Tanner y Tanner Changing

7/25/2019 Tanner y Tanner Changing

1/49

1

PART 1

THE SEARCH FOR RATIONALE

Tanner, D y Tanner, L. (1980).

Curriculum development. Theory into practice2 ed.

Ne!a "#r$ %a&'an, &a*+# 1.

CHAPTER 1

CHAN-IN- CONCEPTIONS OFCRRICL%

Mark Van Doren observed that the curriculum is not something, which it is fashionable to ponder;

and as for being rational about it, few oddities are more suspect. 1nmaking this observation, Van

Doren was reiterating an identical concern voiced b! "erbert #pencer a centur! earlier.

$ontemporar! educators have made the same point. %hilosophers have scarcel! begun to e&plorethe concept of curriculum, comments Martin.'

#uch statements ma! appear to be outlandish when one considers that there is no such institution as

a school, college, or universit! without a curriculum. (et in the e!es of the student, the process of

formal education is viewed merel! as sub)ects or courses to be taken. *nd although teachers and

professors tend to devote considerable attention to the adoption and revision of sub)ect matter as

encapsulated in courses or sub)ects, the! give relativel! little attention to the necessar! interaction

and interdependence of the various elements that comprise the concept that has come to be calledcurriculum.

+he rise of virtuall! all civilied societies has been accompanied b! educational prescriptions and

programs for the acculturation of successive generations. +he concept of curriculum is implicit even

in the earliest educational prescriptions and programs of civilied societies. *ristotle was concerned

with curriculum when he wrote, *s things are... mankind are b! no means agreed about the things

to be taught... *gain about the means there is no agreement... -(et the actual term curriculum is a

relativel! modern term, dating from the nineteenth centur!, according to The Oxford English

Dictionary, whereas the termpedagogy dates back to the earl! seventeenth centur!.

1 Mark Van Doren,Liberal Education /astan0 /eacon, 123, p. 145.' 6ane 7. Martin ed.3,Readings in the Philosophy of Education: A tudy of !urriculum /astan0 *ll!n, 1843, p.

l.- The "or#s of Aristotle, Politica, /ook V, $h. ', trans. b! /en)amin 6owett, Vol. 9 :&ford0 $larendon, 1'13,

p. 1,--5.


2/49

'

*ccording to $remin, sustained concern with curriculum emerged in this countr! during the earl!

decades of the progressive period of the twentieth centur! and, with the rapid growth of

professional training for educators during the progressive period, the burgeoning literature of

curriculummaking became the substance of a distinct field of stud!...


3/49

-

n contrast, a programmatic definition, according to #cheffier, is intended to embod! programs of

action or is an e&pression of a practical program. t is not neutral, but moral. #cheffier illustrates

this b! citing the freBuentl! used definition of curriculum as the totalit! of e&periences of each

learner under the influence of the school. #uch a definition is programmatic, #cheffier Cpoints out,

because it is intended to e&tend the schools responsibilit!, hitherto limited to its socalled formal

course of stud!, in such a wa! as to embrace the individual social and ps!chological development of

its pupils.A

*lthough #cheffier does not e&plicitl! provide an illustration of a descriptive definition of

curriculum, it is implicit in his statement that curriculum can be descriptivel! defined as the formal

course of stud! of the school. s the latter definition reall! neutral or independent of an! program

of actionE t might well be argued that this latter definition is not descriptive at all since it represents

a narrow meaning usage conception of curriculum and since it implies a programmatic return to this

narrow meaning and usage. +hus, it is not reall! neutral.

A Fna D/nn#ome curriculum scholars point to Macdonalds definition of curriculum,

planned actions for instruction, and his definition of instruction, the s!stem for putting the plan

into action, as e&amples of descriptive definitions.8/ut again, these definitions call for a dualistic

conception of curriculum and instruction. #ince such a dualism is a point of considerable

controvers! among curriculum scholars, these definitions would appear to be programmatic.

s there then such a construct as a descriptive definition of curriculum, one that is perfectl! neutral

and one that is an accurate e&planator! account of accepted meaning and usageE n light of how the

term curriculum has changed in definition, and in view of the controvers! attached to traditional

and contemporar! definitions of the term, it is doubtful that a useful descriptive definition actuall!

e&ists. Moreover, although #cheffier acknowledges that a given definition ma! be either descriptive

or programmatic depending upon its conte&t, a definition is Buite meaningless apart from the

conte&t in which it is used.

Fmergent definitions of curriculum portra! changing sociophilosophie views of educators, as well

as changing social conditions, changing conceptions of knowledge, changing conceptions of the

A bid, p. '. Gosha!, $urriculum, in 7obert ?. Fbel ed.3, Encyclopedia of Educational Research,


4/49

estern world beginning at the secondar! level of

schooling3.5f our hope has been to frame a curriculum which educes the elements of our common

human nature, declares "utchins, this program should realie our hope.

