Curriculum and Sociaty

Kevin James
DTTLS 12/13
CIRRICULUM & SOCIETY ASSIGNMENT

1) To demonstrate a detailed knowledge of curriculum theories and principles within my own subject area.
2) To evaluate, with minimum guidance, the social cohesion of curricula with regards to gender, transgender, age, ethnicity, race, religion and sexual orientation.
3) To demonstrate a detailed knowledge and understanding of the theories and principles of education for sustainable development.

There are many different definitions for the term “CURRICULUM” and they all appear to have at the heart a defined period of time where information is disseminated by teachers to their learners with the aim of achieving a recognised objective. It is apparent to me that over time different forms of curriculum have been devised, along with their variants, which in turn have led to new forms of thinking and that these changes have been brought about by the ever changing social landscape. The following is what I believe a curriculum to be: - “All learning which is planned and guided by the school, whether it is carried on in groups or individually, inside or outside of school” (Kerr 1983). This definition presumes that learning is planned and guided.
There are four main curricula within current education and these do not include the different models that can be attributed to them.
The official curriculum is what the awarding and education bodies set in curricular frameworks and course study. They expect teachers to teach it and they assume that students will learn it. The written or official curriculum is the curriculum that appears in a document that identifies guidelines for the achievement of its learners. This also contains the supported curriculum that includes the resources required to support the curriculum, such as text books, software and other media. Also included within this written curriculum, in my case is the assessed curriculum which appears as a form of assessments, written and online tests. At Falmouth Marine School I am required to follow the official curriculum when I create my scheme of works and lesson plans. As this is what my teaching is judged by when I am being observed. Showing a progression from the units covered in the scheme of works through the lesson plans and finally with the students passing the assessments. If for any reason a student does not pass the assessment program the there is a trail to identify the cause. So it is fair to say that the official curriculum also sets a management framework too. There is no mention of different types of students that we teach about the differentiation brought about by gender, transgender, age, race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. On a strategic level this is left to the college to provide physical and emotional support personnel within the campus to help with any issues that may arise.
A taught curriculum is where teachers teach in the classroom; this is what we choose to teach. Their choices derive from their knowledge of the subject, their experiences in teaching the content, and their like or dislike for the content as well as their attitudes toward the students they face daily. They also take a tactical view as to the way in which they deliver the course content so as to suit all the students in the classes they teach.
The taught curriculum consists of what the students actually receive as coursework and tutorials from the teachers, all of which is primarily based upon the written curriculum and modified by local pressures, prejudices and beliefs. Within this curriculum is the hidden or unintended curriculum. It defines what the students actually learn from the physical environment, the policies and the procedures of the school. For instance; each week I devote 60% to theory of a subject and 40% to the practical so the pupils learn the fundamentals of the subject they are being taught and then put into practice.
The hidden curriculum is a side effect of education, and of life too, the lessons which are learned are not openly intended to be so or else they would be part of the official curriculum. These usually include but are not restricted to the creation and transmission of norms, values and beliefs conveyed in the class room and in the wider social environment.
The hidden curriculum is a term used to describe the unwritten social rules and expectations of behaviour that we all seem to know, but were never taught. For example, children just seem to know that if you pop chewing gum in class, you will get in trouble. Likewise it is not wise to argue with a policeman- even if he is wrong.
Students will quickly learn which teachers are more strict than others following classroom rules and those who are more adept at catching them cheating on tests. No one has ever explained these things to them and yet students readily adjust their behaviour according to these expectations, knowing what the consequences will be, and are prepared to make those choices seemingly without effort. In fact any learning experience or opportunity might teach unintended lessons. The hidden curriculum often refers to the knowledge gained in educational settings, sometimes with a negative connotation where the school strives for equal intellectual development. The term hidden curriculum could also mean hidden agenda in every day settings to. In this sense, a hidden curriculum reinforces existing social inequalities by educating students according to their class and social status. Possibly, best identified by the class structure here in the UK, where whether students tend to do better than less well-off ones. After all, there is a world of difference between a public school and a secondary school in the standards they operate too and opportunities offered by them, each is well aware of their values and benefits gained in their promotion.
“The hidden curriculum consists of those things pupils learn through the experience of attending school rather than the stated educational objectives of such institutions” (Haralambos, 1991).
When teachers are within the confines of the classroom environment it is easy for students to identify and pick up on their personal opinions and viewpoints, not because they are being brainwashed but simply as a result of discussion and debate where beliefs are reinforced and /or modified. Views on politics, music appreciation, life in general and perhaps how the college functions, in fact pretty much every fact of life can be explored and influenced just by discussion and responses elicited.
The learned curriculum, beyond what test results reveal about content learning, students also learn many unspecified lessons embedded in the environment of the classroom. Depending on what the teacher models, the student will learn to process information in particular ways and not in others. They will learn when and when not to ask questions and how to act attentive. They may imitate their teacher’s attitudes. They learn about respect for others from the teachers own demonstration of respect or perhaps lack of.
The learnt curriculum is perhaps best described as the bottom line curriculum, in other words what the student is actually undertaking in lessons and tutorials. Having read what Larry Cuban (1995) has to say, prompts me to simply state that irrespective of what exam results reveal about learning, the students themselves may have learnt unspecified and untested lessons embedded within the classroom itself. Depending on what and how the teacher models the students will learn to process the information in particular ways and not in others. In many ways this can be a useful because if the teacher behaves in a particular way to promote active learning and empathy then it is likely the students will learn this way too and wish to emulate someone they have regard for. Of course the opposite can happen too. “The taught and learned curricula are largely ignored in discussions of the effectiveness of schools. Yet they are perhaps the most influential in terms of the student. We continue to ignore them at our peril” (Cuban, 1995).

