are based upon questions investigating “what should be taught? To whom? When and How? ” (p. 1). Conceptions of curriculum can be used to help provide educational stakeholders with tools to analyze and better understand learning. Ornstein and Hunkins (2013) explain, “A curriculum approach reflects our views of school and society” (p. 2). The differences in conceptions of the curriculum are rooted in differences in view of the purpose of education, content, and the role of teachers in delivering the content.

Al Mousa (2013) summarized conceptions of the curriculum in the following tables by highlighting the common focuses of conception described by different educational theorists. Al Mousa highlights four focuses of curriculum as individual, society, technology, and academia. This chart highlights that while different educational theorists have used different terms to describe the focus of the curriculum many of these terms fit under the four highlighted conceptions of curriculum. 
Individual: The goal of education is focused on the growth of individuals. A student-centered approach to learning  (Schiro, 2013, P. 5) 
Society: The goal of education is focused on meeting the future needs of society (Schiro, 2013, P. 4) 
Technology:  The goal of education is to communicate information effectively and efficiently ( Eisner, E., & Vallance, 1974, p. 7). “The technological orientation focuses on finding efficient means of reaching planned learning objectives through the use of modern technology; and the academic orientation aims at developing students' rational thinking and skills of inquiry” (Brown, 2006, 164-181
Academia: The purpose of education is to help children learn the accumulated knowledge of our culture (Schiro, 2013, P. 4).

(Al Mousa, 2013, p. 33-34)

I currently work in a school with over 200 educators, each with their own educational philosophy, experiences, and perspectives on how and what should be taught to best prepare students for the future. I believe my increased awareness of conceptions of the curriculum will help me to understand where my own educational philosophies are rooted but also the diversity of perspectives of the purpose of curriculum that may exist within my school. As Schiro (2013) explains, “ when educators have perspective on and understand the range of philosophical beliefs that colleagues can hold, this can enable them to better understand the nature of curriculum disagreements that inevitably take place in schools, be more accepting of others, and more effectively work with people of differing opinions ” (p.3).

I currently work at a school committed to applied learning. The curriculum is designed to allow for students to engage in the authentic the direct application of skills, theories, and models they have learned in the classroom. When considering the conceptions of the curriculum this focus aligns with cognitive process orientation. Vallance (1986) explains, “The cognitive-process orientation sees the development of intellectual skills as the chief purpose of schooling-the development of powers of reasoning, analysis, criticism, problem-solving, judgment, etc” (P. 25). By having a greater understanding of the orientation of the curriculum I feel I will be better able to evaluate not only my own curricular goals but how these align to the goals outlined by our schools mission statement. 

As a Special Education teacher, I also see much of my educational philosophy rooted in a student-centered humanistic or self-actualizing approach where the goal of education is to help each child grow and reach their fullest potential. Schiro (2013) explains, “learner centered proponents focus not on the needs of society or the academic disciplines, but on the needs and concerns of individuals” (p. 5). When developing an Individual Education Program (IEP) I always begin with the strengths and needs of the individual learner which allows the team to develop a plan to best reflect the needs of the individual learner. By considering the conceptions of curriculum I have been able to consider how and why the curriculum in my classroom has been designed. 

Work 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.

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.

Vallance. (1986). A second look at conflicting conceptions of the curriculum. Theory into Practice, 25(1), 24-30