:ne of the problems with the perennialist position is that it fails to recognie the modern scientific

studies and the changing state of knowledge. t assumes that the best e&emplars of the past the

permanent studies, are valid for the present and for all time. Inowledge is truth. +he truth is

ever!where the same. "ence education should be ever!where the same, declares "utchins.14

*nother problem with perennialism is its fundamental premise that the sole purpose of education

should be the cultivation of the intellect and that onl! certain studies have this power. *ccording to

"utchins Jrammar disciplines the mind and develops the logical facult!.... $orrectness in thinking

ma! be more directl! and impressivel! taught through mathematics than m an! other wa!, and the

permanent studies cultivate the intellectual virtues.11+he perennialist position embraces the long

refuted doctrine of mental discipline and re)ects an! consideration of the interests and needs of the

learner, or the treatment of contemporar! problems in the curriculum, on the ground that such

concerns are temporal and onl! detract from the schools mission of cultivating of the mind.

+he emerging demands for social reform during the earl! decades of the twentieth centur!coupled

with developments in ps!chiatr!, medicine, and the various behavioral sciencesled to a moreintegrated conception of human nature. %rogressive educators, buttressed b! research findings on

the transfer of learning, demolished the old conception of mind as a separate entit! and challenged

the notion that certain studies possess uniBuel! inherent powers for the cultivation of the intellect

mental discipline3. =evertheless, although the influence of progressive education witnessed the

emergence of a ver! broad conception of curriculum during the first half of the twentieth centur!,

the rise essentialism e&erted an enormous counterinfluence for curricular retrenchment.

E//en// C#n&e*#n/ # Crr&'.+he essentialist position, as represented b! /estor, holdsthat the curriculum must consist essentiall! of disciplined stud! in five great areas0 13 command

of the mother tongue and the s!stematic stud! of grammar, literature, and writing; '3 mathematics;

5 7obert M. "utchins, The &igher Learning in America =ew "aven0 (ale @.%., 1-A3, pp. 5'52. bKd, p. 52.14 bid, p. AA.11 bid, pp. A', 5', 5


6/49

A

-3 sciences;


7/49

8

safet! upon inferior intellectual training in our schools than upon inferior weapons in our armor!. 18

"owever, the essentialist thunder carne to be superseded b! the disciplines doctrine of the space

age.

Sr&re # e D/&*ne.n response to the $old >ar and the space race, hundreds of millions

of dollars were allocated b! the =ational #cience Goundation to universit! scholars for the

development of new courses of stud! in the sciences and mathematics at the elementar! and

secondar! levels. +he specialied nature of universit! scholarship resulted in a like model imposed

on the schools. @niversit! scholars held that the school curriculum should be formulated according

to the structures of the disciplines. +his notion soon became a doctrine that dominated the

curriculum field from the late 124s through much of the decade of the 1A4s. #pecialists in the

social studies, the visual and performing arts, and the language arts sought to emulate the ph!sical

sciences and mathematics in the elusive search for disciplinar! structure. ?eading curriculum

theorists, such as 6oseph #chwab, seied upon disciplinarit! as theruling doctrine for curriculum

development at all levels.15#ome scholars went even further than #chwab in arguing the case for

the disciplines as the sole source of the curriculum. %heni& declared that +he curriculum should

consist entirel! of knowledge which comes from the discipline.1

+he disciplinar! doctrine resulted in a multiplicit! of disciplines v!ing for a distinct place m the

curriculum at the elementar! and secondar! levels, Moreover, there was disagreement, even among

scholars in the same areas of specialied knowledge, as to the elements which constitute thestructure of the discipline.

*lthough disciplinarit! is a valuable mode for organiing certain specialied areas of knowledge in

order to facilitate scholarl! communication and, at the universit! level, to advance such knowledge,

its appropriateness as the ruling principle for curriculum development carne into Buestion. :ther

modes of organiing knowledge for the curriculum can be )ustified in terms of life relevance, the,

the nature of the learner, and the demands of societ!.

+he advocate of disciplinarit! ma! share with the perennialist and the essentialist the conception ofcurriculum as the cumulative tradition of organied knowledge, but here is where the cause for

common ground ends. @nlike the perennialist view, the disciplinar! conception regards knowledge

18 /estor, op. cit., p. '4.15 6oseph 6. #chwab, +he $oncept of the #tructure of a Discipline, The Educational Record, Vol.


8/49

5

as d!namic and places the methods of science as central to the development of new knowledge.

>here the perennialist and essentialist regard the mind as a vessel to be filled or a muscle to be

e&ercised, the advocate of disciplinarit! regards disciplined inBuir! as the ke! to intellective

development. >here the essentialist view is focused strongl! on the fundamental skills, particularl!

at the elementar! and intermediate phases of schooling, the disciplinar! advocate regards such skills

as merel! instrumental to the wider and deeper organiing concepts and principles of each

discipline and the process of disciplined inBuir!. Ginall!, where the essentialist deprecate

contemporar! studies and re)ects the social sciences m favor of histor!, the proponent of

disciplinarit! regards the various social sciences as having a legitimate place in the curriculum.

*lthough the disciplines doctrine re)ects the traditional conception of knowledge as fi&ed or

permanent, and regards knowledge as the product of a process known as disciplined inBuir!, it

confines such inBuir! to the boundaries of the established disciplines. +he fact that .man! problems

transcend the individual disciplines and call for interdisciplinar! approaches is virtuall! ignored or

re)ected b! proponents of the disciplines doctrine.

