Curriculum Change
Pedagogy, Culture & SocietyAquatic Insects Vol. 19, No. 2, July 2011, 221–237
Whatever happened to curriculum theory? Critical realism and curriculum change
Mark Priestley*
School of Education, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK In the face of what has been characterised by some as a ‘crisis’ in curriculum – an apparent decline of some aspects of curriculum studies combined with the emergence of new types of national curricula which downgrade knowledge – some writers have been arguing for the use of realist theory to address these issues. This article offers a contribution to this debate, drawing upon critical realism, and especially upon the social theory of Margaret Archer. The article first outlines the supposed crisis in curriculum, before providing an overview of some of the key tenets of critical realism. It concludes by speculating on how critical realism may offer new ways of thinking to inform policy and practice in a key curricular problematic. This is the issue of curriculum change. Keywords: curriculum; critical realism; curriculum change; curriculum theory
Introduction There is an emerging view in some areas that we face a ‘crisis’ of curriculum (Wheelahan 2010). While such rhetoric may be overblown, there is some validity in the notion that curriculum theory and practice are confronted by new uncertainties, and that such uncertainties require new approaches to practice, and new ways of thinking. There are two major facets of this situation. The first concerns the recent emergence in curriculum policy around the world of new models of national curriculum. Such curricula tend to be characterised by various common features, notably a structural basis in outcomes sequenced into linear levels, and a focus on generic skills or capacities instead of a detailed specification of knowledge/content. As such, they have been criticised for stripping knowledge out of the curriculum (Young 2008; Priestley 2010; Wheelahan 2010). The second facet of this crisis
Whatever happened to curriculum theory? Critical realism and curriculum change
Mark Priestley*
School of Education, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK In the face of what has been characterised by some as a ‘crisis’ in curriculum – an apparent decline of some aspects of curriculum studies combined with the emergence of new types of national curricula which downgrade knowledge – some writers have been arguing for the use of realist theory to address these issues. This article offers a contribution to this debate, drawing upon critical realism, and especially upon the social theory of Margaret Archer. The article first outlines the supposed crisis in curriculum, before providing an overview of some of the key tenets of critical realism. It concludes by speculating on how critical realism may offer new ways of thinking to inform policy and practice in a key curricular problematic. This is the issue of curriculum change. Keywords: curriculum; critical realism; curriculum change; curriculum theory
Introduction There is an emerging view in some areas that we face a ‘crisis’ of curriculum (Wheelahan 2010). While such rhetoric may be overblown, there is some validity in the notion that curriculum theory and practice are confronted by new uncertainties, and that such uncertainties require new approaches to practice, and new ways of thinking. There are two major facets of this situation. The first concerns the recent emergence in curriculum policy around the world of new models of national curriculum. Such curricula tend to be characterised by various common features, notably a structural basis in outcomes sequenced into linear levels, and a focus on generic skills or capacities instead of a detailed specification of knowledge/content. As such, they have been criticised for stripping knowledge out of the curriculum (Young 2008; Priestley 2010; Wheelahan 2010). The second facet of this crisis
References: Apple, M. 1995. Education and power. London: Routledge. Archer, M. 1988. Culture and agency: The place of culture in social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archer, M. 1995. Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archer, M. 2000. Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Balkin, J.M 1998. Cultural software: A theory of ideology. London: Yale University Press. Ball, S.J. 2008. The education debate. Bristol UK: The Policy Press. Biesta, G.J.J. 2004. Education, accountability, and the ethical demand: Can the democratic potential of accountability be regained. Educational Theory 54: 233– 50. Biesta, G.J.J. 2008. What kind of citizen? What kind of democracy? Citizenship education and the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence. Scottish Educational Review 42, no. 2: 38–52. Biesta, G.J.J. 2009. Good education in an age of measurement. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 21, no. 1: 33–46. Biesta, G.J.J. 2010. Good education in an age of measurement: ethics – politics – democracy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Bobbitt, F. 2009. Scientific method in curriculum-making. In The curriculum studies reader. 3rd ed., ed. D.F Flinders, and S.J Thornton, 15–21. London: Routledge. Bowe, R., S. Ball, and A. Gold. 1992. Reforming education and changing schools: Case studies in policy sociology. London: Routledge. Cuban, L. 1988. Constancy and change in schools (1880s to the present). In Contributing to educational change: Perspectives on policy and practice, ed. P.W Jackson, 85–105. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Cuban, L. 1998. How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure. Teachers College Record 99: 453–77. Dewey, J. 1938. Experience and education. New York: Touchstone. Elder-Vass, D. 2007. Emergence and the realist account of cause. Journal of Critical Realism 4: 315–38. Elder-Vass, D. 2008a. Searching for realism, structure and agency in actor network theory. The British Journal of Sociology 59: 455–73. Elder-Vass, D. 2008b. Integrating institutional, relational, and embodied structure: An emergentist perspective. British Journal of Sociology 59: 281–99. Elmore, R.F 2004. School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity. Gleeson, D., and D. Knights. 