what is curriculum in education essay

Curriculum Design and Development Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Professional organizations that influence curriculum decisions, curriculum design and development, the role of technology in curriculum development, school-wide curriculum development initiative.

Curriculum development is a concept that has attracted a lot of discussion in respect to the way it can be appropriately defined. According UNESCO and IIEP (2006), there is no single definition of curriculum development. Most definitions focus on the syllabi and learning materials. The broader definitions consider that curriculum is concepts that include other factors within and outside the school systems.

Traditionally, curriculum was referred to as a group of courses that formed part of the school’s education program. This refers to the approved courses that have to be accomplished so that a student can be promoted to the next educational level.

As the world continues to modernize its education systems, various definitions have been developed to explain the concept of curriculum development. Therefore, curriculum can be defined as the organization of sequences of learning outcomes. The sequences are entrenched in the education system of a country, and are aimed at achieving quality education (UNESCO and IIEP, 2006).

Schools and colleges have designed curriculums to develop the skills of students. This is aimed at achieving various professional requirements in the changing modern world. Therefore, the need for superior skills has contributed to the need for curriculum development in education systems worldwide. Curriculum development has been described as the process of planning aspects that are taught within an educational institution.

Curriculum development is done to match the school courses and programs to the skills of students (Hedden, 2012). The aim is to develop a curriculum that provides educational sustainability in the long run; thereby achieving the goals of national development.

Curriculum development focuses on major and minor topics and courses that contribute to the students’ career development. Curriculum development refers to a wide range of discussions by different professions and organizations that make decisions concerning learning experiences. Such decisions need to be integrated in a national, regional, or local education system to ensure sustainable development (Braslavsky, n.d.).

Curriculum development varies from country to country. The process can be controlled from a national level by the ministry of education or individual states as the case in some federal countries (Braslavsky, n.d.). Centralized countries usually apply a top-down approach in the development of curriculum. In this regard, the curriculum is presented to teachers who, once they adopt it, should teach the learners. Eventually, the curriculum is evaluated by all the parties concerned.

According to Braslavsky (n.d.), the society can control the process of drive curriculum development. This is referred to as the bottom-up curriculum development. The responses collected by teachers and other education officials are evaluated, and standards are set to develop the curriculum further. This system is mostly used by decentralized governments.

The curriculum being developed should address the issues of relevance, sequence, and integration in a given community’s set up (Stabback, 2007). Therefore, the process can be influenced by various professional organizations that ensure that the curriculum meets the diverse, fundamental, national, economic, social, communal and personal objectives without any form discrimination.

The organizations are usually composed of individuals from a common profession or specialization. Over the years, these organizations have actively participated in curriculum development to ensure sustainability of education institutions. This is done with the aim of expanding knowledge and skills to students (Hedden, 2012). Some organizations that influence curriculum development include: Accountants Association, Professional Engineering organizations, and the National Councils of Teachers.


American Accounting Association-AAA
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

The process of curriculum development involves the design and development of integrated plans for learning, how to implement and evaluate the plans, and checking the outcome. Designing the curriculum involves critical analysis of the teaching and learning framework.

The purpose of the design stage is to elucidate certain action plans for achieving the curriculum objectives. The process is done professionally and technically to avoid any overlap between the topics and the course. This results to the development of syllabuses that focus on certain areas or subjects.

The ultimate result of the process is usually a coherent flow of topics regarding the courses offered in education institutions. Curriculum development ensures that students receive integrated and coherent learning experience that contributes towards personal, academic, and professional learning experience (Stabback, 2007).

Various steps are involved in the process of designing and developing curriculum. These steps are majorly followed when a new curriculum is required, or when curriculum reforms are indispensable. Curriculum development involves step-by-step contextual scan and research of relevant best practices.

Consultations with various stakeholders followed by development of a curriculum framework are conducted before syllabuses are accepted. The accepted plans are then implemented, and proper monitoring is established to check whether everything concerning the curriculum is accurate. The review and amendment of the contents is necessary for the whole process to succeed.

The process is systematic and has a clear focus on sub-systems to avoid disastrous outcomes and waste of resources. Having a systematic process in the development of the curriculum enables the elimination of any potential loop holes. At the same time, this articulates the international standards benchmarks (Stabback, 2007).

Technology plays a great role in curriculum development around the world. Over the years, technology has played a significant role in the world education curriculums. This has been viewed as the greatest improvement that curriculum development has ever witnessed. Computers have become a means of information delivery where web curricula and online modules are the common technologies that have positively transformed curriculum development (Ali, 2008; Scholl, 2001).

Technology has supplemented the delivery of learning resources due to the growing number of publication and technological breakthroughs in research. Today, technological advancement offers standardized instructions and learning environment that is familiar and can be accessed from any destination (Ali, 2008).

This has resulted in greater satisfaction amongst learners since they can share and access common resources. Technology has also reduced the time spent for curriculum development in a considerable manner as compared to the previous ways of curriculum development. Efficiency has also been achieved in the development of the curriculum as compared to traditional methods that required a lot of time (Scholl, 2001).

The Ministry of Education is charged with the responsibility of undertaking extensive curriculum research. This is aimed at collecting relevant responses about what should be changed, introduced, or done away with to improve the curriculum.

This involves consultation from parents, teachers, education officials, administrators, and professional bodies among other stakeholders. The findings are then submitted to the special curriculum review committee that analyzes the process before agreeing on the areas and subjects that need to be addressed.

Proper measures are established to ensure that the plans are implemented. In addition, proper checks are instituted to evaluate the progress of the plans (Braslavsky, n.d.). The close monitoring of the process facilitates further amendments to the curriculum.

The major challenges experienced during curriculum development can be classified into three categories. This includes internal, social, and external challenges. With regard to internal challenges, the curriculum development experiences the challenge to conform with the requirements by the ministry.

These requirements are important to the schools. The culture usually impacts the process, demanding for changes that recognize its values and norms. External forces may also prevail in curriculum development to ensure that the proposed curriculum addresses issues of international concern such as health, science, and human rights (Stabback, 2007).

Curriculum development is a complex process that requires commitment of the organization responsible and the various stakeholders. The process should be conducted with transparency and systematically so that the outcomes of the whole process become credible.

The curriculum developed should embrace modern developments in technology. It should also adhere to the internationally accepted standard of an efficient curriculum. This ensures proper integration of the education system of the country.

Ali, I.I. (2008). Role technology & educational research in curriculum development . Web.

Braslavsky, C. (n.d). The Curriculum . Web.

Hedden, H.B. (2012). Professional and trade organizations . Web.

Scholl, F.J. (2001). Case studies: Using Technology to Improve Curriculum Development: The Technology Source Archives The Technology Source Archives at the University of North Carolina. Web.

Stabback, P. (2007). Guidelines for Constructing a Curriculum Framework for Basic Education.Presented at the Regional Workshop “What basic education for Africa?” Kigali, Rwanda – 25-28 September 2007 UNESCO-IBE . Web.

UNESCO and IIEP. (2006). Guidebook for planning education in emergencies and reconstruction . Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.

Internal and External Influences on Program-Level Curriculum Development in Higher Education Fashion Merchandising Programs
Integrated Curriculum and Universal Design for Learning
Abstract Mathematics Skills Development Curriculum
Curriculum Development and Educational Leadership
Individualizing Instruction for Gifted in Mathematics
Curriculum Analysis and Philosophy for Cochran Middle School
Curriculum Design
Formal Curriculum Essay
Plan of Study and Professional Development
Curriculum Analysis
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, May 3). Curriculum Design and Development. https://ivypanda.com/essays/curriculum-design-and-development-essay/

"Curriculum Design and Development." IvyPanda , 3 May 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/curriculum-design-and-development-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Curriculum Design and Development'. 3 May.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Curriculum Design and Development." May 3, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/curriculum-design-and-development-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Curriculum Design and Development." May 3, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/curriculum-design-and-development-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Curriculum Design and Development." May 3, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/curriculum-design-and-development-essay/.

the encyclopaedia of pedagogy and informal education

What is curriculum? Exploring theory and practice

Curriculum theory and practice.the organization of schooling and further education has long been associated with the idea of a curriculum. but what actually is curriculum, and how might it be conceptualized we explore curriculum theory and practice and its relation to informal education..

Contents : introduction · curriculum as transmission · curriculum as product · curriculum as process · curriculum as praxis · curriculum and context · curriculum and informal education · further reading · links · how to cite this article

The idea of curriculum is hardly new – but the way we understand and theorize it has altered over the years – and there remains considerable dispute as to meaning. It has its origins in the running/chariot tracks of Greece. It was, literally, a course. In Latin curriculum was a racing chariot; currere was to run. A useful starting point for us here might be the definition offered by John Kerr and taken up by Vic Kelly in a standard work on the subject. Kerr defines curriculum as, ‘All the learning which is planned and guided by the school, whether it is carried on in groups or individually, inside or outside the school. (quoted in Kelly 1983: 10; see also, Kelly 1999). This gives us some basis to move on – and for the moment all we need to do is highlight two of the key features:

L earning is planned and guided . We have to specify in advance what we are seeking to achieve and how we are to go about it.

The definition refers to schooling. We should recognize that our current appreciation of curriculum theory and practice emerged in the school and in relation to other schooling ideas such as subject and lesson.

In what follows we are going to look at four ways of approaching curriculum theory and practice:

1. Curriculum as a body of knowledge to be transmitted . 2. Curriculum as an attempt to achieve certain ends in students – product . 3. Curriculum as process . 4. Curriculum as praxis .

It is helpful to consider these ways of approaching curriculum theory and practice in the light of Aristotle’s influential categorization of knowledge into three disciplines: the theoretical , the productive and the practical .

Here we can see some clear links – the body of knowledge to be transmitted in the first is that classically valued as ‘the canon’; the process and praxis models come close to practical deliberation; and the technical concerns of the outcome or product model mirror elements of Aristotle’s characterization of the productive. More this will be revealed as we examine the theory underpinning individual models.

Curriculum as a syllabus to be transmitted

Many people still equate a curriculum with a syllabus. Syllabus, naturally, originates from the Greek (although there was some confusion in its usage due to early misprints). Basically it means a concise statement or table of the heads of a discourse, the contents of a treatise, the subjects of a series of lectures. In the form that many of us will have been familiar with it is connected with courses leading to examinations – teachers talk of the syllabus associated with, say, the Cambridge Board French GSCE exam. What we can see in such documents is a series of headings with some additional notes which set out the areas that may be examined.

A syllabus will not generally indicate the relative importance of its topics or the order in which they are to be studied. In some cases as Curzon (1985) points out, those who compile a syllabus tend to follow the traditional textbook approach of an ‘order of contents’, or a pattern prescribed by a ‘logical’ approach to the subject, or – consciously or unconsciously – a the shape of a university course in which they may have participated. Thus, an approach to curriculum theory and practice which focuses on syllabus is only really concerned with content. Curriculum is a body of knowledge-content and/or subjects. Education in this sense, is the process by which these are transmitted or ‘delivered’ to students by the most effective methods that can be devised (Blenkin et al 1992: 23).

Where people still equate curriculum with a syllabus they are likely to limit their planning to a consideration of the content or the body of knowledge that they wish to transmit. ‘It is also because this view of curriculum has been adopted that many teachers in primary schools’, Kelly (1985: 7) claims, ‘have regarded issues of curriculum as of no concern to them, since they have not regarded their task as being to transmit bodies of knowledge in this manner’.

Curriculum as product

The dominant modes of describing and managing education are today couched in the productive form. Education is most often seen as a technical exercise. Objectives are set, a plan drawn up, then applied, and the outcomes (products) measured. It is a way of thinking about education that has grown in influence in the United Kingdom since the late 1970s with the rise of vocationalism and the concern with competencies. Thus, in the late 1980s and the 1990s many of the debates about the National Curriculum for schools did not so much concern how the curriculum was thought about as to what its objectives and content might be.

It is the work of two American writers Franklin Bobbitt (1918; 1928) and Ralph W. Tyler (1949) that dominate theory and practice within this tradition. In The Curriculum Bobbitt writes as follows:

The central theory [of curriculum] is simple. Human life, however varied, consists in the performance of specific activities. Education that prepares for life is one that prepares definitely and adequately for these specific activities. However numerous and diverse they may be for any social class they can be discovered. This requires only that one go out into the world of affairs and discover the particulars of which their affairs consist. These will show the abilities, attitudes, habits, appreciations and forms of knowledge that men need. These will be the objectives of the curriculum. They will be numerous, definite and particularized. The curriculum will then be that series of experiences which children and youth must have by way of obtaining those objectives. (1918: 42)

This way of thinking about curriculum theory and practice was heavily influenced by the development of management thinking and practice. The rise of ‘scientific management’ is often associated with the name of its main advocate F. W. Taylor. Basically what he proposed was greater division of labour with jobs being simplified; an extension of managerial control over all elements of the workplace; and cost accounting based on systematic time-and-motion study. All three elements were involved in this conception of curriculum theory and practice. For example, one of the attractions of this approach to curriculum theory was that it involved detailed attention to what people needed to know in order to work, live their lives and so on. A familiar, and more restricted, example of this approach can be found in many training programmes, where particular tasks or jobs have been analyzed – broken down into their component elements – and lists of competencies drawn up. In other words, the curriculum was not to be the result of ‘armchair speculation’ but the product of systematic study. Bobbitt’s work and theory met with mixed responses. One telling criticism that was made, and can continue to be made, of such approaches is that there is no social vision or programme to guide the process of curriculum construction. As it stands it is a technical exercise. However, it wasn’t criticisms such as this which initially limited the impact of such curriculum theory in the late 1920s and 1930s. Rather, the growing influence of ‘progressive’, child-centred approaches shifted the ground to more romantic notions of education. Bobbitt’s long lists of objectives and his emphasis on order and structure hardly sat comfortably with such forms.

The Progressive movement lost much of its momentum in the late 1940s in the United States and from that period the work of Ralph W. Tyler, in particular, has made a lasting impression on curriculum theory and practice. He shared Bobbitt’s emphasis on rationality and relative simplicity. His theory was based on four fundamental questions:

1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?

2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes?

3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?

4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained? (Tyler 1949: 1)

Like Bobbitt he also placed an emphasis on the formulation of behavioural objectives.

Since the real purpose of education is not to have the instructor perform certain activities but to bring about significant changes in the students’ pattern of behaviour, it becomes important to recognize that any statements of objectives of the school should be a statement of changes to take place in the students. (Tyler 1949: 44)

We can see how these concerns translate into a nicely-ordered procedure: one that is very similar to the technical or productive thinking set out below.