The differences between the officially prescribed, the hidden curriculum and the actual curriculum.
Within the Marine engineering department here at Falmouth Marine School our curriculum includes a wide range of teaching from level 1 – 3 City and Guilds to BTEC to HNC. Our awarding bodies City and Guilds and EAL provide us with the information for each unit to be taught and we create the schemes of work so as to cover the learning outcomes and their appropriate assessment. At the session level these are translated into the individual lesson plans created by the teacher and presented to their students, as lessons progress the style of lesson plan is modified and customised to the class needs based on the feedback and progress.
How policy develops curriculum
I can see that it is fair to state that any curriculum, of any model or form, is constantly evolving due to social, economic and political pressures, these can be deliberate and planned such as may be directed by governmental policy as a result of world economic events and the need to increase the pace of progress within a country. They may also change gradually over a period of time as a result of social events and more enlightened thinking. I have discovered that at no time in recognised educational history did a particular system achieve the highest success with its student base; moreover it appears that a state of constant change has allowed, by turns of evolution and revolution, a steady progress that is continuing to this day. So it’s fair to say that the only constant, is change itself!
Instrumentalism: a curriculum delivering a specific product such as the development of a skilled workforce where the individual is prepared to take their place within the workforce as an instrument of the state for the benefit of the country, This implies a reduction in choice over the level and subjects available, but it does, via education and training prepare students for their coming roles within the workplace and society. I can see that this would work in a totalitarian state where free thought and expression are not encouraged and the rights of the individual are suppressed for the greater good of sustainable development. It’s fair to state that this would be unacceptable in our current society but would work anywhere.
Liberal humanism: The uses of intellectual disciplines in developing individuals which provides the absolute freedoms of choice to the students whereby they make informed choices in all areas based on their abilities but are guided by a developmental curriculum that would take account of individual differences. By providing a graduated syllabus moving from easier levels to higher ones would ensure a high level of success. Liberal Humanism has its roots in the French Enlightenment of the middle eighteenth century. By the early nineteenth century Liberal Humanism has coalesced around two core beliefs. The cluster of ideas which gathered around these core beliefs has gradually changed over time but they have retained a family resemblance. The first belief is that man is inherently good and that society is responsible for the corruption of men and for all human ills. Man can be perfected by changing this society. This idea was first argued by Jean Jacques Rousseau. If man is good, then progress is possible. This led to a perverse but common notion among liberals that we should not blame the criminal for crime because this amounts to “blaming the victim”. We should blame “society” instead and should look to socio-economic “root causes”. The second belief was that progress is inevitable leading to a future utopia. I really cannot agree with this school of thought as it removes all responsibility from the individual and tends towards a state where accountability is left in the air whilst at the same time allowing the student free range. There is also the danger that education becomes a means to itself only, almost like a hobby.
Classical humanism: maintaining a stable society by transmitting society’s cultural heritage to student’s Liberal Humanism is a developed model of classical humanism whereby Plato saw society as being made into a hierarchical design with the various levels attracting differing grades of education. The top strata would be schooled in all disciplines as would befit their station to command and control with the lowest only receiving a minimal amount with which to carry out the most basic functions of society such as labourers and soldiers. The levels in between would be populated by artisans, artificers, farmers and doctors etc., each receiving an education commensurate with their station. I can see a problem here with all ambition being suppressed as the choice is not in the control of the student, or for that matter, the teacher.
Progressivism: meeting the needs of the individual to support growth and strengthen society an earlier approach designed to fit in between classical humanism which was felt to be based on existing knowledge and a desire to fit people into society, in other words societies needs were dominant. And liberal humanism which was thought to be too student centred ignoring the needs of society, so the students’ needs were dominant. A middle ground was developed which replicated democracy within an ‘embryonic social community’ (Dewey 1915) in which students were encouraged to cooperate and work together and learn from one another as well as from their teachers. This theory tends to want to liberate rather than domesticate our students and in doing so I echo Dewey’s philosophy that an ideal school is one where students cooperate and learn from each other which also learning to be productive members of the human community.
Reconstructionism: education designed to change society by using education as a means of moving society in a particular direction; in effect a tool of the state. In countries that are still developing or those that are emerging from repressive regimes this use of education as a rebuilding tool has much to commend it as either the students are taught in other countries and return with knowledge or they learn in their own but whichever form, still requires the students to eventually take a hand in the improvements that were identified in the first place. China is a good example of this education fed economy despite a political system that is trying to retain control. In identifying the dominant ideology that informs the design of curriculum taught, some consideration must be given to what end result is required, as there is a world of difference between an objectives based engineering qualification that relies heavily on assessment and examination, to that of counselling humanities based one where the process itself is the dominant feature.
