Collaborative Visual Blog Post
Created by Meaghan Bowes & Megan Shaw for PME 810 - 003
When you stop to consider the conversations and debates surrounding curriculum and education in general in the public sector, it is easy to see a clear divide: those advocating for tradition and those looking to break from it. After considering a variety of readings on curricular philosophies, the split between traditional and contemporary is clear. By dividing curricular designs and philosophies into two categories it is easy to see which ones share common sources of inspiration such as science, learners and society and which have distinctly different goals at their core. Using the infographic below, we have displayed this information.
One of our starting points on our visual blog post is Contemporary Philosophy. This educational outlook views student learning as an active process which can teach “skills, attitudes and intellectual processes,” so that society can be reformed or students can become good citizens (Ornstein, 1990, p. 106). In this philosophy model, teachers act as facilitators of learning so that students can independently learn (Ornstein, 1990). The conceptions of curriculum that fall under Contemporary Philosophy include Self-Actualization, Personal Success, and Social Reconstruction.
Self-Actualization – In this conception of curriculum, learner independence and personal growth are encouraged through a discovery approach to learning. Teachers are encouraged to act as facilitators of learning, so that students can grow to their personal best. This conception of curriculum relates to Contemporary Philosophy because the individual child is placed first, so that they can develop their own interests to become active citizens in the future.
Curriculum for Personal Success – The goal of this conception of curriculum is to develop students, so that they can obtain a job in the future and become successful members of society. Curriculum for Personal Success is a Contemporary Philosophy because it views education as a factor for individual growth which can lead to future societal and occupational success.
Social Reconstruction – Students are encouraged to become non-conformists to current societal practices, so that they can make positive changes to society. Social Reconstruction is a Contemporary Philosophy because it encourages individualism through non-conformity. It is a belief that an individual can modify or “reconstruct the social environment” (Ornstein, 1990, p. 107).
Many curricular designs also fall under the umbrella of Contemporary Philosophy. These curricular designs include the varying frameworks of the Learner-Based Curriculum Designs like Organic Curriculum, Developmental Curriculum, Child-Centered Design, Experience-Centered Design, Romantic Radical Design, and Humanistic Design. Each of these designs emphasizes the individual child’s need to learn based on their unique interests and experiences. The role of the educator in these designs is to empower students to take control of their learning and/or act as guides of learning. The Romantic Radical Design differs from the others in the fact that individual student thinking is developed, so that they are not indoctrinated by education.
In addition, Problem-Centered Designs like Life-Situations Design and Reconstructionist Design also fall under the Contemporary Philosophy Umbrella.
Life-Situations Design – This framework uses students personal experiences and active learning like problem solving to teach life skills. The subject matter is integrated, so that students can best learn about social skills or pressing societal issues. Life-Situations Design is a Contemporary Philosophy because it encourages social development based on individual experiences.
Reconstructionist Design – Students are encouraged to learn skills that will help them to take social action, so that they can reshape their society. The Reconstructionist Design fits into the Contemporary Philosophy because both call for “moral and social development,” which will lead to good citizenship (Ornstein, 1990, p. 106).
Society-Culture-Based Design including the Social Functions and Activities Design is the final curricular design that fits into the Contemporary Philosophy framework. In this design, learners are encouraged to improve society's needs through problem solving and the integration of subject matter. The Society-Culture-Based Design is a Contemporary Philosophy because it calls for students to reshape society, rather than conform to its traditional practices.
The traditional educational outlook aims to prepare students to become an employed part of Western society. In general, the curriculum puts, “stress on discipline knowledge emphasizes science, mathematics, English, history, and certain other disciplines,” (Ornstein & Hunkins 2013, p. 160). In this philosophical model teachers act as the expert in the aforementioned disciplines in order to prepare students for post-secondary success. The conceptions that meet the criteria of Traditional Curricular philosophies include Academic Rationalism, Cognitive Processes, and Curriculum as Technology.
Academic Rationalism- Aligning very closely with the general values of traditional curriculum designers, this philosophy emphasizes the importance of academics and subject matter. (Eisner, E., & Vallance, E., 1974)
Cognitive Processes- This philosophy finds balance between traditional subject matter and more contemporary values. Although students are still being broadly prepared for the workforce, what is most important is developing strong general intellect which can be applied to a variety of careers. (Eisner, E., & Vallance, E., 1974)
Technology as Curriculum- While adhering to the traditional subject areas, this philosophy focuses on how information is organized for students to learn best. (Sowell, 2005, p. 59)
After considering the philosophies that drive the broader values of curriculum, we began to consider curriculum design. More specifically than philosophies it, “is concerned with the nature and arrangement of four basic parts: objectives, content, learning experiences and evaluation,” (Ornstein & Hunkins 2013, p.151). The curricular designs that share traditional characteristics are Subject-centered Design, School to Work Design, Broad Field Design, Process Design and Correlated Subject Design.
Subject-centered Design- By focusing on specific, traditional materials such as math, science, English, history etc., “the subject design prevents individualization and deemphasizes the learner.” (Ornstein & Hunkins 2013, p.160)
School to Work Design- Targeted specifically at the secondary level, this design aims to prepare students for Western society by providing “work-based learning,” that will allow them to enter the workforce (Sowell, 2005, p. 59).
Broad Field Design- Aptly named, this curriculum design works to give students a more broad understanding of a variety of subjects. However, unlike certain traditional methods a student will only have a “sweeping” understanding of each subject. (Sowell, 2005, p. 55)
Process Design- More popularly called multidisciplinary curriculum, subjects in this design as planned in tandem with their connection to two or more related subjects (ex. History , art and literature) (Sowell, 2005, p. 55)
Correlated Subject Design- Similar to process design, Correlated Subject Design pulls information from two subject areas but is careful to keep the identity of each subject. (Sowell, 2005, p. 55)
References
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).
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.
Ornstein, A. C. (1990/1991). Philosophy as a basis for curriculum decisions. The High School Journal, 74, 102-109.
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2013). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Read Chapter 6, pp. 149-173.
Comments
Post a Comment