Step 1 : Diagnosis of need Step 2 : Formulation of objectives Step 3 : Selection of content Step 4 : Organization of content Step 5 : Selection of learning experiences Step 6 : Organization of learning experiences Step 7 : Determination of what to evaluate and of the ways and means of doing it. (Taba 1962)

The attraction of this way of approaching curriculum theory and practice is that it is systematic and has considerable organizing power. Central to the approach is the formulation of behavioural objectives – providing a clear notion of outcome so that content and method may be organized and the results evaluated.

There are a number of issues with this approach to curriculum theory and practice. The first is that the plan or programme assumes great importance. For example, we might look at a more recent definition of curriculum as: ‘A programme of activities (by teachers and pupils) designed so that pupils will attain so far as possible certain educational and other schooling ends or objectives (Grundy 1987: 11). The problem here is that such programmes inevitably exist prior to and outside the learning experiences. This takes much away from learners. They can end up with little or no voice. They are told what they must learn and how they will do it. The success or failure of both the programme and the individual learners is judged on the basis of whether pre-specified changes occur in the behaviour and person of the learner (the meeting of behavioural objectives). If the plan is tightly adhered to, there can only be limited opportunity for educators to make use of the interactions that occur. It also can deskill educators in another way. For example, a number of curriculum programmes, particularly in the USA, have attempted to make the student experience ‘teacher proof’. The logic of this approach is for the curriculum to be designed outside of the classroom or school, as is the case with the National Curriculum in the UK. Educators then apply programmes and are judged by the products of their actions. It turns educators into technicians.

Second, there are questions around the nature of objectives. This model is hot on measurability. It implies that behaviour can be objectively, mechanistically measured. There are obvious dangers here – there always has to be some uncertainty about what is being measured. We only have to reflect on questions of success in our work. It is often very difficult to judge what the impact of particular experiences has been. Sometimes it is years after the event that we come to appreciate something of what has happened. For example, most informal educators who have been around a few years will have had the experience of an ex-participant telling them in great detail about how some forgotten event (forgotten to the worker that is) brought about some fundamental change. Yet there is something more.

In order to measure, things have to be broken down into smaller and smaller units. The result, as many of you will have experienced, can be long lists of often trivial skills or competencies. This can lead to a focus in this approach to curriculum theory and practice on the parts rather than the whole; on the trivial, rather than the significant. It can lead to an approach to education and assessment which resembles a shopping list. When all the items are ticked, the person has passed the course or has learnt something. The role of overall judgment is somehow sidelined.

Third, there is a real problem when we come to examine what educators actually do in the classroom, for example. Much of the research concerning teacher thinking and classroom interaction, and curriculum innovation has pointed to the lack of impact on actual pedagogic practice of objectives (see Stenhouse 1974; and Cornbleth 1990, for example). One way of viewing this is that teachers simply get it wrong – they ought to work with objectives. I think we need to take this problem very seriously and not dismiss it in this way. The difficulties that educators experience with objectives in the classroom may point to something inherently wrong with the approach – that it is not grounded in the study of educational exchanges. It is a model of curriculum theory and practice largely imported from technological and industrial settings.

Fourth, there is the problem of unanticipated results. The focus on pre-specified goals may lead both educators and learners to overlook learning that is occurring as a result of their interactions, but which is not listed as an objective.

The apparent simplicity and rationality of this approach to curriculum theory and practice, and the way in which it mimics industrial management have been powerful factors in its success. A further appeal has been the ability of academics to use the model to attack teachers:

I believe there is a tendency, recurrent enough to suggest that it may be endemic in the approach, for academics in education to use the objectives model as a stick with which to beat teachers. ‘What are your objectives?’ is more often asked in a tone of challenge than one of interested and helpful inquiry. The demand for objectives is a demand for justification rather than a description of ends… It is not about curriculum design, but rather an expression of irritation in the problems of accountability in education. (Stenhouse 1974: 77)

So what are the other alternatives?

Curriculum as process

We have seen that the curriculum as product model is heavily dependent on the setting of behavioural objectives. The curriculum, essentially, is a set of documents for implementation. Another way of looking at curriculum theory and practice is via process. In this sense curriculum is not a physical thing, but rather the interaction of teachers, students and knowledge. In other words, curriculum is what actually happens in the classroom and what people do to prepare and evaluate. What we have in this model is a number of elements in constant interaction. It is an active process and links with the practical form of reasoning set out by Aristotle.

Teachers enter particular schooling and situations with

an understanding of their role and the expectations others have of them, and

a proposal for action which sets out essential principles and features of the educational encounter.

Guided by these, they encourage

out of which may come

They

Perhaps the two major things that set this apart from the model for informal education are first, the context in which the process occurs (‘particular schooling situations’); and second, the fact that teachers enter the classroom or any other formal educational setting with a more fully worked-through idea of what is about to happen. Here I have described that as entering the situation with ‘a proposal for action which sets out essential principles and features of the educational encounter’.

This form of words echoes those of Lawrence Stenhouse (1975) who produced one of the best-known explorations of a process model of curriculum theory and practice. He defined curriculum tentatively: ‘A curriculum is an attempt to communicate the essential principles and features of an educational proposal in such a form that it is open to critical scrutiny and capable of effective translation into practice’. He suggests that a curriculum is rather like a recipe in cookery.

It can be criticized on nutritional or gastronomic grounds – does it nourish the students and does it taste good? – and it can be criticized on the grounds of practicality – we can’t get hold of six dozen larks’ tongues and the grocer can’t find any ground unicorn horn! A curriculum, like the recipe for a dish, is first imagined as a possibility, then the subject of experiment. The recipe offered publicly is in a sense a report on the experiment. Similarly, a curriculum should be grounded in practice. It is an attempt to describe the work observed in classrooms that it is adequately communicated to teachers and others. Finally, within limits, a recipe can varied according to taste. So can a curriculum. (Stenhouse 1975: 4-5)

Stenhouse shifted the ground a little bit here. He was not saying that curriculum is the process, but rather the means by which the experience of attempting to put an educational proposal into practice is made available. The reason why he did this, I suspect, is that otherwise there is a danger of widening the meaning of the term so much that it embraces almost everything and hence means very little. For example, in a discussion of the so-called ‘youth work curriculum’ (Newman & Ingram 1989), the following definition was taken as a starting point: ‘those processes which enhance or, if they go wrong, inhibit a person’s learning’. This was then developed and a curriculum became: ‘an organic process by which learning is offered, accepted and internalized’ (Newman & Ingram 1989: 1). The problem with this sort of definition, as Robin Barrow (1984) points out, is that what this does is to widen the meaning of the term to such an extent that it just about becomes interchangeable with ‘education’ itself. More specifically, if curriculum is process then the word curriculum is redundant because process would do very nicely! The simple equation of curriculum with process is a very slap-happy basis on which to proceed.

We also need to reflect on why curriculum theory and practice came into use by educators (as against policy-makers). It was essentially as a way of helping them to think about their work before, during and after interventions; as a means of enabling educators to make judgments about the direction their work was taking. This is what Stenhouse was picking up on.

As a minimum, a curriculum should provide a basis for planning a course, studying it empirically and considering the grounds of its justification. It should offer:

A. :

1. Principle for the selection of content – what is to be learned and taught

2. Principles for the development of a teaching strategy – how it is to be learned and taught.

3. Principles for the making of decisions about sequence.

4. Principles on which to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of individual students and differentiate the general principles 1, 2 and 3 above, to meet individual cases.

B. :

1. Principles on which to study and evaluate the progress of students.

2. Principles on which to study and evaluate the progress of teachers.

3. Guidance as to the feasibility of implementing the curriculum in varying school contexts, pupil contexts, environments and peer-group situations.

4. Information about the variability of effects in differing contexts and on different pupils and an understanding of the causes of the variation.

C. :

A formulation of the intention or aim of the curriculum which is accessible to critical scrutiny.

Stenhouse 1975: 5

There are a number of contrasts in this model of curriculum theory and practice as compared with the product model. First, where the product model appeals to the workshop for a model, this process model looks to the world of experimentation.

The idea is that of an educational science in which each classroom is a laboratory, each teacher a member of the scientific community… The crucial point is that the proposal is not to be regarded as an unqualified recommendation but rather as a provisional specification claiming no more than to be worth putting to the test of practice, Such proposals claim to be intelligent rather than correct. (Stenhouse 1975: 142)

Thus, in this sense, a curriculum is a particular form of specification about the practice of teaching. It is not a package of materials or a syllabus of ground to be covered. ‘It is a way of translating any educational idea into a hypothesis testable in practice. It invites critical testing rather than acceptance’ (Stenhouse 1975: 142).

Second, and associated with the above, given the uniqueness of each classroom setting, it means that any proposal, even at school level, needs to be tested, and verified by each teacher in his/her classroom ( ibid : 143). It is not like a curriculum package which is designed to be delivered almost anywhere.

Third, outcomes are no longer the central and defining feature. Rather than tightly specifying behavioural objectives and methods in advance, what happens in this model of curriculum theory and practice is that content and means develop as teachers and students work together.

Fourth, the learners in this model are not objects to be acted upon. They have a clear voice in the way that the sessions evolve. The focus is on interactions. This can mean that attention shifts from teaching to learning. The product model, by having a pre-specified plan or programme, tends to direct attention to teaching. For example, how can this information be got over? A process approach to curriculum theory and practice, it is argued by writers like Grundy (1987), tends towards making the process of learning the central concern of the teacher. This is because this way of thinking emphasizes interpretation and meaning-making. As we have seen each classroom and each exchange is different and has to be made sense of.

However, when we come to think about this way of approaching curriculum in practice, a number of possible problems do arise. The first is a problem for those who want some greater degree of uniformity in what is taught. This approach to the theory of curriculum, because it places meaning-making and thinking at its core and treats learners as subjects rather than objects, can lead to very different means being employed in classrooms and a high degree of variety in content. As Stenhouse comments, the process model is essentially a critical model, not a marking model.

It can never be directed towards an examination as an objective without loss of quality, since the standards of the examination then override the standards immanent in the subject. This does not mean that students taught on the process model cannot be examined, but it does mean that the examinations must be taken in their stride as they pursue other aspirations. And if the examination is a by-product there is an implication that the quality the student shows in it must be an under-estimate of his real quality. It is hence rather difficult to get the weak student through an examination using a process model. Crammers cannot use it, since it depends upon a commitment to educational aims. (Stenhouse 1975: 95)

To some extent variation is limited by factors such as public examinations. The exchange between students and teachers does not float free of the context in which it arises. At the end of the day many students and their families place a high premium on exam or subject success and this inevitably enters into the classroom. This highlights a second problem with the model we have just outlined – that it may not pay enough attention to the context in which learning takes place (more of this later).

Third, there is the ‘problem’ of teachers. The major weakness and, indeed, strength of the process model is that it rests upon the quality of teachers. If they are not up to much then there is no safety net in the form of prescribed curriculum materials. The approach is dependent upon the cultivation of wisdom and meaning-making in the classroom. If the teacher is not up to this, then there will be severe limitations on what can happen educationally. There have been some attempts to overcome this problem by developing materials and curriculum packages which focus more closely on the ‘process of discovery’ or ‘problem-solving’, for example in science. But there is a danger in this approach. Processes become reduced to sets of skills – for example, how to light a bunsen burner. When students are able to demonstrate certain skills, they are deemed to have completed the process. As Grundy comments, the actions have become the ends; the processes have become the product. Whether or not students are able to apply the skills to make sense of the world around them is somehow overlooked (Grundy 1987: 77).

Fourth, we need to look back at our process model of curriculum theory and practice and what we have subsequently discussed, and return to Aristotle and to Freire. The model we have looked at here does not fully reflect the process explored earlier. In particular, it does not make explicit the commitments associated with phronesis. And it is to that we will now turn.

Curriculum as praxis

Curriculum as praxis is, in many respects, a development of the process model. While the process model is driven by general principles and places an emphasis on judgment and meaning making, it does not make explicit statements about the interests it serves. It may, for example, be used in such a way that does not make continual reference to collective human well-being and to the emancipation of the human spirit. The praxis model of curriculum theory and practice brings these to the centre of the process and makes an explicit commitment to emancipation. Thus action is not simply informed, it is also committed. It is praxis.

Critical pedagogy goes beyond situating the learning experience within the experience of the learner: it is a process which takes the experiences of both the learner and the teacher and, through dialogue and negotiation, recognizes them both as problematic… [It] allows, indeed encourages, students and teachers together to confront the real problems of their existence and relationships… When students confront the real problems of their existence they will soon also be faced with their own oppression. (Grundy 1987: 105)

We can amend our ‘curriculum as process’ model to take account of these concerns.

Teachers enter particular schooling and situations with

a personal, but shared idea of the good and a commitment to human emancipation,

an ability to think critically, -in-action

an understanding of their role and the expectations others have of them, and

a proposal for action which sets out essential principles and features of the educational encounter.

Guided by these, they encourage

conversations between, and with, people in the situation

out of which may come

informed and committed action.

They

continually evaluate the process and what they can see of outcomes.

In this approach the curriculum itself develops through the dynamic interaction of action and reflection. ‘That is, the curriculum is not simply a set of plans to be implemented, but rather is constituted through an active process in which planning, acting and evaluating are all reciprocally related and integrated into the process’ (Grundy 1987: 115). At its centre is praxis : informed, committed action.

How might we recognize this? First, I think we should be looking for practice which does not focus exclusively on individuals, but pays careful attention to collective understandings and practices and to structural questions. For example, in sessions which seek to explore the experiences of different cultural and racial groups in society, we could be looking to see whether the direction of the work took people beyond a focus on individual attitudes. Are participants confronting the material conditions through which those attitudes are constituted, for example?

Second, we could be looking for a commitment expressed in action to the exploration of educators’ values and their practice. Are they, for example, able to say in a coherent way what they think makes for human well-being and link this with their practice? We could also be looking for certain values – especially an emphasis on human emancipation.

Third, we could expect practitioners committed to praxis to be exploring their practice with their peers. They would be able to say how their actions with respect to particular interventions reflected their ideas about what makes for the good, and to say what theories were involved.

Curriculum in context

To round off this discussion of curriculum we do need to pay further attention to the social context in which it is created. One criticism that has been made of the praxis model (especially as it is set out by Grundy) is that it does not place a strong enough emphasis upon context. This is a criticism that can also be laid at the door of the other approaches. In this respect the work of Catherine Cornbleth (1990) is of some use. She sees curriculum as a particular type of process. Curriculum for her is what actually happens in classrooms, that is, ‘an ongoing social process comprised of the interactions of students, teachers, knowledge and milieu’ (1990: 5). In contrast, Stenhouse defines curriculum as the attempt to describe what happens in classrooms rather than what actually occurs. Cornbleth further contends that curriculum as practice cannot be understood adequately or changed substantially without attention to its setting or context. Curriculum is contextually shaped. While I may quibble about the simple equation of curriculum with process, what Cornbleth does by focusing on the interaction is to bring out the significance of context.