>hat about the nature, needs, and interests of the learnerE $oncern for the nature of the learner is

dismissed as the learner is to be viewed ideall! as a miniature version of the universit! scholar on

the forefront of his or her discipline. *ccording to %heni&, +here is no place in the curriculum for

ideas which are regarded as suitable for teaching because of the supposed nature, needs, and

interests of the learner, but which do not belong within the regular structure of the disciplines.'4

+oward the end of the 1A4s, a new national awareness of pervading social problemsecolog!, war,

povert!, crime, racial conflictcoupled with student demands that the curriculum be more relevant to

their needs and life problems, impelled educators to re)ect the disciplines doctrine and to allow for a

much broader conception of curriculum. +his broader conception was not unlike that advocated b!

man! progressive educators of earlier decades. (et in the face of this broader conception of

curriculum, embraced b! man! curricularists, the 184s witnessed a retrenchment b! the schools

toward the essentialist position, as e&emplified b! the slogan /ack to the basics.

Crr&' a/ %#de/ # T#3

D/&*nary In7ry% >ith the doctrine of disciplinarit! contending that the intellectual activit! of

'4 )bid.


9/49

the child is not Bualitativel! different from that of the scholarspecialist,'1 some educational

theorists proceeded to formulate definitions of education and curriculum based on disciplinar!

inBuir!the modes of inBuir! developed b! specialied scholars in the various disciplines.

Fducation should be conceived as aguided recapitulation of the processes of in*uiry +hich ga$e

rise to the fruitful bodies of organied #no+ledge comprising the established disciplines, n declared

%hoeni&.''

*ccording to /elth, the curriculum is considered to be the increasingl! wide range of possible

modes of thinking about mens e&periencesnot the conclusions, but the models from which

conclusions derive, and in conte&t of which these conclusions, these socalled truths, are grounded

and validated.'-/elths rationale clearl! is that embraced b! the disciplinar! doctrine. "owever, if

the broader view of curriculum as modes of thought is taken, then a ma)or difficult! is overcome.

+he modes of thinking, as far as crass disciplinar! and interdisciplinar! problems are concerned,

now become relevant to the curriculum. f this definition is allowed to stand b! itself, modes of

thinking might be interpreted as e&tending be!ond the confines of the established disciplines,

thereb! e&tending curriculum significantl! be!ond %heni&s conception. /ut /elth sees education

and curriculum as a matter of developing the power to use the models of a variet! of disciplines,

and the necessar! condition is the abilit! to sort out the man! concepts about the methods of

inBuir! indigenous to each of the separate disciplines.'ith the e&ception of the latter part of the third definition, which sees curriculum as planned

learning e&periences, these definitions reflect the traditional conceptions of curriculum that were

dominant until the 1-4s. +he latest edition of theDictionary ofEducationbroadens the conception

of curriculum significantl! b! adding to the earlier definitions the statement that curriculum ma!

refer to what is intended, as planned courses and other activities or intended opportunities or

e&periences, or to what was actualied for the learner, as in actual educational treatment or all

e&periences of the learner under the direction of the school.2'

*lthough the latter definition ma! be criticied as too vague and broad, )ust as the other definitions

in the Dictionary of Education ma! be criticied as too narrow and traditional, these different

definitions reflect the conflicting and changing conceptions of curriculum during the twentieth

centur!. +he traditional conception of curriculum was no longer deemed appropriate for a

progressive societ!.

#imilar changes have occurred on the other side of the *tlantic. * /ritish educator, for e&ample,points out that over the long period of post>orld >ar reconstruction, involving the e&pansion of

educational opportunit!, a new impetus in curriculum has emerged, bringing about changing

24 "arold /. *lbert! and Flsie 6. *lbert!, Reorganiing the &igh chool !urriculum, -rd ed. =ew (ork0

Macmillan, 1A'3, p. 122.21

$arter V. Jood,Dictionary of Education, 'nd ed. =ew (ork0 McJraw"ill, 123, p. 1


17/49

18

conceptions of curriculum. *cknowledging that +o this da!, the common tendenc! is to eBuate the

curriculum with the Cs!llabus..., Ca course of stud!, or Buite simpl!, Csub)ects, 7ichmond notes

that even a random selection of definitions from the 0ournal of !urriculum tudies /ritain3 reveals

the contemporar! movement of ideas in that nation.2- *mong the various definitions cited b!

7ichmond are the following, which conceive of the curriculum as guided learning activit!0

*ll leaning which is planned or guided b! the school, whether it is carried out in

groups, or individuall!, inside or outside the school.

* programme of activities designed so that pupils will attain, as far as possible, certain

educational ends or ob)ectives.

+he contrived activit! and e&perience Horganied, focused, s!stematicH that life,

unaided, would not provide.... t is properl! artificial, selecting, organiing, elaborating

and speeding up the process of real life.2illiam J. #pad!, #tatus, *chievement, and Motivation in the *merican "igh #chool. chool re$ie+% Vol. 8

Ma! 1813, p. -5


21/49

'1

abilit! to deal with new problems; and becoming more realistic in outlook toward the future3 were

more powerfull! associated with e&traclass e&periences, especiall! peergroup cont acts through

oncampus living, than with the influence of formal courses and facult!.A1#ubseBuent reports point

to the contribution of e&traclass activities to skills that are relevant to later adult achievement. A'n

their anal!sis of the vast bod! of research on the impact of college on students, Geldman and

=ewcomb conclude that the e&tent to which e&traclass activities support or subvert facult! goals is

dependent on the nature of such activities, Gor e&ample, participation in student government ma!

pla! an important role intellectual development as contrasted to fraternit! or sororit! membership.A-

+he finding that e&traclass activities can e&ert significant influences on cognitive as well as

affective learning supports the contention that the school curriculum should be conceived of as

more than the formal course of stud!. /ecause the success of the formal course of stud! is not

independent of organied as well as informal e&traclass activities, effective curriculum planning

reBuires that careful attention be given to such activities.