I feel that the last two examples, Progressivism and Reconstructionism, appeal to me because they strive to balance the needs of society and at the same time to improve it. Education just like any form of enterprise has to be paid for at some time or another, either by the state (taxpayer) or the student. It is becoming apparent to me education today is changing with target driven, value for money objectives, external inspections and the hot issue over course fees which have introduced a debate over the rights of the citizen. Those with money can afford it and those with little have to decide whether they want to make an investment in their future employability.
Models of curriculum-
The product model is solely interested in the product of the curriculum, sometimes called the objective model: in effect what can the student do now that they could not do prior to the training period. In my current teaching this is very evident as we are required to follow the awarding bodies units and to develop schemes of work and to use lesson plans that allow and demonstrate on going progression towards the phase and online tests. This model was developed principally by Ralph Taylor, an educationalist who sought to find ways of making assessments more scientific and to that end posed four questions:-\ * What are the education purposes, aims and objectives? * Which learning experiences will help these aims and objectives be attained? * How can these educational experiences be organised? * How can the curriculum be confirmed as fit for purpose?
The product model is seen as being of a behaviourist style and reliant on well-defined objectives with a simple and logical assessment to confirm attainment. I feel comfortable with this model as it closely matches my engineering nature by having a start, middle and an end. I am aware of the possible downsides too:- * Teachers can lose tactical control of the learning content in an effort to closely follow/comply with the strategic plan. * Assuming that the objectives are accurately and carefully chosen some assessing scheme can be aligned but only on a purely objective basis, after all it is measurability we are after? * So it follows that the measurements need to be made sufficiently incremental and the danger of box ticking arises * That it tends to follow factory methods of production where the target becomes more important that what went before it. * That it takes no account of the hidden curriculum * It brings about a target driven culture
This model seems appropriate for sustainable development for emerging countries that have rudimentary education systems where their students lack sophistication and respond to the learning of rules quickly. Examples in the UK include military and safety training both of which require obedience to reduce harm and injury.
The process model is where the actual process of the learning is considered as being more important than the end result itself and so it is the course material and what the student does with it to further their own education that is the key issue here. The teacher now becomes a facilitator guiding and feeding information towards the student and it is this approach that makes this model part of the cognitivist school of learning and teaching. The cognitivist model considers learning as a continuous process with the student learning to think and make sense of things through their own efforts. This broader mental development of the student, rather than just meeting qualification objectives was developed by the Scottish educationalist thinker Lawrence Stenhouse, where in his book, “An Introduction to curriculum research and development” (1975) he stated “Educational thinking and theory often fell short by confusing content and skills, which can be pre-specified, with knowledge” he saw the teacher as being at the centre of education, contrary to the then current trend which saw teachers as deliverers of pre-packaged curricula.
Stenhouse saw curriculum as composed of three broad domains: * Content (information to be learned, which you can pre-specify and test with a multiple choice test) * Skills (recognising letters and words, writing a three paragraph essay, solving mathematical problems, which you can also pre-specify) * Knowledge (using what you’ve learned to solve problems or meet challenges in some unexpected way that can’t be fully pre-specified: an essay question at its best, a scientific artistic or community project)
Stenhouse’s theory was at variance with the dominant model of the day, the product model which so to this day.
The process model uses an extra tool to the other methods and that is the student themselves because as they advance through the path of learn, progress and succeed they generate internal momentum that is self-fulfilling creating further success.
The Praxis model is an approach which has at its core theoretically informed practice which amounts to modifying or improving our practical application on the basis of our critically informed activity and as this is on-going throughout our working lives it follows that our knowledge and understanding must increase as a result.
I see Praxis as being more useful in social developmental and ideological processes such as politics and education rather than in the more down to earth tactile activities such as engineering. Because at its heart it amounts to constantly reviewing and modifying by feedback analysis how we do things rather than what we do, I can’t help but think that this is more suited to an academic situation rather than a vocational one. My subject does have the luxury of logic of theory and practice which for safety, technological and practical reasons does not lend itself well to constant change. However, I recognise that a varying combination of process, product and praxis is how I and most of my peers do actually deliver the correct curriculum to students.