First, by introducing the notion of milieu into the discussion of curriculum she again draws attention to the impact of some factors that we have already noted. Of especial significance here are examinations and the social relationships of the school – the nature of the teacher-student relationship, the organization of classes, streaming and so on. These elements are what are sometimes known as the hidden curriculum. This was a term credited to Philip W. Jackson (1968) but it had been present as an acknowledged element in education for some time before. For example, John Dewey in Experience and Education referred to the ‘collateral learning’ of attitudes that occur in schools, and that may well be of more long-range importance than the explicit school curriculum (1938: 48). A fairly standard (product) definition of the ‘hidden curriculum’ is given by Vic Kelly. He argues it is those things which students learn, ‘because of the way in which the work of the school is planned and organized but which are not in themselves overtly included in the planning or even in the consciousness of those responsible for the school arrangements (1988: 8). The learning associated with the ‘hidden curriculum’ is most often treated in a negative way. It is learning that is smuggled in and serves the interests of the status quo. The emphasis on regimentation, on bells and time management, and on streaming are sometimes seen as preparing young people for the world of capitalist production. What we do need to recognize is that such ‘hidden’ learning is not all negative and can be potentially liberating. ‘In so far as they enable students to develop socially valued knowledge and skills… or to form their own peer groups and subcultures, they may contribute to personal and collective autonomy and to possible critique and challenge of existing norms and institutions’ (Cornbleth 1990: 50). What we also need to recognize is that by treating curriculum as a contextualized social process, the notion of hidden curriculum becomes rather redundant. If we need to stay in touch with milieu as we build curriculum then it is not hidden but becomes a central part of our processes.

Second, by paying attention to milieu, we can begin to get a better grasp of the impact of structural and socio-cultural process on teachers and students. As Cornbleth argues, economic and gender relations, for example, do not simply bypass the systemic or structural context of curriculum and enter directly into classroom practice. They are mediated by intervening layers of the education system (Cornbleth 1990: 7). Thus, the impact of these factors may be quite different to that expected.

Third, if curriculum theory and practice is inextricably linked to milieu then it becomes clear why there have been problems about introducing it into non-schooling contexts like youth work; and it is to this area which we will now turn.

Curriculum as the boundary between formal and informal education

Jeffs and Smith (1990; 1999) have argued that the notion of curriculum provides a central dividing line between formal and informal education. They contend that curriculum theory and practice was formed within the schooling context and that there are major problems when it is introduced into informal forms of pedagogy.

The adoption of curriculum theory and practice by some informal educators appears to have arisen from a desire to be clear about content. Yet there are crucial difficulties with the notion of curriculum in this context. These centre around the extent to which it is possible to have a clear idea, in advance (and even during the process), of the activities and topics that will be involved in a particular piece of work.

At any one time, outcomes may not be marked by a high degree of specificity. In a similar way, the nature of the activities used often cannot be predicted. It may be that we can say something about how the informal educator will work. However, knowing in advance about broad processes and ethos isn’t the same as having a knowledge of the programme. We must, thus, conclude that approaches to the curriculum which focus on objectives and detailed programmes appear to be incompatible with informal education. ( Jeffs & Smith 1990 : 15)

In other words, they are arguing that a product model of curriculum is not compatible with the emphasis on process and praxis within informal education.

However, process and praxis models of curriculum also present problems in the context of informal education. If you look back at at our models of process and compare them with the model of informal education presented above then it is clear that we can have a similar problem with pre-specification. One of the key feature that differentiates the two is that the curriculum model has the teacher entering the situation with a proposal for action which sets out the essential principles and features of the educational encounter. Informal educators do not have, and do not need, this element. They do not enter with a clear proposal for action. Rather, they have an idea of what makes for human well-being, and an appreciation of their overall role and strategy (strategy here being some idea about target group and broad method e.g. detached work). They then develop their aims and interventions in interaction. And what is this element we have been discussing? It is nothing more nor less than what Stenhouse considers to be a curriculum!

The other key difference is context. Even if we were to go the whole hog and define curriculum as process there remain substantive problems. As Cornbleth (1990), and Jeffs and Smith (1990, 1999) have argued, curriculum cannot be taken out of context, and the context in which it was formed was the school. Curriculum theory and practice only makes sense when considered alongside notions like class, teacher, course, lesson and so on. You only have to look at the language that has been used by our main proponents: Tyler, Stenhouse, Cornbleth and Grundy, to see this. It is not a concept that stands on its own. It developed in relation to teaching and within particular organizational relationships and expectations. Alter the context and the nature of the process alters . We then need different ways of describing what is going on. Thus, it is no surprise that when curriculum theory and practice are introduced into what are essentially informal forms of working such as youth work and community work, their main impact is to formalize significant aspects of the work. One of the main outcome of curriculum experiments within youth work has been work, for example in the field of health promotion, which involve pre-specified activities, visiting workers, regular meetings and so on. Within the language of youth work these are most often called programmes or projects ( Foreman 1990 ). Within a school they would be called a course.

What is being suggested here is that when informal educators take on the language of curriculum they are crossing the boundary between their chosen specialism and the domain of formal education. This they need to do from time to time. There will be formal interludes in their work, appropriate times for them to mount courses and to discuss content and method in curriculum terms. But we should not fall into the trap of thinking that to be educators we have to adopt curriculum theory and practice. The fact that so many have been misled into believing this demonstrates just how powerful the ideas of schooling are. Education is something more than schooling.

We have explored four different approaches to curriculum theory and practice:

Curriculum as a body of knowledge to be transmitted . Curriculum as an attempt to achieve certain ends in students – product . Curriculum as process . Curriculum as praxis .

In a number of respects these different bodies of curriculum theory and practice link to the four main forces in North American curriculum-making in the twentieth century: the liberal educators; the scientific curriculum makers; the developmental/person-centred; and the social meliorists (those that sought more radical social change) (after Kliebart 1987).


Guardians of an ancient tradition tied to the power of reason and the finest elements of the Western cultural heritage	Human life consists in the performance of specific activities. Education that prepares for life is one that prepares definitely and adequately for these specific activities.	The natural order of development in the child was most significant and scientifically defensible basis for determining what should be taught	Schools as a major, perhaps the, principal force for social change and social justice
Systematic development of reasoning power and the communication of ‘the canon’.	Influenced by the rise of scientific management and notions of social efficiency. Focus on setting objectives (the statement of changes to take place in the students) and the organization of schooling to meet these.	Sought a curriculum in harmony with the child’s ‘real’ interests, needs and learning patterns	Corruption and vice, inequalities of race and gender, and the abuse of privilege and power should be addressed directly. with the aim of raising a new generation equipped to deal effectively with these abuses.
Charles W. Taylor	Franklin Bobbitt and Ralph W. Tyler	G. Stanley Hall	Lester Frank Ward
transmission	product	process	praxis

We shouldn’t push the similarities too far – but there are some interesting overlaps – and this does alert us both to the changing understanding and to shifting policy orientations over time.

For the moment we are having to operate within a policy environment that prizes the productive and technical. Furthermore, the discourse has become so totalizing that forms of education that do not have a curricula basis are squeezed. The temptation is always there to either be colonized by curriculum theory or adopt ways of describing practice that do not make sense in terms of the processes and commitments involved. Kleibart’s analysis provides us with some hope – things will change. However, there is no guarantee that they will move in a more edifying direction.

Get a Program Brochure

The importance of curriculum development in enhancing teaching and learning.

Teacher instructs his students, helps work through a project

Delve into the crucial role of curriculum development as we unravel the multifaceted landscape of curriculum decisions and their impact on students and teachers. From defining terms like curriculum and curriculum development to examining the stakeholders involved, this blog navigates the complex terrain of educational policy, answering questions such as "Why is curriculum development important in teaching?" and "How does the curriculum affect the teaching and learning process?" Join us on this educational journey to understand the dynamic and iterative curriculum development process.

Curriculum’s Reach Extends Beyond the Classroom

Curriculum decisions have far-reaching consequences for students and teachers in K-12 schools. The decisions made in public schools are often hotly debated. The triggers for controversy include societal issues and agendas, the goals and effectiveness of the education, and funding. These debates underscore the importance of curriculum development in enhancing teaching and learning.

Put another way, curriculum decisions impact how we shape our society through the way we mold our future adults. Curriculum decisions include technical and policy components, covering everything from the best ways to teach multiplication or the parts of speech to the philosophical frameworks for teaching history and science.

Understanding the context of curriculum development can help educators who want to become more influential in the development of educational policy and practice. This post begins by defining some terms, then considers the stakeholders involved in approving curricula in U.S. public schools and the importance of curriculum development in enhancing teaching and learning.

Defining Terms: Curriculum

Dictionaries define “curriculum” as a course of study. Educators and those concerned with educational policy have a more nuanced, comprehensive view of the word’s meaning, as definitions from an international organization and a state-level agency illustrate.

The International Bureau of Education at UNESCO, The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, says, “In the simplest terms, ‘curriculum’ is a description of what, why, how and how well students should learn in a systematic and intentional way.” 1

The state of Rhode Island defines curriculum as “a standards-based sequence of planned experiences where students practice and achieve proficiency in content and applied learning skills.” Rhode Island’s definition also says, “The structure, organization, and considerations in a curriculum are created in order to enhance student learning and facilitate instruction. Curriculum must include the necessary goals, methods, materials and assessments to effectively support instruction and learning.” 2

Both the above definitions can apply to the learning plan for a single class, for a grade level, or for the entire span of a K-12 educational journey. One writer used the metaphor of a puzzle, in which the learning from individual courses connects to and builds on that of others to create the final picture of the students’ education. 3

Another way to conceptualize the term is to think of curriculum as an operations manual for the school system, designed to help educators transport students from one intellectual state to another. To summarize key concepts in the above definitions, a curriculum answers the following questions about a subject of any scope:

What is covered
In what order
To what purpose
How it’s framed or contextualized
What materials to use
How to measure success

Defining Terms: Curriculum Development

As global change continues to accelerate, the importance of curriculum development in enhancing teaching and learning grows. The world is changing, and how we prepare students to take up their roles and responsibilities must change apace. In its “Education 2030” position paper, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) asserts, “The concept of ‘curriculum’ should be developed from ‘predetermined and static’ to ‘adaptable and dynamic.’ Schools and teachers should be able to update and align the curriculum to reflect evolving societal requirements as well as individual learning needs.” 4

So curriculum development is an ongoing, dynamic process with a focus on the individual student’s success and a scope broad enough to accommodate progress in basic science and technology as well as changes in culture, politics and the environment. In the iterative process of curriculum development, the design and implementation of the curriculum are preceded by the analysis of current conditions and followed by evaluation.

Analysis and evaluation are critical to the success of curriculum development. Analysis helps connect education to current events and connect teaching across disciplines to deepen student learning. Evaluation informs future cycles of development and provides feedback to administrators and policymakers as well as students, parents and teachers.

Given the dynamics of global change and the importance of curriculum development in enhancing teaching and learning, a systematic approach to managing development is central to creating desired outcomes. 5

In summary, curriculum development is:

Evolutionary
Evidence-based
Comprehensive in scope
A tool to improve learning outcomes

The importance of curriculum development in enhancing teaching and learning outcomes comes into focus as the term is defined. Considering the many players involved in setting curriculum sharpens the focus.

Who Determines K-12 Curriculum?

In the United States, responsibility for setting educational policy rests with the states, with the federal government influencing policy through funding and judicial oversight. The U.S. Department of Education has estimated that federal money makes up 8% of elementary and secondary school funding. Federal courts also hear cases related to education and curriculum. For example, in the 1963 case, School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp , the Supreme Court ruled that a Pennsylvania law requiring the reading of bible verses at the opening of the school day violated the First Amendment. 6, 7

States supervise the work of their public school districts and have “the authority to impose limits and obligations on both local school districts and parents.” Locally elected boards typically manage school districts and delegate direct responsibility for curriculum development, among other administrative functions, to their school superintendents. The school board approves curriculum as part of its responsibility to set policy. 8

Government entities are not the only stakeholders in K-12 education. Students, parents, and teachers all have a direct interest in the process. Stakeholders with a less direct but still keen interest include community members and businesses who help fund the schools and interact with students. Advocates for various issues also seek to influence elementary and secondary school curricula.

Such widespread interest in the process is proof of education’s importance to society and the importance of curriculum development in enhancing teaching and learning.

Curriculum as a Reflection of Culture and Values

Curriculum requires careful thought because education reflects and shapes the values of a society. We teach our children what is important to us and that education shapes their worldview. The distributed structure of U.S. education oversight, with several stakeholders influencing locally elected boards of education, is an excellent example of how culture and values affect curriculum. The system encourages the intense interest of disparate stakeholders because people who valued a pluralistic approach to policy-making designed it. 8

Other examples of cultural influence on curriculum abound. Countries or school districts placing a high value on volunteerism may codify that value in high school graduation requirements. Likewise, societies or schools valuing science and technology, or social justice and equity, encode those values in specific curriculum requirements.

We can think of the impact of curriculum and curriculum development as flexibly as the terms themselves can be defined. A curriculum can cover a narrowly focused subject for a grade level or be a comprehensive educational plan spanning K-12. Similarly, curriculum impacts both the broader culture and individual students' learning through the work of individual teachers.

A well-developed, current curriculum provides several benefits for students and teachers. A curriculum that lays out course objectives and content sequencing lets the teacher focus on designing specific lessons and assessments to teach individual students effectively. See The Importance of Lesson Planning for Student Success for more on this topic. A regularly reviewed curriculum benefits from teacher feedback and incorporates new topics, technologies, and issues. A well-developed curriculum enhances teaching and learning in myriad ways.

Retrieved on January 28, 2022, from ibe.unesco.org/en/glossary-curriculum-terminology/c/curriculum-plural-curricula
Retrieved on January 28, 2022, from ride.ri.gov/InstructionAssessment/Curriculum/CurriculumDefinition.aspx#:~:text=Curriculum%20is%20a%20standards%2Dbased,access%20to%20rigorous%20academic%20experiences.
Retrieved on January 28, 2022, from classcraft.com/blog/why-is-curriculum-important/
Retrieved on January 28, 2022, from oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf
Retrieved on January 28, 2022, from simplyeducate.me/2014/12/13/the-meaning-and-importance-of-curriculum-development/
Retrieved on January 28, 2022, from ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html
Retrieved on January 28, 2022, from oyez.org/cases/1962/142
Retrieved on January 28, 2022, from kappanonline.org/legal-balancing-act-public-school-curriculum-underwood/

Return to Blog

William & Mary has engaged Everspring , a leading provider of education and technology services, to support select aspects of program delivery.