+he conception of curriculum as guided learning, or all, e&periences that learners have under the

auspices of the school, or the planned learning e&periences provided in the school setting,

represented a remarkabl! radical departure from the traditional conception of curriculum as the

school sub)ects taken together, or the courses of stud!, or the s!llabus. /ut beginning in the 1A4s,

curricularists were criticiing the e&periential definitions as too broad and were proposing more

specific definitions. +hese proposals stemmed from three ma)or influences, namel!, 13 the

unprecedented curriculum reform activit! of disciplinar! movement, '3 the growing bod! ofeducational researchers focusing on the act of teaching or the processes of instruction as

independent from sub)ect matter or curriculum, and -3 developments in educationaltechnolog!.

?et us now turn to some of these more recentl! proposed conceptions of curriculum.

Crr&' a/ an In/rna Pan

n 1A< 6errold Nacharias of M..+., who had led the wa! eight !ears earlier in the establishment of

the archet!pe pro)ect for the disciplinecentered curriculum reforms %h!sical #cience #tud!$ommittee3, %roposed that curriculum revision encompassed four distinct components0 13

A1 %aul ?. Dressel and rwin ?ehmann, +he mpact of "igher Fducation on #tudent *ttitudes, Values, and $ritical

+hinkin *bilities, in :hmer Milton and Fdward 6. #hoben eds.3, Learning and the Professors *thens, :hio0 :hio@.%., 1A53, pp. 1151'-.

A' *le&ander >. *stin,-our !ritical 2ears #an Grancisco0 6osse!/ass, 1883, pp. 1121''.

A- Ienneth *. Geldman and +heodore M. =ewcomb, The )mpact of !ollege on tudents #al3 Grancisco0 6osse!

/ass, 1A3, p. 'AA.


22/49

''

determining the precise boundaries of the educational unit; '3 identif!ing the sub)ect matter within

the unit; -3 embod!ing the sub)ect matter in material form te&tbook, laborator! and classroom

materials, and other learning aids3; and oodring noted that, to some e&tent, the disciplinar! movement represented a return to the

older tradition that dominated the schools before the progressive revolution in that it conceived of

curriculum as sub)ect matter organied as separate academic disciplines. A2*s discussed earlier, the

disciplinar! movement departed from the older tradition in man! significant wa!s, but the

conception of curriculum embraced b! this movement was nonetheless a return to the notion of

curriculum as a course of stud!.

+aba re)ected the progressive concept of curriculum for being so broad as to be nonfunctional and

proposed in 1A' that * curriculum is a plan for learning.AA/eauchamp preferred a similar

definition in successive editions of !urriculum Theory, namel! that a curriculum is a written

document.A8 #tanding b! it self, /eauchamps definition fails to distinguish curriculum from an!

other kind of written documentwhether a business contract, a marriage license, or a store coupon.

/ut /eauchamp goes on to point out that a curriculum includes at least one of the following four

elements0 13 an outline of the culture content to be taught; '3 a statement of goals andOor specific

ob)ectives; -3 a statement of the purposes for the creation of the curriculum and wa!s in which the

curriculum is to be used; and, more rarel!, . "eath ed.3, 3e+

!urricula =ew (ork0 "arper, 1Ailmette, ll.0 Iagg, 1823, p. 14-.A5 bid, pp. 14814.


23/49

'-

those planning endeavors which take place prior to instruction.A

+he problem of dualism between curriculum and instruction arises in all definitions where

curriculum is regarded as a plan. "irst defines curriculum as a plan of activities deliberatel!

organied so that pupils will attain, b! learning; certain educational ends or ob)ectives. 84*lthough

"irst sees a curriculum arising onl! in a teaching situation, his definition is that of a plan for

teaching and learning activities and not of the e&perience itself. *n almost identical definition,

which raises the same difficulties, is offered b! *le&ander and #a!lor0 we define curriculum as a,

plan for providing sets of learning opportunities to achieve broad goals and related specific

ob)ectives for and identifiable population served b! a single school center.81

Crr&' a/ a Te&n##3&a Sy/e' # Pr#dn

+he origin of the notion of curriculum as a production s!stem can be traced to the efforts in

education during the earl! decades of the twentieth centur! to appl! industrial scientific

management to education.8' +hese efforts were e&emplified in the method of )ob anal!sis or

activit! anal!sis. n recent !ears, the notion of curriculum as a production s!stem has been

embodied in the doctrine of specific behavioral ob)ectives, behaviorism and the theor! of operant

conditioning, developments in instructional technolog! including s!stems anal!sis3, performance

contracting, and accountabilit!.

A&!y An/y//. *lthough activit! anal!sis incorporated the progressive idea of linking the

curriculum to life e&perience, it departed from the progressive rationale b! reducing curriculum to

an anal!sis of adult activit! and thereb! overlooked the authentic life of the learner. +he operation

of )ob anal!sis or activit! anal!sis was designed to secure educational ob)ectives in an efficient wa!,

corresponding to the anal!sis of activities involved in the performance of )obs in the world of

industr! and business. #ince education is concerned with processes that e&tend be!ond )ob

performance, the term acti$ity analysis carne to be more popular among curriculum developers

during the earl! decades of this centur!.