Word 3289

References
Armitage,A. Et al (2007) Teaching and Training in post compulsory education(3rd Ed) Maidenhead:OUP
Glatthorn,Allan. (2000) The principal as curriculum leader: shaping what is taught and tested. 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks: Calif. Cowin press.
Eisner,E. (1994).The Educational imagination: On the design and education of school programs, 3rd Ed. New York: Mcmillan College Publishing.
Proper,H. Wideen,M.F. & Ivany, G (1998) World view projected by science teachers: A study of classroom dialogue. Science Education, Vol 72, No. 5, 547-560
Cuban,L. (1995). The hidden variable: How organizations influence teacher responses to secondary science curriculum reform. Theory into practice, Vol.34, No. 1, 4-11. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1476538 (accessed 18/12/12)
Haralambos, M and Holburn, M (2008)”Sociology: Themes and Perspectives”, 7th Ed. UK, Harper Collins.
Walker,D & Soltis,J. (2004) Curriculum and Aims, 4th Ed, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Stenhouse,L. (1975) An introduction to curriculum research and development, London: Heinemann

References: Armitage,A. Et al (2007) Teaching and Training in post compulsory education(3rd Ed) Maidenhead:OUP Glatthorn,Allan. (2000) The principal as curriculum leader: shaping what is taught and tested. 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks: Calif. Cowin press. Eisner,E. (1994).The Educational imagination: On the design and education of school programs, 3rd Ed. New York: Mcmillan College Publishing. Proper,H. Wideen,M.F. & Ivany, G (1998) World view projected by science teachers: A study of classroom dialogue. Science Education, Vol 72, No. 5, 547-560 Cuban,L. (1995). The hidden variable: How organizations influence teacher responses to secondary science curriculum reform. Theory into practice, Vol.34, No. 1, 4-11. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1476538 (accessed 18/12/12) Haralambos, M and Holburn, M (2008)”Sociology: Themes and Perspectives”, 7th Ed. UK, Harper Collins. Walker,D & Soltis,J. (2004) Curriculum and Aims, 4th Ed, Teachers College, Columbia University. Stenhouse,L. (1975) An introduction to curriculum research and development, London: Heinemann