Created by the Great Schools Partnership , the GLOSSARY OF EDUCATION REFORM is a comprehensive online resource that describes widely used school-improvement terms, concepts, and strategies for journalists, parents, and community members. | Learn more »

The term curriculum refers to the lessons and academic content taught in a school or in a specific course or program. In dictionaries, curriculum is often defined as the courses offered by a school, but it is rarely used in such a general sense in schools. Depending on how broadly educators define or employ the term, curriculum typically refers to the knowledge and skills students are expected to learn, which includes the learning standards or learning objectives they are expected to meet; the units and lessons that teachers teach; the assignments and projects given to students; the books, materials, videos, presentations, and readings used in a course; and the tests, assessments , and other methods used to evaluate student learning. An individual teacher’s curriculum, for example, would be the specific learning standards, lessons, assignments, and materials used to organize and teach a particular course.

When the terms curriculum or curricula are used in educational contexts without qualification, specific examples, or additional explanation, it may be difficult to determine precisely what the terms are referring to—mainly because they could be applied to either all or only some of the component parts of a school’s academic program or courses.

In many cases, teachers develop their own curricula, often refining and improving them over years, although it is also common for teachers to adapt lessons and syllabi created by other teachers, use curriculum templates and guides to structure their lessons and courses, or purchase prepackaged curricula from individuals and companies. In some cases, schools purchase comprehensive, multigrade curriculum packages—often in a particular subject area, such as mathematics—that teachers are required to use or follow. Curriculum may also encompass a school’s academic requirements for graduation, such as the courses students have to take and pass, the number of credits students must complete, and other requirements, such as completing a capstone project or a certain number of community-service hours. Generally speaking, curriculum takes many different forms in schools—too many to comprehensively catalog here.

It is important to note that while curriculum encompasses a wide variety of potential educational and instructional practices, educators often have a very precise, technical meaning in mind when they use the term. Most teachers spend a lot of time thinking about, studying, discussing, and analyzing curriculum, and many educators have acquired a specialist’s expertise in curriculum development—i.e., they know how to structure, organize, and deliver lessons in ways that facilitate or accelerate student learning. To noneducators, some curriculum materials may seem simple or straightforward (such as a list of required reading, for example), but they may reflect a deep and sophisticated understanding of an academic discipline and of the most effective strategies for learning acquisition and classroom management .

For a related discussion, see hidden curriculum .

Since curriculum is one of the foundational elements of effective schooling and teaching, it is often the object of reforms, most of which are broadly intended to either mandate or encourage greater curricular standardization and consistency across states, schools, grade levels, subject areas, and courses. The following are a few representative examples of the ways in which curriculum is targeted for improvement or used to leverage school improvement and increase teacher effectiveness:

Standards requirements: When new learning standards are adopted at the state, district, or school levels, teachers typically modify what they teach and bring their curriculum into “ alignment ” with the learning expectations outlined in the new standards. While the technical alignment of curriculum with standards does not necessarily mean that teachers are teaching in accordance with the standards—or, more to the point, that students are actually achieving those learning expectations—learning standards remain a mechanism by which policy makers and school leaders attempt to improve curriculum and teaching quality. The Common Core State Standards Initiative , for example, is a national effort to influence curriculum design and teaching quality in schools through the adoption of new learning standards by states.
Assessment requirements: Another reform strategy that indirectly influences curriculum is assessment, since the methods used to measure student learning compel teachers to teach the content and skills that will eventually be evaluated. The most commonly discussed examples are standardized testing and high-stakes testing , which can give rise to a phenomenon informally called “teaching to the test.” Because federal and state policies require students to take standardized tests at certain grade levels, and because regulatory penalties or negative publicity may result from poor student performance (in the case of high-stakes tests), teachers are consequently under pressure to teach in ways that are likely to improve student performance on standardized tests—e.g., by teaching the content likely to be tested or by coaching students on specific test-taking techniques. While standardized tests are one way in which assessment is used to leverage curriculum reform, schools may also use rubrics and many other strategies to improve teaching quality through the modification of assessment strategies, requirements, and expectations.
Curriculum alignment: Schools may try to improve curriculum quality by bringing teaching activities and course expectations into “ alignment ” with learning standards and other school courses—a practice sometimes called “curriculum mapping.” The basic idea is to create a more consistent and coherent academic program by making sure that teachers teach the most important content and eliminate learning gaps that may exist between sequential courses and grade levels. For example, teachers may review their mathematics program to ensure that what students are actually being taught in every Algebra I course offered in the school not only reflects expected learning standards for that subject area and grade level, but that it also prepares students for Algebra II and geometry. When the curriculum is not aligned, students might be taught significantly different content in each Algebra I course, for example, and students taking different Algebra I courses may complete the courses unevenly prepared for Algebra II. For a more detailed discussion, see coherent curriculum .
Curriculum philosophy: The design and goals of any curriculum reflect the educational philosophy—whether intentionally or unintentionally—of the educators who developed it. Consequently, curriculum reform may occur through the adoption of a different philosophy or model of teaching by a school or educator. Schools that follow the Expeditionary Learning model, for example, embrace a variety of approaches to teaching generally known as project-based learning , which encompasses related strategies such as community-based learning and authentic learning . In Expeditionary Learning schools, students complete multifaceted projects called “expeditions” that require teachers to develop and structure curriculum in ways that are quite different from the more traditional approaches commonly used in schools.
Curriculum packages: In some cases, schools decide to purchase or adopt a curriculum package that has been developed by an outside organization. One well-known and commonly used option for American public schools is International Baccalaureate , which offers curriculum programs for elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools. Districts may purchase all three programs or an individual school may purchase only one, and the programs may be offered to all or only some of the students in a school. When schools adopt a curriculum package, teachers often receive specialized training to ensure that the curriculum is effectively implemented and taught. In many cases, curriculum packages are purchased or adopted because they are perceived to be of a higher quality or more prestigious than the existing curriculum options offered by a school or independently developed by teachers.
Curriculum resources: The resources that schools provide to teachers can also have a significant affect on curriculum. For example, if a district or school purchases a certain set of textbooks and requires teachers to use them, those textbooks will inevitably influence what gets taught and how teachers teach. Technology purchases are another example of resources that have the potential to influence curriculum. If all students are given laptops and all classrooms are outfitted with interactive whiteboards, for example, teachers can make significant changes in what they teach and how they teach to take advantage of these new technologies (for a more detailed discussion of this example, see one-to-one ). In most cases, however, new curriculum resources require schools to invest in professional development that helps teachers use the new resources effectively, given that simply providing new resources without investing in teacher education and training may fail to bring about desired improvements. In addition, the type of professional development provided to teachers can also have a major influence on curriculum development and design.
Curriculum standardization: States, districts, and schools may also try to improve teaching quality and effectiveness by requiring, or simply encouraging, teachers to use either a standardized curriculum or common processes for developing curriculum. While the strategies used to promote more standardized curricula can vary widely from state to state or school to school, the general goal is to increase teaching quality through greater curricular consistency. School performance will likely improve, the reasoning goes, if teaching methods and learning expectations are based on sound principles and consistently applied throughout a state, district, or school. Curriculum standards may also be created or proposed by influential educational organizations—such as the National Science Teachers Association or the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics , for example—with the purpose of guiding learning expectations and teaching within particular academic disciplines.
Curriculum scripting: Often called “scripted curriculum,” the scripting of curriculum is the most prescriptive form of standardized, prepackaged curriculum, since it typically requires teachers to not only follow a particular sequence of preprepared lessons, but to actually read aloud from a teaching script in class. While the professional autonomy and creativity of individual teachers may be significantly limited when such a curriculum system is used, the general rationale is that teaching quality can be assured or improved, or at least maintained, across a school or educational system if teachers follow a precise instructional script. While not every teacher will be a naturally excellent teacher, the reasoning goes, all teachers can at least be given a high-quality curriculum script to follow. Scripted curricula tend to be most common in districts and schools that face significant challenges attracting and retaining experienced or qualified teachers, such as larger urban schools in high-poverty communities.

Alphabetical Search

Understanding curriculum as practice, or on the practice turn(s) in curriculum inquiry

Point and counterpoint
Open access
Published: 26 April 2022
Volume 42 , pages 77–83, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Bill Green 1

7631 Accesses

4 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Curriculum can be understood in a threefold fashion: as concept , as practice and as field of study . These three perspectives and foci are interrelated, and while it is best to consider them and their interrelations together, my focus in this instance is specifically on understanding curriculum as practice . Even to highlight this one dimension, however, is far from simple or straightforward: curriculum as practice is certainly not to be seen, as popular or common-sense usages would have it, as the other side of something called ‘theory’. Indeed, what I present here is a practice-theoretical perspective on curriculum, teaching and schooling. That is, I am drawing on what is called practice theory and philosophy , a body of work and a line of thought that is offering the curriculum field rich insights into the nature of curriculum. There are encouraging signs, in fact, that its time may now have come, with several very recent papers in the curriculum field working with similar ideas and arguments to those I am marshalling here, and I consider them briefly in what follows.

How is the idea of ‘practice’ itself to be understood? It should be acknowledged right at the outset that, as Deng ( 2021 ) writes, “… there are not one but many visions of education and conceptions of practice which are always competing and conflicting” (p. 190) — that is, practice can be variously described and conceptualised, and what I am offering here is one account, albeit one I hope is both informed and useful, and moreover defensible. The crucial point is the need for “an internal language of description” (Hordern, 2020 , p. 8) for practice itself, within “the further development of an internal conceptual language about education” (p. 9). That remains an ongoing project. The starting point here might be to pick up on what is called the ‘primacy of practice’ thesis and the notion of activity — the idea of the world in motion, as being ongoingly enacted.

At issue, first off, is whether or not practice is understood from the ‘inside’ (i.e. subjectively), or from the ‘outside’ (i.e. objectively), or as a matter somehow of both (i.e. “multidimensionally” — Kemmis, 2009 , p. 30). Similarly, we must consider if practice is best understood dynamically or synoptically, or both/and? And if practice is always both in the body and in the world, how do we use it for curriculum inquiry to enrich our knowledge of and capacities for curriculum making? These are challenging issues, for practitioners and researchers alike. What I present here is, broadly, a poststructuralist view. It seeks to provide a particular way of thinking about curriculum-as-practice that is illuminating, partly because it has been obscured if not more actively suppressed in recent times.

Elsewhere, I point to “four distinct but related formulations of the practice concept” (Green, 2009b , pp. 42–43), drawn from the philosopher Theodore Schatzki ( 1996 ). The first is “learning how or improving one’s ability to do something by repeatedly working at it and carrying it out” (Schatzki, 1996 , p. 89). This is familiar enough — ‘practising’. It is what happens in sport and other fields, or learning piano, for example. The second is to see practice as “a temporally unfolding and spatially dispersed nexus of doings and sayings” (p. 89) — an array of activities, doing and saying things in an organised way, to achieve particular ends. The third way of understanding practice is as “performing an action or carrying out a practice of the second sort” (p. 89). This is performance, or enactment — practising the practice, or playing it out. There is another, fourth formulation, which indicates operating in the nitty–gritty of the so-called real world, commonsensically understood, or, reframed theoretically, “the everyday business of professional practice” (Green, 2009b , p. 43). If we keep the first to one side for the moment, then to speak of practice is to bring these latter three meanings together. Hence:

Professional practice in this light consists of speech (what people say) plus the activity of the body, or bodies, in interaction (what people do, more often than not together) – a play of voices and bodies. In this view, practice is inherently dialogical, an orchestrated interplay, and indeed a matter of co-production. (Green, 2009b , p. 43).

In our case, this is what is being referred in speaking of classroom practice, with all its exigencies and urgencies, its worldliness. This is face-to-face, body-to-body, interactive, affective, dynamic — teachers and students, working together (mostly…) in the same milieu, getting things done. As is well known, teachers do most of the talking in classrooms, with students talking to some degree, in various ways, but also reading and writing, as instructed — ‘voices’ in play, that is, or ‘language-ing’. But there are also bodies in play, or at work: the teacher’s (adult) body and the gendered bodies of the students, sitting, raising their hands, answering back, exchanging glances and perhaps passing notes, attentive or not, etc. There are various architectures to negotiate: walls, windows, desks and whiteboards, along with others that are more virtual in nature but still emphatically material. This is the ‘real world’ of the classroom in action, in motion. And of course it is located, alongside other classrooms, in the school, as an organisation, a worksite, with connections to other practice sites (e.g. Head Office, etc.).

All of these senses of practice are relevant here, which is why practice is so complex and demanding, as always excessive, as “already always social”, with teaching as professional practice “right from the outset, a distinctive form of social practice, with all its attendant complexity” (Green, 2009b , p. 43). There is much more to be said, in elaborating this view of practice — for instance, how ‘sayings’ and ‘doings’ (Schatzki, 1996 ) and ‘relatings’ (Kemmis, 2019 ) and ‘sensings’ (Green, 2021a , 2021b ) come together and are woven into the lived and living fabric of practice, how corporeality matters in and beyond the cognitive and the intentional, how professional judgement as phronesis relates to praxis and aporia (Green, 2009a ) and all the risks of decision and undecidability, existence and ontology. Suffice it for the moment to say that this remains a task to be done.

Such thinking arises from my engagement, with others, with practice theory and philosophy, in the context of seeking to understand and research professional practice, across a range of professional practice fields (teaching, nursing, social work, clinical psychology, etc.). Footnote 1 This was conceived as a comparative research programme, right from the outset, with the view that there was much to be gained by novices (‘newcomers’) in a particular field being exposed to how practitioners in other professions developed over time a professional identity, a habitus, as they moved through their initial professional education and beyond to become authorised and authoritative as professionals. The work is still proceeding, on various fronts (e.g. Loftus and Kinsella, 2021 ).

An important reference point, and indeed a major impetus for this particular research program, was the publication of The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory (1980), edited by Theodore Schatzki, Katrin Knorr Cetina and Chloe von Savigny. The book announced an important initiative in social and cultural inquiry, ranging across the humanities and the sciences, and the assertion of ‘practice’ as “the primary generic social thing” (Schatzki et al., 2001 , p.1). Schatzki himself has been a key figure in this ‘practice turn’. Footnote 2 It is worth noting that education was not included in the fields addressed in the book, as a point of reference for “contemporary theory”, and there was no mention at all of curriculum theory. Clearly however there was much that was directly relevant for education, and particularly and more specifically for professional education, including teacher education. This was picked up in our own work (e.g. Green et al., 2017 ).

A further point of interest here is the positing of two (meta-)traditions in practice theory and philosophy, what I called the ‘neo-Aristotelian’ and the ‘post-Cartesian’ (Green, 2009a ), with possibly a third to be identified with American Pragmatism. Footnote 3 To date, more has been done in the neo-Aristotelian tradition, with Stephen Kemmis’ work on ‘practice architectures’ an exemplary expression of this: although there is also increasingly work being done along post-Cartesian lines, in what might be seen as a ‘postmodernist’ perspective, drawing on notions of discourse and subjectivity. Deweyan work on habit and the body has been also extremely important in this regard, along with his notions of experience and activity. My point is that there are different ways of thinking (about) practice available, and a considerable body of work now in professional education, which might be useful for curriculum inquiry, although there has been little sign of this happening or being taken up until recently, at least explicitly.