A 6ames /. Macdonald, Fducational Models for nstruction, in 6ames /. Macdonald and 7oben 7. ?eeper eds.3,

Theories of )nstruction >ashington, D.$.0 *ssociation for #upervision and $urriculum Development, 1A23 , p. A.84

%aul ". "irst,4no+ledge and the !urriculum ?ondon0 7putledge, 18


24/49

'. >. $harters, the method of activit! anal!sis came to be

cloaked as the scientific wa! to build a curriculum. *ccording to /obbitt, life consists of the

performance of specific activities; if education is preparation for life then it must prepare for these

specific activities; these activities, however numerous, are definite and particularied, and can be

taught; therefore these activities will be the ob)ectives of the curriculum. +he curriculum will then

be that series of e&periences which children and !outh must have b! wa! of attaining these

ob)ectives, reasoned /obbitt, who proceeded to define curriculum as that series of things +hich

children: and youth must do and experienceb! wa! of developing abilities to do the things well ,

that make up the affairs of adult life; and to be in all respects what adults should be. 8-+he school,

according to /obbitt, simpl! deals with those ob)ectives that are not sufficientl! attained through

undirected e&perience.

*side from certain problems inherent in activit! anal!sissuch as its static orientation toward

societ!, the virtuall! unlimited number of ob)ectives possible, its notion of the child as merel! an

adult in the making, its misuse of the term scientific, and so onthis method was derived b! /obbitt

and $harters from anal!ses of the production models of business and industr!. +o /obbitt,

curriculum making is the )ob of the educational engineer,8


25/49

'2

* similar dualistic view is held b! 6ohnson, who argues that the gene rall! accepted definition; of

curriculum as planned learning e&periences is unsatisfactor! because it fails to distinguish

curriculum from instruction, and he proceeds to define curriculum as a structured series of

intended learning outcomes.88t is possible to interpret such a definition in terms of outcomes that

are far more comprehensive than behavioral ob)ectives. n such a case, the concept of curriculum as

ends would not fall into the instructional technolog! campo /ut the dominant view of curriculum as

ends resides with the proponents of behavioral ob)ectives as the controlling curriculum mode.

+he processproduct dualism is most e&plicitl! set forth in efforts to base course content on

behavioral ob)ectives.85*ccording to %opham, !urriculum Buestions revolve around consideration

of ends, that is, the ob)ectives an educational s!stem hopes its learners will achieve, and he

declares that * properl! stated behavioral ob)ective must describe +ithout ambiguity the nature of

learner behavior or product to be measured.8*s mentioned earlier, %opham holds that the terms

curriculum and instruction should be sharpl! contrasted. +he distinction is one of ends and

means.54+hus, the curriculum is seen as one component, and instruction as another component, in

a production process that leads to a measurable product called terminal behavior.

%opham advocates that we divert some of our national resources into constructing lists of potential

ob)ectives in precise form from which the teachers can choose. n this wa! teachers dont have to go

to the work of generating their own goals, the! need onl! to select them.51

+hus, the teacher isregarded as a sort of mechanic whose )ob it is to see to it that the curriculum and other components

of the technological process of production !ield the sufficient Buantit! of products under the

necessar! Bualit! controls. *nd curriculum is reduced to lists of behavioral ob)ectives, or, more

accuratel!, behavioristic ob)ectives.

*lthough those curriculum writers who see curriculum as ends are in sharp conflict with those who

regard curriculum as instructional content, each group shares the notion .ofa dualism between

curriculum and instruction, between ends and means. "owever logical such a distinction ma!appear in theor!, it leads to serious conceptual and practical difficulties. +o separate curriculum

88 Maurit 6ohnson, 6r., Definitions and Models in $urriculum +heor!, Educational Theory, Vol. 18 *pril

1A83, p. 1'8.85

Jeorge 6. %osner and *lan =. 7udnitsk!, !ourse Design =ew (ork0 ?ongman, 1853, p. A.8

>. 6ames %opham et al.,)nstructional Ob(ecti$es $hicago0 7and Mc=all!, 1A3, pp. -


26/49

'A

from instruction, or to separate sub)ect matter from method, is to make the same error as in

separating knowledge from that which renders our actions intelligent. +hus, to see the curriculum

merel! as ends is like conceiving of getting to a destination without having to take the trip.

+he behaviorist /. G. #kinner, who developed the rationale for operant conditioning, sees the

curriculum being formulated according to behavioristic ob)ectives or terminal behaviors. "e

describes the teachers role as mechanical, for, according to #kinner, the teacher merel! is one who

arranges the contingencies of reinforcement under which the pupils are automaticall! conditioned

toward specified terminal behaviors.5'Method, then, is conceived as the schedule of reinforcement

contingencies established b! the programmer. *n automatic model of the learner is assumed. +he

learner is reduced to a response s!stem; instruction be comes a stimulus s!stem; curriculum is

conceived as the planned learning outcomes as represented b! lists of Buantifiable behavioral or

terminal ob)ectives.