2008. Reluctant leaders: An analysis of middle managers’ perceptions of leadership in further education in England. Leadership 4, no. 1: 49–72. Hirst, P.H 1974. Knowledge and the curriculum. London: Routledge. Hopmann, S. 2003. On the evaluation of curriculum reforms. Journal of Curriculum Studies 35: 459–78. 236 M. Priestley Hopmann, S. 2010. When the battle’s lost and won. Some observations concerning ‘Whatever happened to curriculum theory’. Paper presented at the LET/CPS seminar, January 26, in Stirling, UK. Kelly, A.V. 1986. Knowledge and curriculum planning. London: Harper and Row. Kelly, A.V. 1999. The curriculum: Theory and practice. 4th ed. London: Sage. Lawton, D. 1975. Class, culture and the curriculum. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. LTScotland. 2010. Experiences and outcomes for science. http://www.ltscotland.org. uk/curriculumforexcellence/sciences/outcomes/planetearth/index.asp(accessed July 15, 2010). Ministry of Education. 2009. New Zealand curriculum update 2: The national standards and the New Zealand curriculum. http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Ministrycurriculum-guides/NZC-Updates/NZC-update-2.(accessed November 11, 2009). Ministry of Education. 2010. Science curriculum achievement aims and objectives. http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Curriculum-documents/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum/Learning-areas/Science/Science-curriculum-achievement-aims-and-objectives#level%204 (accessed July 15, 2010). Moore, A. 2006. Introduction. In Schooling, society and curriculum, ed. A. Moore, 1–14. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Moore, R. 2000. For knowledge: Tradition, progressivism and progress in education – reconstructing the curriculum debate. Cambridge Journal of Education 30, no. 1: 17–36. Moore, R., and M. Young. 2001. Knowledge and the curriculum in the sociology of education: Towards and reconceptualisation. British Journal of Sociology of Education 22: 445–61. Osberg, D., and G. Biesta. 2008. The emergent curriculum: Navigating a complex course between unguided learning and planned enculturation. Journal of Curriculum Studies 40: 313–28. Osborn, M., P. Croll, P. Broadfoot, A. Pollard, E. McNess, and P. Triggs. 1997. Policy into practice and practice into policy: Creative mediation in the primary classroom. In Teachers and the national curriculum, ed. G. Helsby, and G. McCulloch, 52–65. London: Cassell. Pinar, W. 2009. The reconceptualization of curriculum studies. In The curriculum studies reader . 3rd ed., ed. D.F Flinders and S.J Thornton, 168–75. London: Routledge. Pinar, W., W. Reynolds, P. Slattery, and P. Taubman. 1995. Understanding curriculum. New York: Peter Lang. Porpora, D.V 1998. Four concepts of social structure. In Critical realism: Essential readings, ed. M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson, and A. Norrie, 339–55. London: Routledge. Priestley, M. 2010. Curriculum for excellence: Transformational change or business as usual? Scottish Educational Review 42, no. 1: 22–35. Priestley, M. 2011. Schools, teachers and curriculum change: A balancing act? Journal of Educational Change 12, no. 1: 1–23. Priestley, M., and W. Humes. 2010. The development of Scotland’s curriculum for excellence: Amnesia and déjà vu. Oxford Review of Education 36: 345–61. Qualification and Curriculum Development Agency. 2008. National curriculum aims.http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/aims-values-and-purposes/ aims/index.aspx. Scott, D. 2000. Realism and educational research: New perspectives and possibilities. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Pedagogy, Culture & Society 237 Scott, D. 2010. Education, epistemology and critical realism. London: Routledge. Scottish Education Department. 1977. The structure of the curriculum in the third and fourth years of the Scottish secondary school. Edinburgh: HMSO. Scottish Executive. 2004. A curriculum for excellence: Ministerial response. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Skilbeck, M. 1998. School-based curriculum development. In The international handbook of educational change, part one, ed. A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, and D. Hopkins, 121–44. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Smyth, J., and G. Shacklock. 1998. Re-making teaching: Ideology, policy and practice. London: Routledge. Stenhouse, L. 1975. An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann. Supovitz, J.A. 2008. Implementation as iterative refraction. In The implementation gap: Understanding reform in high schools, ed. J.A. Supovitz and E.H. Weinbaum, 151–72. New York: Teachers College Press. Taba, H. 1962. Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt Brace and World. Tyler, R. 2009. Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. In The curriculum studies reader . 3rd ed., ed. D.F Flinders and S.J Thornton, 69–77. London: Routledge. Watson, C. 2010. Educational policy in Scotland: Inclusion and the control society. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 31: 93–104. Wheelahan, L. 2010. Why knowledge matters in curriculum: A social realist argument. London: Routledge. Whitty, G. 1985. Sociology and school knowledge. Curriculum theory, research and politics. London: Methuen. Young, M. 2008. From constructivism to realism in the sociology of the curriculum. Review of Research in Education 32: 1–28. Young, M. 2009. Alternative educational futures for a knowledge society. Socialism and Education. http://socialismandeducation.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/alternative-educational-futures-for-a-knowledge-society (accessed January 1, 2010). Copyright of Pedagogy, Culture & Society is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder 's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.