This is not to say that these are entirely new perspectives. Neo-Aristotelian inquiry for instance links readily with action research, from John Elliott in the UK to Kemmis and others in Australia (Green, 2018c ), and Shirley Grundy’s ( 1987 ) exploration of “curriculum as product or praxis” is certainly aligned with neo-Aristotelian practice theories. Of particular significance here is the notion of ‘the practical’, drawn from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and elsewhere, as an action-orientation or what has been called a knowledge-constitutive interest, involving the relationship between phronesis , or the wisdom of experience, and praxis , as a concept potentially bringing together the good and the political . Also in Australia, Noel Gough ( 1978 , 1984 ) did important early work along such lines, on ‘deliberation’ and the practical, before shifting to a more Reconceptualist perspective. Poststructuralist influences in curriculum inquiry have become increasingly familiar in the field, although this has been more oriented to language, and to discourse rather than practice, conceptually, even as its use-value in and for practice has become clearer. Deweyan work in curriculum inquiry is clearly evident, again without being focused on theorising practice. A proper synthesis of these various perspectives and traditions has not been made to date, however.

My interest here is in how this way of thinking might be transferred to curriculum inquiry. More specifically, what are the implications of seeing curriculum itself as a form of practice? This depends, in part, on how curriculum itself is understood, of course, and it must suffice here to say that I understand curriculum to involve the articulation and regulation of knowledge and pedagogy. That is a very abstract formulation, I know, though I have begun to elaborate it elsewhere (Green, 2018a , 2021a ). Furthermore, a distinction needs to be made between curriculum and schooling — partly because these are all too often simply conflated. Historically, schooling as a particular cultural invention has been the principal means for realising curriculum — as teaching–learning experience — in a mass-industrial context. But schooling serves other purposes, some of which have to do with instilling social discipline and managing populations. We must be careful not to confuse schooling and curriculum.

I suggest there are, in effect, two sites of curriculum as practice: one operating at the policy level, regarding what has been called “the technical curriculum” (Luke et al., 2013a , 2013b ), Footnote 4 and the other with regard to the classroom curriculum (Green, 2021a ), in everyday action. The two are related, although not as directly or as smoothly as sometimes supposed. The first can be observed in the Australian Curriculum or, in terms of state jurisdictions, in the recently reviewed NSW curriculum. In both cases, the outcome of curriculum-making is a material policy document — a ‘curriculum’ Footnote 5 — designed and developed by educational bureaucracies, with the aim of directing what is to be taught and learnt in schools. Footnote 6 Producing this official curriculum involves working within a predetermined template or framework, more often than not based to varying degrees on a classic Tylerian model. How the people charged with doing this go about it is not well documented, certainly in any clearly articulated ethnographic sense. As Luke ( 2013 , p. 4) writes: “The categories for curriculum developers, writers and consultants charged with developing state and system syllabus documents are more often than not ‘given’, fixed a priori in both philosophic and political senses and presented as beyond criticism”. He provides here, in fact, a striking snapshot of what tends to happen in such circumstances, from how the meetings are set up, with their “marching orders”, etc., to the format(s) made available:

[I]n terms of the technical vocabulary, taxonomies and categories to be used, these meetings are more often fait accompli . Key decisions about curriculum philosophy and paradigm have already been made prior to these meetings beginning. Typically, the boxes to be filled in have been determined. An overall grid or map of the curriculum has already been set well before people sit down to debate. (Luke, 2013 , p. 3)

Such an account advocates for greater attention to the so-called technical curriculum, on the basis that its significance has been greatly underestimated, and also because there is little (‘practical’) guidance available to those involved in this level of curriculum-making. My point is that there is nonetheless a recognisable practice evident here — purposive, integrated, and oriented towards a particular end — albeit one that is highly constrained, partly based on experience and precedent. In practice-theoretical terms, it is most likely characterised as techné , focused as it is on a final product, achieved as effectively and efficiently as possible, as required. This is notwithstanding the sometimes different, even conflicting dispositions and interests, and hopes, that participants might bring with them, or be working with, at least some of the time. Nonetheless, it is clearly a matter of getting things done, in (ideally) a systematised and organised way, drawing on whatever resources are available — a particular form of (educational-bureaucratic) practice: the practice of curriculum.

The other site is more focused on the classroom curriculum, and the everyday life of classrooms, the site par excellence of curriculum as practice. I take a normative stance here: this is where curriculum is realised in its purest form, in teaching–learning experience, Footnote 7 and the interaction and exchanges of teachers and students, in particular circumstances, and with regard to particular knowledges. While there might well be other levels of curriculum, this is surely what they are ultimately concerned with at their best, at least ‘theoretically’, or nominally. So how are we to think about this curriculum as practice? At issue is partly the everyday-ness of classrooms, as lived sites of educational experience, especially their complexity, which always threatens to be overwhelming, and which must therefore be carefully and skilfully managed. Voices are involved, and bodies, and shifting speeds and intensities, “flows and ebbs of affect and primal resistance in teachers and taught from moment to moment” (Boomer, 1988 , p. 171), stretched-out moments of boredom and flashes of insight, successes and failures, and elsewhere other classrooms, other worlds. Whether this is approached from a professional practice perspective, with the teacher positioned as centrally shaping what happens, as indeed she must be officially, legally, or whether it is seen as more a matter of co-production, a “moment-by-moment dance between … teacher and student” (Boomer, 1988 , p. 171), this is recognisably a practice, “purposive, embodied, situated, … dialogical’” (Hager, 2013 , p. 19), at once preconfigured and emergent. Activity and experience come together, thoroughly, inescapably saturated with context.

It might be objected at this point that curriculum is more than teachers and students simply ‘being there’, in the classroom, in all its complexity — and that is indeed the case. Teachers for instance are still engaging in curriculum-as-practice when they are programming, i.e. planning and developing units of work/study (Carlgren, 1999 ; Deng, 2021 ). So too are students when they are doing ‘homework’ or using the school library. Similar points can be made regarding teachers’ professional development activity, or their work with and for professional associations, as ‘extended’ professionals (Stenhouse, 1975 ), or even when seconded to curriculum committees and the like. How these various spheres or realms of practice are connected is something still needing to be adequately mapped. But being in the midst of the practice of curriculum-as-practice, caught up in the flow of classroom life — ‘curriculum-ing’, as Boomer put it — remains somehow crucial. This may well be the case, too, for those for whom the classroom is no longer their primary reference point, their primary worksite, who have moved into leadership and management roles, or into curriculum policy development and syllabus writing, or indeed academia. What seems to matter in these cases is that such people are able to call upon their professional experience , in the strongest sense, their body memory, and their lived sense of the practice of curriculum. How long this persists is debatable, however. Can it be renewed, or refreshed? Again that is unclear – although it might be worth reconsidering and elaborating the notion of “the practitioner standpoint” in this regard (Reid & Green, 2009 ).

Here it is useful to consider supplementing available accounts on and approaches to ‘knowing practice’ (Doecke et al., 2007 ; Kemmis, 2005 ). Of particular relevance is the argument in practice theory and philosophy for the need to problematise representation, including the relationship between language, body and practice, the body in practice (Green & Hopwood, 2015 ). This opens the way to ‘non-representational’ accounts of curriculum-as-practice and thus experiments in how to make sense of and communicate such practical knowledge, or ‘knowings’. Already there has been some very interesting work done on narrative in this regard (Polkinghorne, 1997 ), which I have endorsed in terms of a “close and productive association between practice and narrative” (Green, 2009a , p. 14). The links with narrative work in teacher education and elsewhere are clear. Footnote 8 It may well be, however, that there is value in looking to go beyond narrative, in the conventional sense, to embrace more ‘poetic’ modes, consistent with a postmodern(ist) view of practice and expressivity. It may be particularly apt to accommodate accounts such as those of Shotter ( 2011 ), concerning the role of intuition and abduction vis-á-vis embodiment, and what he calls “relational-orientational knowing”, as ‘knowing from within’. Sometimes more prosaic, discursive renderings miss the point, especially when it is a matter significantly of affect or sensation, of ‘feel’.

Moreover, there are good reasons at this point for turning to notions of action research and practitioner inquiry, with reference to what has been explicitly described as “a new view of practice” (Kemmis et al., 2014 , p. 65). I argue, nonetheless, that these notions need to be re-articulated explicitly within the frame of curriculum inquiry — that is, with regard specifically to curriculum as concept and practice. My feeling is that, to date, this has been left largely tacit, or more or less assumed, and hence taken-for-granted. Here, it would be interesting to explore what might be called the ‘internal goods’ of curriculum practice, as ‘curriculum-ing’. In reflecting on practice, from within, and then planning for the future, what comes next, what ‘data’ is gathered and how? Presumably, this will be in some form of ‘text’. But that is far from straightforward, even though this has often been obscured. Undoubtedly, some aspects of curriculum practice can indeed be recorded and hence made available for reflection and the like. Is it the case for other aspects? — those that retain the ‘mystery’ of practice, as Bourdieu and others maintain. What is that skilled teachers do ? — some of which, undoubtedly, eludes rational(ist) explanation. How do classrooms in action hang together, how do things that happen in them (inter)connect and cohere? How is this linked to other classrooms, both synchronically and diachronically? Footnote 9 What can be said about teachers’ agency in this regard? What do teachers do to make this happen, or at least to influence its emergence and unfolding? How implicated and active, and in what ways, are student-learners? Are there other ways of making and sharing sense that might need to be accounted for, in somewhat different realisations of action research and practitioner enquiry?

I indicated at the outset that there were now somewhat belated signs of an emerging awareness of the so-called practice turn in curriculum inquiry, and I briefly turn to this now. Ingrid Carlgren ( 2020 ) for instance refers explicitly to Schatzki et al. ( 2001 ), noting that “[c]onsidering the great impact of the so called practice turn in social theory … it seems a little odd that this does not seem to have impacted the concept of knowledge as such in educational discourse”, adding “[e]specially since the practice turn has exerted such a great impact on learning theory […]” (p. 324). Her starting point is the knowledge debate in recent curriculum inquiry, and she seeks to bring an emphasis on what she calls “knowings”, or knowledge as activity and perspective. As she writes: “If the aim of education is to produce knowledgeable people, it is the knowing of the known that is primary in teaching. It is the knowing, developed in transaction with specific knowns, that is capacity-building” (Carlgren, 2020 , p. 332). For her, it is the tacit, the embodied, the relational, what might be even called the ‘non-representational’, that needs to be greater accounted for, both in the knowledge made available in and through curriculum and in teachers’ own professional practice knowledge. This seems an important perspective to take on board here. Importantly, she draws attention to the work of the educational philosopher Paul Hirst ( 1993 ) a “troubled rationalist” as she describes him (p. 329), whose own “practice turn” pre-dated Schatzki and his colleagues, as he asserted “practice as the primary value in education” (p. 331). It is noteworthy too that she draws specifically on Dewey and his ‘transactional’ pragmatist philosophy of knowledge (p. 331).

Hordern ( 2020 , 2021 ) similarly takes up the practice turn, directly referencing Carlgren’s account and seeking to problematise her argument concerning knowledge, experience and practice. His frame is still the ‘powerful knowledge’ (PK) debate, however, which means that he is working with a particular view of curriculum, consistent with that debate, and indeed recent developments in curriculum inquiry. Here and elsewhere (Green, 2018a ), I have sought to challenge that view, which foregrounds knowledge and effectively backgrounds pedagogy, sometimes even subordinating if not refusing it. Hordern ( 2020 , p. 6) introduces the notion of “a normative view of practice”, drawing on Hager ( 2013 ), Rouse ( 2007 ) and others, which he sees as a refinement of Carlgren’s rendering of what she describes as “the so called practice turn”. This is broadly a neo-Aristotelian view, with MacIntyre ( 2007 ) in particular evoked regarding the “internal goods” pertaining to a practice (Hordern, 2021 , p. 6). This leads to an argument for differentiating between ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ views and understandings of educational practice. As he writes, intriguingly: “… the outsider view cannot substitute for direct acquaintance with, or immersion in, the practice, in terms of making judgements about what is appropriate performance of the practice” (Hordern, 2020 , p. 6). His account is intriguing, and potentially generative, especially in terms of making a case for the specificity and integrity of educational practice. His concern is with education more generally, however, and not curriculum per se, and it might also be said that his emerging view of practice remains itself indeed classically modernist.

Zongyi Deng ( 2021 ) has also entered into this ‘practice’ debate recently, building on his now quite extensive work on the state of contemporary curriculum inquiry, and on his own rendering of the knowledge debate. Here, as elsewhere, he is fiercely critical of the Reconceptualist perspective, seeing it as over-valuing ‘theory’ at the expense of ‘practice’, and indeed shifting radically “away from practice and the inner work of schooling and towards theoretical discourse” (p. 179). “Practice” and “the inner work of schooling” are thereby identified and linked together. This is a particular view of ‘practice’, however, one which echoes and reaffirms an older, rather different tradition of curriculum scholarship. Significantly, he brings together European and North American perspectives in this regard, the latter exemplified in the work of Joseph Schwab. As he writes: “curriculum studies is a practical discipline centrally concerned with practice (curriculum planning, curriculum development, curriculum enactment or classroom teaching) for the advancement of education” (Deng, 2021 , p. 179). Moreover: “[P]ractice and inner work of schooling provide the essential point of departure for curriculum theorizing” (p. 179). The problem is that, despite its insights (here and elsewhere), Deng’s account excludes or glosses much that is not only relevant to understanding curriculum as practice but that I argue is essential, including due regard for the practice concept itself. His is largely a neo-Aristotelian and modernist view, albeit leavened by Eastern wisdom traditions. It is also, arguably, overly institutionalised. In this regard, Deng’s work is linked programmatically to an earlier strand of curriculum scholarship associated centrally with Schwab and running through Ian Westbury and William Reid, usually described as the Deliberationist tradition, and clearly neo-Aristotelian in its orientation.

In summary: All three accounts — by Carlgren, Hordern and Deng, respectively — are noticeably congruent with current trends and tendencies in curriculum scholarship, which has recently been undergoing something of a renaissance, partly resourced but clearly marked by growing engagement with European work in Didaktik studies and the like. This is certainly to be welcomed. But they also share some shortcomings and blind spots, as I see it. Their various views of practice seem curiously abstracted, and unduly ‘doxic’. They operate within a received view of (modernist) schooling, liberal education and the socio-political order of things. Their programmatic refusal of relevant aspects of the Reconceptualist tradition is unfortunate and misguided. Nonetheless, such work is a positive sign that attention is shifting more explicitly in the curriculum field to what I have identified as the ‘primary of practice’ thesis.