#kinner and other behaviorists not onl! view the curriculum as a component of a technological

production process but also the! see the pupil as a kind of mechanical learning unit in the

production process. *ccording to JagnP, curriculum is a seBuence of content units arranged in

such a wa! that the learning of each unit ma! be accomplished as a single act, provided the

capabilities described b! specified prior units in the seBuence3 have alread! been mastered b! the

learner.5-JagnP defines a unit of content as a specific description of a single student capabilit! or,

essentiall!, a behavioral ob)ective. +he definition of curriculum offered b! JagnP assumes that

learning is mechanical and linear, and that the learner is a mere mechanism to be conditionedtoward making the right automatic responses.

?ike activit! anal!sis, behavioral ob)ectives are limitless in number. #ince modernda! proponents

of behavioral ob)ectives insist that such ob)ectives be Buantifiabl! assessed as terminal products, the

curriculum becomes necessaril! narrow and mechanical. *dvocates of behavioral specification of

ob)ectives share with proponents of behavior modification the doctrine that all behavior is

controlled. *ll behavior is inevitabl! controlled, declares /andura, and the operation of

ps!chological laws cannot be suspended b! romantic conceptions of human behavior, an! morethan indignant re)ection o the law of gravit! as antihumanistic can stop people from falling. 5. +!ler eds.3,

Accountability in Education >orthington, :hio0 6ones, 1813, p. 1


29/49

'

+here is toda! a widel! he d point of view from which most an!thing, and education

in particular, can be described as a collection or s!stem of interdependent parts

belonging to a hierarch! in which a s!stem ma! have subs!stems of its own while

acting as a mere part of a supras!stem. +he process of anal!ing or s!nthesiing such

s!stems, called s!stems anal!sis for short, is touted as one of the shiniest of new

technologies.4

*lthough s!stems anal!sis can be an invaluable techniBue for dealing with comple& organiational

problems and in seeing such problems wholl! as well as in detail, the trouble begins when attempts

are made to appl! s!stems anal!sis to problems that are not strictl! Buantitative. Fven in the realm

of the Defense Department, where the variables in connection with contracts for the production of

weapons are known and Buantifiable, it is common to find that cost overruns are upwards of '44

and -44 per cent of the contractual specifications. /ecause education is largel! an emergent sphere

with all kinds of changing, valueladen, Bualitative influencesand not merel! an established sphere

with fi&ed, Buantitative componentss!stems anal!sis has severe limitations in education.

>hen applied to education, s!stems anal!sis reduces curriculum to a mere technological component

containing man! subcomponents. Dissected from its ecological conditions, the concept of

curriculum becomes mechanistic and artificial, and has little bearing on actual curricular problems.

*n illustration of what happens to the concept of curriculum when treated b! s!stems anal!sis is

this statement from the final report of a Q1.2 million Gord Goundation pro)ect in the #chool ofFngineering at the @niversit! of $alifornia, ?os *ngeles0

+he professional curriculum is a highl! comple&, information transmitting s!stem. t

acts upon inputs from the high schools to convert this raw material into a semifinished

product to be shipped out into practice. Viewed in this sense, the educational design

problem is comparable to an! other largescale s!stem problem.1

+he results of this effort, as in the case of other efforts to appl! s!stems anal!sis to curriculumdevelopment, failed to !ield what was promised, despite twelve !ears of work; @nable to derive

meaningful empirical data from the s!stems anal!sis, the pro)ect fell back on a set of

recommendations based upon conventional wisdomsuch as the need for professional schools to

4 *nthon! J. :ettinger,Run, !omputer, Run $ambridge, Mass.0 "arvard @.%., 1A3, p. 2-.1

*llen /. 7osenstein, A tudy of a Profession and Professional Education ?os *ngeles0 #chool of Fngineering

and *pplied #cience, @.$.?.*., December 1A53, p. 1.


30/49

-4

foster research that is relevant to the professions.

n contrast, a curriculumstud! pro)ect undertaken b! a facult!student commission at the

Massachusetts nstitute of +echnolog! deliberatel! avoided s!stems anal!sis.'@tiliing a variet! of

methodsincluding case histor!, surve!s, review of pertinent literatureand drawing on

knowledgeable consultants through task forces, s!mposia, conferences, and seminars, the

commission addressed several molar problems of curriculum. *mong these were the fragmentation

of the curriculum and the emergence of the warehouse or supermarket model of curriculum as a

result of the knowledge e&plosion, the growing specialiation of knowledge, and the vested depart

mentalied interests in the universit!. +hrough such a focus, the commission was able to re)ect

mechanical curricular tinkering and come to grips with the problem of how to reconstruct the

curriculum for the integration of knowledge from the various disciplines so that knowledge could be

related effectivel! to human action. +his called for a restructuring of the universit!. :f course, other

evaluative methods might have guided such a stud!, including e&perimental research, but in an!

case, when curriculum is studied in its broadest conceptual sense and in its natural ecological

setting, the outcomes are more likel! to be realistic, meaningful, and practical. *nd the findings are

more likel! to be transformed into practice.

THE CRRICL%INSTRCTION DALIS%

+he contention that curriculum and instruction are two separate realms has gained widespreadacceptance among contemporar! curriculum theorists. +he emergence of this dualistic view, as

mentioned earlier in this chapter, stems from several developments, not the least of which is the

burgeoning bod! of research on instruction and the technolog! of instruction. #uch research has

become so specialied that much of it is focused on the anal!sis of teaching as severed from sub)ect

matter and from the learning that occurs as a result of teaching. "ence the behaviorists are not alone

in ascribing to the curriculuminstruction dualism. Man! curricularists argue this separation on

logical grounds. Moreover, in the world of specialied universit! scholarship, it is a considerable

convenience and advantage to conduct research when comple& interaction conte&ts are reducibleand divisible. Gor anal!tical purposes this is perfectl! )ustifiable. /ut when the reducibles and

divisibles are taken for the real world of the actionconte&t, namel! the classroom and the school,

the outcome is likel! to be artificial and mechanistic. #!nthesis is sacrificed for anal!sis, as the

specialied research pursuits divert curricularists from the substantive problems of the field. +he

' $ommission on M+ Fducation, !reati$e Rene+al in a Time of !risis $ambridge, Mass.0 M..+., 1843.


31/49

-1

curriculuminstruction dualism has emerged as a veritable doctrine for the curriculum field.

Te D#&rne # Da/'

>e hold that curriculum is a methodological inBuir! e&ploring the range of wa!s in which the

sub)ect matter elements of teacher, student, sub)ect, and milieu can be seen, declare >estbur! and

#teimer, who go on to state the +he stud! of curriculum as means should become an inBuir! into

the devices and modes for actualiing the interactions of the commonplace curricula elements0

sub)ect, student, milieu, and teacher.-

+his definition conceives of curriculum as a process concerned with the manipulation of means and

components and includes the idea that ends can be located in some wa! that makes it possible to

measure the effectiveness of different uses of means. . Fisner ed.3, !onfronting !urriculum Reform /oston0 ?ittle, /rown, 1813,

p. 1'A.


32/49

-'

*ccording to Macdonald, +he! are essentiall! two separate action conte&ts, one curriculum3

producing plans for further action; and, the other instruction3 putting plans into action. 5"e goes

on to declare that @ntil such time as there can be common agreement upon at least the basic

phenomena we are labeling, there will be little chance of making conceptual progress.

Does the doctrine of dualism give promise of enabling curriculum scholars to make conceptual

progressE *s indicated earlier in this chapter, Macdonald defines curriculum as those planning

endeavors which take place prior to instruction.144+his definition of curriculum is so vague and

narrow that it fails to provide an! clue whatsoever as to the kinds of endeavors that are rightfull!

called curriculum. Gurthermore, it fails to recognie that man! planning endeavors are an outgrowth

of the learning situation. Ver! often the learning situation is a problem situation from which e&isting

plans are modified and new plans are conceived and tested.

*ccording to Macdonald, instruction is defined as the pupilteacher interaction situation.141*gain,

this definition is not ver! revealing since it fails to distinguish this interaction situation from an!

other interaction situation, apart from the fact that a teacher and pupils3 are interacting. :bviousl!,

there can be pupilteacher interaction independentl! of instruction. Moreover, this definition of

instruction provides no insight into the concept of curriculum. t is difficult to see how such a

definition and the notion of curriculum and instruction as two distinct realms will help curriculum

workers make conceptual progress.

See$n3 Syne//. More recentl!, Macdonald has come to revise his position. %ointing to the

narrow and mechanistic implications of behavioral ob)ectives and the failure of the behavioristic

rationale to recognie the comple& nature of learning and developmental processes, Macdonald,

>olfson, and Naret offer this definition of curriculum0 Ccurriculum is the cultural environment

which has been purposel! selected as a set of possibilities for facilitating educative transactions. 14'

+his definition fails to distinguish the kind of cultural environment provided b! the school from that

of an! other educative agenc!, such as a museum. *llowed to stand b! itself, this definition

provides no clue as to what is meant b! cultural environment or educative transactions e.g.,#kinnerian or Dewe!an3. *lthough Macdonald, >olfson, and Naret see these transactions in the

5 Macdonald, Theories of )nstruction, op. cit., p. 2.

bid., p. -.

144 bid., p. A.

141 bid.

14' 6ames /. Macdonald, /ernice 6 >olfson, and Fsiher Naret, Reschooling ociety: A !onceptual 'odel

>ashington, D.$.0 *ssociation for #upervision and $urriculum Development, 18-3, p. ''.


33/49

--

e&istential terms of transcendent and liberating, the definition, itself, allows for an!

interpretation. =ever theless, it does appear to resolve the functional problems stemming from the

curriculuminstruction dualism, for it recognies instruction as integral to curriculum.

n a similar effort to find a workable definition, and thereb! resolve this same dualism, Doll offers

this definition0 +he curriculum of a school is the formal and informal content and process b! which

learners gain knowledge and understanding, develop skills, and alter attitudes, appreciations, and

values under the auspices of that school.14-Dolls definition, again, fails to distinguish the schools

content and process from the content and process of an! other educative agenc!. *nd the e&pression

to alter attitudes, appreciations, and values ma! raise considerable disagreement among those

educators who see the school as providing for enlightenment and not altering the learner. Gor

altering implies an e&ternall! controlled behaviorthe kind of behavior associated with

indoctrination or conditioning. *side from these problems, which are considerable in themselves,

Dolls definition regards instruction or process as integral to curriculum and, thereb!, represents

an effort toward s!nthesis.

Fgan sees curriculum as such an inclusive concept that he offers this definition0 $urriculum is the

stud! of an! and all educational phenomena.14ile!, 18-3, pp.