This paper has sketched out what might be involved in seeking to understand curriculum as practice , as an important aspect of contemporary curriculum inquiry, in large part by working with practice theory and philosophy. It draws on work already available in professional education, which has been noticeable for its recent engagement with such a problematised, reconstructed view of practice (Hager et al., 2012 ). It therefore contributes to recent shifts in attention in the curriculum field to what I think can still be described, rhetorically, as a ‘practice turn’. I have acknowledged here that various other practice ‘turns’ can be observed in the field, and it may be that there is considerable value at this time in making this explicit, and in working towards a truly productive synthesis. The curriculum dialogue to date has been rather skewed in this particular regard, unfortunately, and at best a complicated conversation that might even be called an internecine struggle between entrenched positions. Elsewhere (Green, 2018b ), I have proposed a rather different way of looking at recent debates and conflicts in scholarship, suggesting for instance that ‘Deliberationism’ and ‘Reconceptualism’ Footnote 10 — two undoubtedly important perspectives in curriculum inquiry, historically — might be brought and thought together, notwithstanding their differences , to good effect. This paper, sketchy as it is, continues such speculation. My hope is that there are possibilities that now can be discerned that contribute to enriching and regenerating curriculum inquiry in Australia, and beyond.

This is a research programme of research conducted for over a decade, from 2002, at Charles Sturt University under the auspices of the Research Institute for Professional Practice, Learning and Education (RIPPLE). See Edwards-Groves and Kemmis ( 2015 ) for one aspect of it, the Pedagogy, Education and Praxis (PEP) group, working in the neo-Aristotelian tradition.

An important figure in this regard, but not referred to here, is Pierre Bourdieu (cf. Green, 2009b ).

These are not to be seen as entirely separate perspectives; rather, they interrelate in intriguing and significant ways. This is consistent with calls for an informed, considered ‘eclecticism’ in curriculum inquiry (e.g. Deng, 2021 , p. 179).

More specifically, “the technical form of the curriculum” (p. 7).

Properly speaking, a ‘syllabus’: “The syllabus, or official curriculum documentation, is a bid to shape and set the parameters of the curriculum, in a particular place and time” (Luke, Woods & Weir, 2013a , 2013b , p. 10).

It might even be asked: to whom is this document addressed? Teachers? Politicians? The general public?

In the largest sense of this term ‘experience’, extending well beyond the existential and the immediate, perhaps along Deweyian lines.

See for example the STELLA work on professional standards in English teaching, featuring and foregrounding narrative (Doecke, 2006 ). STELLA refers to ‘Standards for Teachers of English Language and Literacy in Australia’.

A notion such as intertextuality might well be mobilised here, to good effect — although to do so requires bringing together different perspectives and working strategically across rival constituencies (Green, 2018b ). An earlier description of curriculum as “discourse/text flowing through institutions and practices” (cited in Kemmis, 2006 , p. 6) is worth recalling. The seminar that is Kemmis’s topic was an early forum within which theoretical notions of ‘practice’ vis-á-vis curriculum inquiry were circulated — for example, curriculum as ‘meta-practice’. In this regard, Hager ( 2012 ) suggests that ‘building’ (or ‘construction’) is better seen as a ‘macro’ form of practice, “a blanket term for a multitude of different practices” (p. 19), and this might be an appropriate way of thinking about the ‘umbrella’ function of curriculum as a term.

See Green ( 2018b , pp. 82–83) for snapshot accounts of these ‘camps’. A point that needs making here, though, is that in my view Reconceptualism has indeed tended too often to work with a limited view of ‘practice’.

Boomer, G. (1988). “Negotiation revisited”, in B. Green (Ed.), Metaphors and meanings: Essays on English teachers by Garth Boomer , Adelaide: Australian Association for the Teaching of English (AATE), pp. 168–178.

Carlgren, I. (2020). Powerful knowns and powerful knowings. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52 (3), 323–336.

Article Google Scholar

Carlgren, I. (1999). “Professionalism and teachers as designers”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , Vol. 31, No. pp. 43–56.

Deng, Z. (2021). Constructing ‘powerful’ curriculum theory. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 53 (2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2021.1887361

Doecke, B. (2006). “Beyond externalizing and finalizing definitions: The English profession takes a lead: Standards for Teachers of English Language and Literacy in Australia (STELLA). English in Education, 40 (1), 35–49.

Doecke, B. Green, B, Kostogriz, A., Reid, J-A. & Sawyer, W. (2007). “Knowing practice in English teaching? Research challenges in representing the professional practice of English teachers”, English Teaching: Practice & Critique , Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 4-21.

Edwards-Groves, C. & Kemmis, S. K. (2015). “Pedagogy, education and praxis: Understanding new forms of intersubjectivity through action research and practice theory”, Educational Action Research , pp. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2015.1076730 .

Gough, N. (1978). The new practicality of curriculum theory. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 24 (2), 31–40.

Google Scholar

Gough, N. (1984). Practical curriculum theorizing. Curriculum Perspectives , 65–69.

Green, B. (2009a). Introduction: Understanding and researching professional practice. In B. Green (Ed.), Understanding and researching professional practice (pp. 1–18). Sense Publishers.

Chapter Google Scholar

Green, B. (2009b). The primacy of practice and the problem of representation. In B. Green (Ed.), Understanding and researching professional practice (pp. 39–54). Sense Publishers.

Green, B. (2018b). Understanding curriculum? Notes towards a conceptual basis for curriculum inquiry. Curriculum Perspectives, 38 , 81–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-017-0038-2

Green, B. (2018c). Curriculum studies in Australia: Stephen Kemmis and the Deakin Legacy. In C. Edwards-Grove, P. Grootenboer, & J. Wilkinson (Eds.), Education in an era of schooling: Critical perspectives of educational practice and action research – A Festschrift for Stephen Kemmis (pp. 27–45). Springer.

Green, B. (2021a). Re-negotiating the curriculum? Curriculum Perspectives, 41 (2), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-021-00143-7

Green, B. (2021b). Practice theory, corporeality, and professional education: Rethinking the body. In S. Loftus & E. A. Kinsella (Eds.), Embodiment and professional education: Body, practice, pedagogy (pp. 13–25). Springer.

Green, B., & Hopwood, N. (2015). The body in professional practice, learning and education: A question of corporeality? In B. Green & N. Hopwood (Eds.), The body in professional practice, learning and education: Body/practice? (pp. 15–33). Springer.

Green, B., Reid, J.-A., & Brennan, M. (2017). Challenging policy, rethinking practice; or, struggling for the soul of teacher education. In T. A. Trippestad, A. Swennen, & T. Werler (Eds.), The struggle for teacher education: International perspectives on teacher education governance and reforms (pp. 39–55). Bloomsbury.

Green, B. (Ed.) (2009). Understanding and researching professional practice , Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Green, B. (2018a). Engaging curriculum: Bridging the curriculum theory and English education divide, Routledge.

Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or praxis? , London, Philadelphia & New York: The Falmer Press.

Hager, P. (2012). “Theories of practice and their connections with learning: A continuum of more or less inclusive accounts”, in P. Hager, A. Lee, A. & A. Reich (Eds.), Practice, learning and change: Practice-theory perspectives on professional learning , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 17–32.

Hager, P. (2013). “Practice as a key idea in understanding work-based learning”, in P. Gibbs (Ed.), Learning, work and practice: New understandings , Springer, pp. 85–103.

Hager, P., Lee, A. & Reich, A. (Eds.) (2012). Practice, learning and change: Practice-theory perspectives on professional learning , Springer.

Hirst, P. (1993). Education, knowledge and practices. In R. Barrow & P. White (Eds.), Beyond liberal education: Essays in honour of Paul H. Hirst (pp. 184–199). Routledge.

Hordern, J. (2020). “Why close to practice is not enough: Neglecting practice in educational research”, British Educational Research Journal , pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3622 .

Hordern, J. (2021). “Powerful knowledge and knowledgeable practice, Journal of Curriculum Studies , pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2021.1933193 .

Kemmis, S. K. (2005). Knowing practice: Searching for saliences. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 13 (3), 391–426.

Kemmis, S. K. (2009). Understanding professional practice: A synoptic framework. In B. Green (Ed.), Understanding and researching professional practice (pp. 19–38). Sense Publishers.

Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R. & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research, Singapore: Springer.

Kemmis, S. (2006). What curriculum? Reflections on the University of Melbourne Curriculum Inquiry Colloquium (October 13, 2006) , unpublished paper, Charles Sturt University.

Kemmis, S. K. (2019). A practice sensibility: An invitation to the theory of practice architectures , Singapore: Springer.

Loftus, S. & Kinsella, E. A. (Eds.) (2021). Embodiment and professional education: Body, practice, pedagogy , Singapore: Springer.

Luke, A. Woods, A. & Weir, K. (Eds.) (2013a). Curriculum, syllabus design and equity: A primer and model , New York & London: Routledge.

Luke, A., Woods, A. & Weir, K. (2013b). “Curriculum design, equity and the technical form of the curriculum”, in A. Luke, A. Woods & K. Weir (Eds.) (2013). Curriculum, syllabus design and equity: A primer and model , New York & London: Routledge, pp. 6-39.

Luke, A. (2013). “Introduction: The practical problem of curriculum making”, in A. Luke, A. Woods & K. Weir (Eds.) (2013). Curriculum, syllabus design and equity: A primer and model , Routledge, pp. 1-5.

MacIntyre, A. (2007). After virtue , University of Notre Dame Press.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1997). “Qualitative research as practice”, in W. J. Tierney & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Representation and the text: Re-framing the narrative voice , Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Reid, J.-A., & Green, B. (2009). Researching (from) the standpoint of the practitioner. In B. Green (Ed.), Understanding and researching professional practice (pp. 165–183). Sense Publishers.

Rouse, J. (2007). “Social practices and normativity”, Philosophy of the social sciences , Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 45–56.

Schatzki, T., Knorr Cetina, K & von Savigny, C. (Eds.) (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory , London & New York: Routledge.

Schatzki, T. R. (1996). Social practices: A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the social , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shotter, J. (2011). Embodiment, abduction and expressive movement: A new realm of inquiry? Theory & Psychology, 21 (4), 439–456.

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development , London: Heinemann.

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bill Green .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Green, B. Understanding curriculum as practice, or on the practice turn(s) in curriculum inquiry. Curric Perspect 42 , 77–83 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-022-00160-0

Download citation

Published : 26 April 2022

Issue Date : April 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-022-00160-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Practical knowledge
Practice traditions
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Definitions of Curriculum

A brief answer is hard to give as curriculum can be both written and unwritten. Essentially, curriculum is what the school is attempting to teach, which might include social behaviors as well as content and thinking skills.
A course of study that will enable the learner to acquire specific knowledge and skills.
A curriculum consists of the "roadmap" or "guideline" of any given discipline. Both the philosophy of teaching of the instructors as well as of the educational institution serve as two of the principles upon which a curriculum is based.
A curriculum is the combination of instructional practices, learning experiences, and students' performance assessment that are designed to bring out and evaluate the target learning outcomes of a particular course.
A detailed plan for instruction set by policy-makers.
A selection of information, segregated into disciplines and courses, typically designed to achieve a specific educational objective.
As applied to education, curriculum is the series of things that students must do and experience by way of developing abilities to do the things well that adults do in life; and to be in all ways the people that they should be as adults.
Curriculum encompasses a variety of technical and non technical courses that are required to complete a specific degree.
Curriculum includes everything that takes place, and everything that does not take place, within the purview of the school.
Curriculum is a framework that sets expectations for student learning. It serves as a guide for teachers, a roadmap if you will, that establishes standards for student performance and teacher accountability.
Curriculum is a group of courses offered in a particular field of study.
Curriculum is a set of courses (offered by an educational institution) that are required to complete an area of specialization.
Curriculum is a set of courses that comprise a given area or specialty of study. I see curriculum as the framework of content or ingredients that relate to that given area of study. Curriculum often conjures up words such as format, guidelines, content of "what to teach," and "what the student needs to learn." I see curriculum in both formal and informal ways, i.e., as a body of related information that an educator needs to convey, but with latitude in the strategies that an educator may use to convey the information.
Curriculum is all of the courses of study offered ( science, math, reading, etc.) and those guidelines for teaching and learning set forth for a particular educational institution.
Curriculum is any criteria, element, aspect, that aids in children's learning.
Curriculum is specifically what you teach within each discipline and at each level.
Curriculum is the "floor plan" or blueprint for what is going to be taught/learned/experienced ... in the academic classroom over a period of time.
Curriculum is the delivery component of an institutions' educational mission, values, and theory of learning. It should follow in-depth discussions regarding "what a student should learn" and "how a student can best learn."
Curriculum is the expectations for what will be taught and what students will do in a program of study. It includes teacher-made materials, textbooks, and national and state standards.
Curriculum is the gathered information that has been considered relevant to a specific topic. It can always be changed or added to in order to become relevant to the times.
Curriculum is the goals, assessments, methods, and materials used to teach a particular skill or subject. I include thinking under "skill."
Curriculum is the guidelines by which different content matters are taught and assessed.
Curriculum is the outline of concepts to be taught to students to help them meet the content standards.
Curriculum is what is taught in a given course or subject.
Curriculum refers to an interactive system of instruction and learning with specific goals, contents, strategies, measurement, and resources. The desired outcome of curriculum is successful transfer and/or development of knowledge, skills, and attitudes.
Everything that is written, taught and tested in an educational program of study.
General course design or syllabus, including goals and standards for proficiency.
Guidelines for course instruction with attention to content, teaching style and academic standards.
I feel that curriculum is anything which is planned and designed to sequentially improve students' knowledge and skills.
I guess curriculum represents the courses offered for any educational program. The curriculum's design is based on what past/current educators believe is important for students to know. Importance may be based on content that is covered in the course which is (1) competitive with other institutions (2)usable in the future career, or (3) what the school/faculty feel is an interesting topic to cover. I'm sure there are other reasons for importance but none come to mind at this time.
I suppose that my definition would speak not only to the objectives of the school program and the means by which those goals are to be reached, it would also include the philosophical construct underlying the goals and methods. For example, late in my career as a math teacher I became very interested in having the students "feel" mathematics. I wanted the students to experience the "why's" and "how's" that would build a higher level of understanding. In my view, curriculum is more than just what is done, it's WHY it's done ? on a deeper level than just to cover the text or get the kids to pass the DSTP.
I think of curriculum in two ways. One: the organized method of placing nursing and related courses to meet the goal of successful completion of the nursing program competencies. The other view I have about curriculum is organizing courses around a faculty adopted conceptual framework. The faculty develop concepts and subconcepts. From this framework the course objectives/ competencies and learning activities are developed. There is a logical progression of learning.
In a spectrum from abstract to concrete, curriculum lies in the fuzzy middle. The curriculum is sandwiched between abstract standards (usually content-based) and super-practical lesson plans and activites. Curriculum embodies the "what" and, explicity or implicitly, the "how" of teaching. Although usually containing "what" is to be taught, curriculum directly suggests or indirectly implies how it should be taught. For example, a curriculum with an inordinate amount of targets and content to be taught is more likely to be taught in a traditional (discussion or lecture-centered) approach than in a constructivist (pedagogy) approach.
Officially, curriculum is the formal delineation of what is to be taught and how it is to be taught. Beyond that, however, there lots of questions and caveats regarding the formal, written curriculum as compared to the curriculum as actually delivered in the classroom. Is there, for example, a difference between what a school's official curriculum and another "hidden curriculum" representing what the system or the teacher "really" wants students to learn? If there is no formal curriculum document but students are still learning good things from teachers, is it meaningful to say that there is a de facto curriculum that has somehow come about to fill the void? To what extent is methodology a matter of formal curriculum and to what extent is it a matter of individual teacher academic freedom?
On a concrete level, curriculum is that list of "stuff" we ask students to do to demonstrate learning and outcomes. It's also the list of "stuff" that we want to tell them. On a less concrete--but even more important--level, curriculum is the philosophy that drives us to create the "stuff" above. That is, I think that curriculum is, at its best, a collection of "stuff" that is derived from carefully thinking about the big picture. What do we want students to know and how will it be relevant to them once they're gone? If it's not relevant to them, then the question is whether they became better thinkers. And if they are better thinkers, then I'd wager that the "stuff" was driven by the principles behind it (and not the other way around)
Personally I think curriculum is a kind of design, setup, offering, or arrangement of subjects and courses.
Scope and sequence or essential concepts and content that required in educational programs. Curriculum includes methods and materials used in delivery of essential content.
Technically "curriculum" may be considered the "what" of an education-however it is I think intertwined with the "how" or the pedagogy/theory (of method) as well.
The course an academic program follows.
The curriculum is the program of instruction. It should be based on both standards and best practice research. It should be the framework that teachers use to plan instruction for their students.
The dictionary definition of "curriculum" is the following: all the courses of study offered at a university or school. I totally don't agree with that. This would be a good definition for someone who is not in education to understand. I believe that it is more specific In my line of work objectives, performance indicators, philosophies and ways to approach these objectives are all aspects under the scope and sequence of a curriculum.
the structure and/or materials used to convey information to students.
The written curriculum is a plan of what is to be taught. It is a focus for what teachers do. Dr. Fenwick English, Purdue University, believes there are three types of curriculum: written, taught, and tested. They must be the same.
What we teach, both written and unwritten

This site belongs to UNESCO's International Institute for Educational Planning

IIEP Learning Portal

Search form

issue briefs
Improve learning

Curriculum and expected learning outcomes

The development, dissemination, and implementation of relevant and effective curriculum and expected learning outcomes can improve teaching and learning..

The curriculum framework, including the expected learning outcomes, communicates what teachers and learners should know and do. Curriculum is a description of what, why, how, and how well students should learn in a systematic and intentional way.(14) Expected learning outcomes define the totality of information, knowledge, understanding, attitudes, values, skills, competencies, or behaviours a learner should master upon the successful completion of the curriculum.(14) To improve education quality special efforts are needed to align the intended curriculum (the official guidance), the implemented curriculum (what teachers and learners actually do), and the attained curriculum (what students actually learn).(14) An extensive collection of resources on improving the quality and relevance of the curriculum, as well as its linkage to teaching, learning, and assessment processes, is available through the International Bureau of Education (IBE-UNESCO) .

Issues and Discussion

Curriculum organization: Curriculum frameworks reflect the political and social agreements of education and aim to guide regulation, implementation, and evaluation of curricula.(1) They can be organized by competencies, disciplinary subjects, learning areas, and interdisciplinary or cross-curricular topics.(1) They also define the appropriate learning objectives, or expected learning outcomes, for successive levels of learning. Competency-based curriculum focuses on learners demonstrating mastery of certain interconnected knowledge, skills, and attitudes. In addition to subject-specific competencies, curriculum frameworks may address cross-cutting competencies such as communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity, and principles such as personalization, inclusive systems, sustainable development, and social justice.(1)

Curriculum development: The development of curricula and expected learning outcomes is a dynamic cyclical process requiring reassessment and adaptation over time.(5)(11)(23) Because it involves deciding what knowledge is legitimate and important, it can be a highly political process.(26) In some countries, curriculum is defined primarily at the national level, while in other education systems curriculum is more a matter for local and even classroom-based decision-making, often guided by a framework of learning standards.(9)(23)(26) In today’s context of global education goals and international assessments, questions of universality versus contextualization are becoming increasingly important.(3)(5)(7) While some learning goals may be universally appropriate, there are also specific national, local, and minority concerns that the curriculum needs to take into account. At all levels of curriculum development, relevance is improved when teachers are involved—as long as they are given chances to develop their curricular literacy, and are provided the required resources, time, and incentives for extensive deliberation.(17) New curricula can be tested and refined through feasibility studies and by piloting in select schools.(13)

Ensuring effectiveness and relevance: Effective curriculum is based on backwards planning, which starts from the identification of desired learning results and how these can be measured, and then determines the learning experiences that can lead to these outcomes.(24) There has long been a debate about the relative merits of traditional didactic approaches, versus constructivist or student-centred approaches to curriculum. However, research on learning shows that this is a false dichotomy: for curriculum to be effective, it needs to include a balanced and integrated use of teacher-led guided learning, student-led action learning, and whole context-dependent experiential learning.(18) To be relevant, the curriculum also needs to connect to learners’ daily lives, interests, and motivations, and allow for differentiation of learning experiences to meet different students’ needs.(1)(21)(24) In addition to stating what should be learned, the curriculum therefore needs to give teachers guidance on how to structure teaching and learning activities and how to assess learning achievement.(22)

Dissemination: Specific plans must be laid for the dissemination of new curricula and expected learning outcomes, in order to make educators aware of their existence and of the needed changes in teaching practices. Alignment of textbooks and other pedagogical materials is also a special concern, and the distribution and adoption of any new or revised materials should be addressed as part of the curriculum planning process. Curriculum dissemination plans should also take into account the development of curricular literacy at the level of districts, schools, and individual teachers.(4)

Implementation : The implementation of the curriculum framework is a complex process which occurs over time and through many mechanisms.(10) Some policy levers to facilitate implementation include: teacher training, providing incentives for school districts, providing external facilitators to assist in implementation, encouraging demonstrations, and sharing ideas, information, and expertise between educators.(17) Education planners may need to decide on the relative importance of fidelity—precise application of the curriculum in its original form—versus allowing teachers to make adaptations that meet their learners’ needs.(17) Planners can monitor implementation to understand how to support the process, by asking four essential questions: what are teachers doing?, what are students doing?, how are materials being used?, and what kind of data should be collected to answer these questions? Potential methods for data collection can include direct observation, checklists, self-reports, and student portfolios.(17)

Teacher professional development: In order for changes in curriculum and expected learning outcomes to be carried into practice, ongoing teacher development must be central to curriculum policy. Teachers’ commitment to change can vary from committed to resistant, due to differences in teachers’ curricular literacy, competence, and confidence, as well as whether the curriculum development process included teacher perspectives.(16)(17) Pre-service teacher training systems will often need to be revised to reflect new curriculum frameworks. In addition, interactive professional development is necessary to build understanding of learning outcomes, curriculum, and teaching practices while allowing multiple cycles for assimilation of knowledge, practice, and reflection on experience.(16)(20) Teachers also need to learn how to use learning outcomes and curriculum frameworks to develop formative assessments that can provide evidence of student understanding and skills and allow teachers to interpret evidence and change classroom practices, closing the gap between desired and actual understandings.(2)(12)(25)

Inclusiveness Considerations

Participation of indigenous and minority populations in creating curriculum: Contemporary forms of education are strongly based on a Western model of schooling that spread along with missionary activity and colonialism, in many cases irrevocably altering or replacing indigenous forms of education and socialization. With this legacy in mind, it is important to give indigenous and minority populations new opportunities to decide what knowledge and abilities are to be valued and included in the official curriculum.(19)

Gender: Learning outcomes, curricula, assessments, and teaching practices should be either gender neutral or gender inclusive and non-discriminatory.(8)

Language Minority Students: Providing a quality education to all students means taking special considerations for learners whose mother-tongue is not the language of instruction. Curricula should support teachers in understanding and implementing appropriate practices for these students.(6)

Plans and policies

National Curriculum Framework in England [ PDF ]
A National Curriculum Framework for All in Malta [ PDF ]
National Curriculum Framework in Mauritius [ PDF ]

1. Amadio, M. Opertti, R., and Tedesco, J. C. 2015. The curriculum in debates and in educational reforms to 2030: For a curriculum agenda of the twenty-first century. Geneva: UNESCO IBE.

2. Black, P. 2001. ‘Formative assessment and curriculum consequences.’ Curriculum and Assessment . Westport, Connecticut: Ablex Publishing.

3. Chapman, D.W., Weidman, J., Cohen, M. and Mercer, M. 2005. ‘The search for quality: A five country study of national strategies to improve educational quality in Central Asia.’ International Journal of Educational Development. 25.

4. Chrispeels, J.H. 1997. ‘Educational policy implementation in a shifting political climate: The California experience.’ American Educational Research Journal. 34 (3).

5. DeBoer, G. 2011. ‘The globalization of science education.’ Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 48 (8).

6. Echevarria, J., Short, D. and Powers K. 2006. ‘School reform and standards-based education: A model for English-Language Learners.’ The Journal of Educational Research. 99 (4).

7. Ertl, H. 2006. ‘Educational standards and the changing discourse on education: The reception and consequences of the PISA study in Germany.’ Oxford Review of Education. 32 (5).

8. Essuman, M. A., Osei-Poku, P. 2015. ‘Evaluation of Selected Textbooks from Ghanaian Primary Schools.’ International Journal of Innovative Research and Development. 4 (6).

9. Ferrer, G. (2006). Estándares de currículo: algunas tendencias internacionales e implicancias para su implementación en América Latina . Lima: PREAL-GTEE.

10. Fullan, M.G. 1982. The Meaning of Educational Change . New York: Teachers College Press.

11. Gysling Caselli, J. (2007): Currículum nacional: desafíos múltiples. Revista Pensamiento Educativo , Vol. 40, Nº 1 (pp. 335-350).

12. Hunt, E. and Pellegrino, J.W. 2002. ‘Issues, examples, and challenges in formative assessment’. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 89.

13. IBE. ‘ Processes of curriculum implementation .’ Training Tools for Curriculum Development. UNESCO IBE.

14. IBE. 2013. IBE Glossary of Curriculum Terminology . Geneva: UNCESCO IBE.

15. IBE. ' Training Tools for Curriculum Development '. UNESCO IBE.

16. Maccini, P. and Gagnon, J.C. 2002. ‘Perception and application of NCTM standards by special and general education teachers.’ Exceptional Children. 68 (3).

17. Marsh, C.J. and Willis, G. 2007. Curriculum: Alternative Approaches, Ongoing Issues. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

18. OECD, 2012. The nature of learning. Using research to inspire practice. How can the learning science inform the design of the 21st learning environments? Paris: OECD.

19. OEI (2015). Miradas sobre la educación en Iberoamérica: Educación de los pueblos y comunidades indígenas (originarios) y afrodescendientes. Madrid: Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura (OEI).

20. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R. and Gallagher, L. P. 2007. ‘What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation.’ American Educational Research Journal. 44 (4).

21. Renzulli, J.S., Gentry, M. and Reis, S.M. 2004. ‘A time and place for authentic learning.’ Educational Leadership. 62 (1).

22. Shavelson, R.J. et al. 2008. ‘On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative assessment on learning: A collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers.’ Applied Measurement in Education. 21.

23. Tapo, M.F. 2004. National Standards/Local Implementation: Case Studies of Differing Perceptions of National Education Standards in Papua New Guinea. Unpublished Dissertation: Queensland University of Technology.

24. Tomlinson, C.A. and McTighe, J. 2006. Integrating Differentiated Instruction and Understanding by Design. Danvers, Massachusetts: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

25. Wiliam, D. 2001. ‘An overview of the relationship between assessment and the curriculum.’ Curriculum and Assessment . Westport, Connecticut: Ablex Publishing.

26. Wixson, K.K., Dutro, E. and Athan, R.G. 2003. ‘The challenge of developing content standards.’ Review of Research in Education. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

Related information

UNESCO International Bureau of Education (IBE)

Our Mission

What Is Education For?

Read an excerpt from a new book by Sir Ken Robinson and Kate Robinson, which calls for redesigning education for the future.

What is education for? As it happens, people differ sharply on this question. It is what is known as an “essentially contested concept.” Like “democracy” and “justice,” “education” means different things to different people. Various factors can contribute to a person’s understanding of the purpose of education, including their background and circumstances. It is also inflected by how they view related issues such as ethnicity, gender, and social class. Still, not having an agreed-upon definition of education doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it or do anything about it.

We just need to be clear on terms. There are a few terms that are often confused or used interchangeably—“learning,” “education,” “training,” and “school”—but there are important differences between them. Learning is the process of acquiring new skills and understanding. Education is an organized system of learning. Training is a type of education that is focused on learning specific skills. A school is a community of learners: a group that comes together to learn with and from each other. It is vital that we differentiate these terms: children love to learn, they do it naturally; many have a hard time with education, and some have big problems with school.

There are many assumptions of compulsory education. One is that young people need to know, understand, and be able to do certain things that they most likely would not if they were left to their own devices. What these things are and how best to ensure students learn them are complicated and often controversial issues. Another assumption is that compulsory education is a preparation for what will come afterward, like getting a good job or going on to higher education.

So, what does it mean to be educated now? Well, I believe that education should expand our consciousness, capabilities, sensitivities, and cultural understanding. It should enlarge our worldview. As we all live in two worlds—the world within you that exists only because you do, and the world around you—the core purpose of education is to enable students to understand both worlds. In today’s climate, there is also a new and urgent challenge: to provide forms of education that engage young people with the global-economic issues of environmental well-being.

This core purpose of education can be broken down into four basic purposes.

Education should enable young people to engage with the world within them as well as the world around them. In Western cultures, there is a firm distinction between the two worlds, between thinking and feeling, objectivity and subjectivity. This distinction is misguided. There is a deep correlation between our experience of the world around us and how we feel. As we explored in the previous chapters, all individuals have unique strengths and weaknesses, outlooks and personalities. Students do not come in standard physical shapes, nor do their abilities and personalities. They all have their own aptitudes and dispositions and different ways of understanding things. Education is therefore deeply personal. It is about cultivating the minds and hearts of living people. Engaging them as individuals is at the heart of raising achievement.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,” and that “Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Many of the deepest problems in current systems of education result from losing sight of this basic principle.

Schools should enable students to understand their own cultures and to respect the diversity of others. There are various definitions of culture, but in this context the most appropriate is “the values and forms of behavior that characterize different social groups.” To put it more bluntly, it is “the way we do things around here.” Education is one of the ways that communities pass on their values from one generation to the next. For some, education is a way of preserving a culture against outside influences. For others, it is a way of promoting cultural tolerance. As the world becomes more crowded and connected, it is becoming more complex culturally. Living respectfully with diversity is not just an ethical choice, it is a practical imperative.

There should be three cultural priorities for schools: to help students understand their own cultures, to understand other cultures, and to promote a sense of cultural tolerance and coexistence. The lives of all communities can be hugely enriched by celebrating their own cultures and the practices and traditions of other cultures.

Education should enable students to become economically responsible and independent. This is one of the reasons governments take such a keen interest in education: they know that an educated workforce is essential to creating economic prosperity. Leaders of the Industrial Revolution knew that education was critical to creating the types of workforce they required, too. But the world of work has changed so profoundly since then, and continues to do so at an ever-quickening pace. We know that many of the jobs of previous decades are disappearing and being rapidly replaced by contemporary counterparts. It is almost impossible to predict the direction of advancing technologies, and where they will take us.

How can schools prepare students to navigate this ever-changing economic landscape? They must connect students with their unique talents and interests, dissolve the division between academic and vocational programs, and foster practical partnerships between schools and the world of work, so that young people can experience working environments as part of their education, not simply when it is time for them to enter the labor market.

Education should enable young people to become active and compassionate citizens. We live in densely woven social systems. The benefits we derive from them depend on our working together to sustain them. The empowerment of individuals has to be balanced by practicing the values and responsibilities of collective life, and of democracy in particular. Our freedoms in democratic societies are not automatic. They come from centuries of struggle against tyranny and autocracy and those who foment sectarianism, hatred, and fear. Those struggles are far from over. As John Dewey observed, “Democracy has to be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife.”

For a democratic society to function, it depends upon the majority of its people to be active within the democratic process. In many democracies, this is increasingly not the case. Schools should engage students in becoming active, and proactive, democratic participants. An academic civics course will scratch the surface, but to nurture a deeply rooted respect for democracy, it is essential to give young people real-life democratic experiences long before they come of age to vote.

Eight Core Competencies

The conventional curriculum is based on a collection of separate subjects. These are prioritized according to beliefs around the limited understanding of intelligence we discussed in the previous chapter, as well as what is deemed to be important later in life. The idea of “subjects” suggests that each subject, whether mathematics, science, art, or language, stands completely separate from all the other subjects. This is problematic. Mathematics, for example, is not defined only by propositional knowledge; it is a combination of types of knowledge, including concepts, processes, and methods as well as propositional knowledge. This is also true of science, art, and languages, and of all other subjects. It is therefore much more useful to focus on the concept of disciplines rather than subjects.

Disciplines are fluid; they constantly merge and collaborate. In focusing on disciplines rather than subjects we can also explore the concept of interdisciplinary learning. This is a much more holistic approach that mirrors real life more closely—it is rare that activities outside of school are as clearly segregated as conventional curriculums suggest. A journalist writing an article, for example, must be able to call upon skills of conversation, deductive reasoning, literacy, and social sciences. A surgeon must understand the academic concept of the patient’s condition, as well as the practical application of the appropriate procedure. At least, we would certainly hope this is the case should we find ourselves being wheeled into surgery.

The concept of disciplines brings us to a better starting point when planning the curriculum, which is to ask what students should know and be able to do as a result of their education. The four purposes above suggest eight core competencies that, if properly integrated into education, will equip students who leave school to engage in the economic, cultural, social, and personal challenges they will inevitably face in their lives. These competencies are curiosity, creativity, criticism, communication, collaboration, compassion, composure, and citizenship. Rather than be triggered by age, they should be interwoven from the beginning of a student’s educational journey and nurtured throughout.

From Imagine If: Creating a Future for Us All by Sir Ken Robinson, Ph.D and Kate Robinson, published by Penguin Books, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC. Copyright © 2022 by the Estate of Sir Kenneth Robinson and Kate Robinson.

Blog The Education Hub

https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2024/04/26/when-are-year-6-sats-2024-key-dates-for-parents-and-pupils/

When are year 6 SATs 2024? Key dates for parents and pupils

Year 6 pupils in England will soon be taking the key stage 2 (KS2) national curriculum tests, which are often referred to as SATs.

The assessments are used to measure school performance and to make sure individual pupils are being supported in the best way possible as they move into secondary school .

When are SATs?

This year, SATs will take place over four days from 13 May to 16 May 2024.

The timetable is as follows:


Monday 13 May	English grammar, punctuation and spelling	Paper 1: Questions Paper 2: Spelling
Tuesday 14 May	English reading	English reading
Wednesday 15 May	Mathematics	Paper 1: Arithmetic Paper 2: Reasoning
Thursday 16 May	Mathematics	Paper 3: Reasoning

What are the tests on?

While pupils won’t be able to see what’s on the test beforehand, t he assessments only include questions on things that children should already have been taught as part of the national curriculum.

You can find past papers on GOV.UK .

As usual, there won’t be a test for English writing or science. Instead, this will be reported as a teacher assessment judgement.

This is a judgement teachers will make based on your child’s work at the end of KS2.

Does my child need to revise for SATs?

Children shouldn’t be made to feel any unnecessary pressure when it comes to the KS2 assessments and t eachers will make sure that all pupils in their class are prepared.

You should follow their general advice about supporting your child’s education throughout the year and ahead of the tests.

While it is statutory for schools to hold the assessments, headteachers make the final decision about whether a pupil participates in them.

Some pupils – for example those with special education needs or disabilities – may be assessed under different arrangements if these are more appropriate.

If you have concerns about your child participating in the KS2 tests, you should speak to your school in the first instance.

What if my child finds the SATs tests too difficult?

It’s important to remember that one of the purposes of the key stage 2 assessments is to identify each pupil's strengths and the areas where they may have fallen behind in their learning as they head into secondary school.

The results will help their new school determine in which areas your child needs the most support.

The tests are designed to be challenging to measure attainment, including stretching the most able children. It means some pupils will find them harder than others.

It takes three years to create appropriate tests. During the process, they’re rigorously trialled with year 6 pupils and reviewed by education and inclusion experts to make sure they’re the right difficulty level.

The Standards and Testing Agency (STA) is responsible for developing the tests, and Ministers don't have any influence on their content.

When will we find out the results of SATs?

Schools will receive test results on Tuesday 9 July 2024.

Before the end of the summer term, your child’s school will send you a report which will include test results and teacher assessment judgements.

This should provide you with a good sense of the standard at which your child is working in each subject.

The school will report your child’s test results as a scaled score for each subject. This is created from the number of marks your child scores in a particular test. A scaled score:

below 100 means that your child may need more support to help them reach the expected standard;
of 100 or more means that your child is working at, or above, the expected standard for the key stage.

If your child is working below the overall standard of the key stage, or they have special educational needs, reporting will be different, and you should speak to your child’s teacher for more information.

You can also find more information about  results at the end of key stage 2  on GOV.UK.

Sharing and comments

Share this page, related content and links, about the education hub.

The Education Hub is a site for parents, pupils, education professionals and the media that captures all you need to know about the education system. You’ll find accessible, straightforward information on popular topics, Q&As, interviews, case studies, and more.

Please note that for media enquiries, journalists should call our central Newsdesk on 020 7783 8300. This media-only line operates from Monday to Friday, 8am to 7pm. Outside of these hours the number will divert to the duty media officer.

Members of the public should call our general enquiries line on 0370 000 2288.

Sign up and manage updates

April 2024
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
		10	11	12	13	14
15		17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25		27	28
29	30

Comments and moderation policy

IMAGES

Curriculum Development Essay Example
Introduction to Early Childhood Education Free Essay Example
National Curriculum Framework Education Essay
WHAT IS CURRICULUM & ITS TYPES? || HOW TO UNDERSTAND & DEVELOP CURRICULUM?
📌 Curriculum Development
Essays on Education

VIDEO

Essay about Curriculum #curriculum #knowledgeandcurriculum #essay #essaywriting #lessonplan
Curriculum definition by well known Authors #Amana,#learning,#Education,#Easy education #curriculum
What is curriculum?
WHAT IS CURRICULUM AND WHAT ARE ITS FUNCTIONS
What Is Curriculum By It's That Simple
What is curriculum (पाठ्यक्रम क्या है )

COMMENTS

Defining Curriculum and Instruction
An example of a curriculum is the open curriculum that provides students with an opportunity of majoring in the subjects of their interests. This type of curriculum was designed in 1969 and it is currently being practiced in many learning institutions across the globe. An example of instruction is computer-assisted instruction.
Curriculum design and development
The process of curriculum development involves the design and development of integrated plans for learning, how to implement and evaluate the plans, and checking the outcome. Designing the curriculum involves critical analysis of the teaching and learning framework. The purpose of the design stage is to elucidate certain action plans for ...
What is curriculum? Exploring theory and practice
The definition refers to schooling. We should recognize that our current appreciation of curriculum theory and practice emerged in the school and in relation to other schooling ideas such as subject and lesson. In what follows we are going to look at four ways of approaching curriculum theory and practice: 1.
Curriculum & Instruction
Curriculum in an educational context is the collection of lessons and academic content that are taught in a classroom (or in a course or program). It is the educational infrastructure that ...
Importance of Curriculum Development
Iterative. Evolutionary. Evidence-based. Comprehensive in scope. A tool to improve learning outcomes. The importance of curriculum development in enhancing teaching and learning outcomes comes into focus as the term is defined. Considering the many players involved in setting curriculum sharpens the focus.
Curriculum Definition
The term curriculum refers to the lessons and academic content taught in a school or in a specific course or program. In dictionaries, curriculum is often defined as the courses offered by a school, but it is rarely used in such a general sense in schools. Depending on how broadly educators define or employ the term, curriculum typically refers to the knowledge and skills students are expected ...
PDF CHAPTER 1 The Nature of Curriculum
process or procedure. (pp. 66, 70)[The curriculum is] all the learning experiences planned and directed by the scho. l t. at. Definition. re that of the race. (pp. 11-12)Curriculum is the entire range of experiences, both directed and undirected, concerned in unfoldi.
Curriculum Planning
Curriculum planning is the process of identifying and organizing the instructional material that the course will follow. A curriculum designer makes decisions about what the students will be ...
What is a curriculum and what can it do?
What uniquely schools can do for all pupils, and that is why the curriculum is the pre-eminent issue for all of us in education, is to offer opportunities for pupils at all ages to move beyond the experience they bring to school and to acquire knowledge that is not tied to that experi-ence. It is this (relatively) context-free knowledge, which ...
PDF The Various Concepts of Curriculum and the Factors Involved in
Curriculum conceptualized as culture educates us to pay attention to belief systems, values, behaviors, language, artistic expression, the environment in which education takes place, power relationships, and most importantly, the norms that affect our sense about what is right or appropriate (p.19).
PDF Curriculum Reform and Teacher Education
practice, essential curriculum, and broad criterion reference assessment. Curriculum and Change Before I continue, let me define curriculum for the purpose of this essay and our larger question of its role in teacher education. For me curriculum is an existing set of goals and values that gain life through an exchange between teachers and learners.
Curriculum Definition And Definition Of Curriculum
According to Stotsky (2012), curriculum is a plan of action that is aimed at achieving desired goals and objectives. It is a set of learning activities meant to make the learner attain goals as prescribed by the educational system. Generally, it includes the subjects and activities that a given school system is responsible for.
Curriculum Innovations
16. Curriculum Innovations. "Curriculum holds an outstanding place when seeking to promote innovation in education, as it reflects the vision for education by indicating knowledge, skills, and values to be taught to students. It may express not only what should be taught to students, but also how the students should be taught."--.
Understanding curriculum as practice, or on the practice turn(s) in
Curriculum can be understood in a threefold fashion: as concept, as practice and as field of study.These three perspectives and foci are interrelated, and while it is best to consider them and their interrelations together, my focus in this instance is specifically on understanding curriculum as practice.Even to highlight this one dimension, however, is far from simple or straightforward ...
PDF Curriculum Theory: A Review Study
The curriculum is the constitution of education that directs an education system and defines the individuals to be raised in the society. Curricular decisions offer important clues that will affect the entire teaching-learning process. During the curriculum-developing process, what knowledge is of ...
Definitions of Curriculum
Curriculum refers to an interactive system of instruction and learning with specific goals, contents, strategies, measurement, and resources. The desired outcome of curriculum is successful transfer and/or development of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Everything that is written, taught and tested in an educational program of study.
7 Reasons Why Your Curriculum Matters More Than You Think
With a strong curriculum, schools can break away from an over-reliance on textbooks and create more dynamic opportunities for different kinds of learning. 6. It Helps Teachers Vertically Align A good curriculum also connects teachers from across grade levels and subject areas to look at the big picture of student learning. Teachers can work ...
Curriculum and expected learning outcomes
Curriculum is a description of what, why, how, and how well students should learn in a systematic and intentional way. (14) Expected learning outcomes define the totality of information, knowledge, understanding, attitudes, values, skills, competencies, or behaviours a learner should master upon the successful completion of the curriculum.
What makes a quality curriculum?
A quality curriculum maximizes the potential for the effective enhancement of learning. Underlying this paper is the premise that educational quality should be understood primarily in terms of the quality of student learning, which in turn depends to a great extent on the quality of teaching.
Conceptualization and Definition of a Curriculum
term, namely the 'syllabus' and a 'course outline' as referred to. especially in institutions of higher learning. A 'syllabus' is usually. a summary statement of the content to be ...
Full article: Curriculum change as transformational learning
The interest in intent was in response to concerns about an over-focusing on outcomes driving the curriculum. This approach echoes the concerns facing higher education curriculum, particularly in institutions dominated by high-stakes grading (Harland et al. Citation 2015). Such contexts highlight the need for bottom up engagement and top-down ...
4 Core Purposes of Education, According to Sir Ken Robinson
Personal. Education should enable young people to engage with the world within them as well as the world around them. In Western cultures, there is a firm distinction between the two worlds, between thinking and feeling, objectivity and subjectivity. This distinction is misguided.
Full article: Curriculum is
We perceive our role as enablers of such debates within the space provided by the journal, and the papers included in this issue indeed focus around crucial and difficult curriculum questions. The first three papers directly explore the tensions and opportunities in Citizenship Education and History, subject areas which have traditionally been ...
When are year 6 SATs 2024? Key dates for parents and pupils
About the Education Hub. The Education Hub is a site for parents, pupils, education professionals and the media that captures all you need to know about the education system. You'll find accessible, straightforward information on popular topics, Q&As, interviews, case studies, and more.