34/49

-hat is the point of stud!ing teaching unless such stud! is related to student growthE s such stud!

undertaken merel! to provide teachers with alternative and prescriptive models of teachingE *fter

discussing some of the evils in education that flow from the isolation of method from sub)ect

matter, Dewe! observed that =othing has brought pedagogical theor! into greater disrepute than

the belief that it is identified with the handing out to teachers recipes and models to be followed in

teaching.11'

+he investigation of instruction apart from curriculum leads to somewhat biarre conceptions of the

teacher. Gor e&ample, Mc=eil and %opham define the teacher as a person engaged in interactive

behavior with one or more students for the purpose of effecting a change in those students.11-#uch

a definition fails to distinguish the work of a teacher from that of a group therapist or an animal

trainer. :ne onl! has to substitute the word client or animal for student, whichever the case ma!

be3. Moreover, inasmuch as change can be effected b! manipulation as opposed to the freeing of

intelligence, this definition would be unacceptable to educators who conceive of teaching and

education as vitall! connected with the freeing of intelligence.

114 /arak 7osenshine and =orma Gurst, +he @se of Direct :bservation to #tud! +eaching, $hapter 2 in 7obert M.

>. +ravers ed.3, econd &and1boo# of Research on Teaching $hicago0 7and Mc=all!, 18-3, pp. 1'', 1A4.111

Michael 6. Dunkin and /ruce 6. /iddle, The tudy of Teaching =ew (ork0 "olt, 18. 6ames %opham, +he *ssessment of +eacher $ompetence, $hapter 8 in +ravers ed.3,

econd &andboo# of Research on Teaching, op. cit., p. '1.


37/49

-8

Sear& #r a Te#ry # In/rn.n his book To+ard a Theory of )nstruction, ./runer reaches

the following conclusion0

Ginall!, a theor! of instruction seeks to take account of the fact that Ra curriculum

reflects not onl! the nature of knowledge itself. but also the nature of the knower and

the knowledgegetting process. t is an enterprise par e&cellence where the line

between sub)ect matter and method grows necessaril! indistinct.... Inowledge is a

process, not a product.11. Gosha!, !urriculum for the ;ashington, D.$.0 =ational Fducation

*ssociation, 1843, pp. '5-4.


40/49


41/49

esle!, 1A53, pp. 1


42/49

hat is the purpose and meaning of scienceE receives Buite different answers at different times

from different sorts of people.1'1Finstein went on the stress that scientific progress is such that

the realm of ph!sics has so e&panded that it seems to be limited onl! b! the limitations of the

method itself.1''+his observation should give curriculum theorists food for thought concerning the

longheld dualism between content and method, or curriculum and instruction. Inowledge has

come to be seen as a wa! of knowing and searching, and not as an end product or bod! of sub)ect

matter separate from method.

+he Buest for a universall! agreedupon definition of curriculum would appear to be unfruitful. Gor

the marked and spectacular conceptual and operational progress in science has not been impeded b!

the lack of agreement on the definition of science. +his conceptual progress not onl! has changed

the meaning of science, but has made an! fi&ed definition of the term irrelevant to such progress.

+his leads us to the Buestion regarding the sources and significance of consensus in a field.

Te Parad3' C#n&e*

Discussing the debates concerning the scientific bases for the social sciences, +homas Iuhn offers

this observation on the issue of definition0

:ften great energ! is invested, great passion aroused, and the outsider is at a loss to

know wh!. $an ver! much depend upon a definition of scienceE $an a definition tella man whether he is a scientist or notE f so, wh! do not the natural scientists or artists

11 Dwa!ne "uebner, +he Moribund $urriculum Gield0 ts >ake and :ur >ork, !urriculum )n*uiry, Vol. A, =o.

' 18A3, p. 12A.1'4 6. D. /ernal, cience in &istory, Volume 10 The Emergence of cience $ambridge, Mass.0 M..+., 1813, pp. -,

-4.1'1 *lbert Finstein, The "orld as = ee )t =ew (ork0 $ovici, Griede, 1-


43/49


44/49

hen

curriculum is conceived as guided e&perience, we are left with no clues as to how such e&perience

in school differs from guided e&perience provided b! other societal institutions and processes.

*lthough it can be argued that there should be no sharp lines of demarcation between school and

life, the school would not e&ist if it did not provide uniBue and authentic learning e&periences

e&periences that could not be provided for adeBuatel! in an! other wa!.

Most of the other t!pes of definitions of curriculum raise the specter of dualismsbetween thought

and action, between sub)ect matter and instruction, between ends and means. t is as if to separate

the act of talking from the language that is spoken. Inowledge is severed from the processes b!

which it is created, transmitted, and transformed. "owever theoreticall! derived, such separations

are fictional constructs that cannot be taken as resenting the real, practical world of curriculum and

the school. n order to avoid drowning in a sea of comple&ities, humans create s!stems or wa!s of

anal!ing phenomena, but the trouble begins when the! take their own fictional constructs and

assume that these constructs are true in the larger ecological picture. n thinking about

curriculum, various curriculum writers have sought to dissect it so that each specialist is given a

piece of the action. +hus, for e&ample, in separating curriculum from instruction, we haveresearchers who stud! instruction apart from whatever it is that is being taught and learned.

*lthough such separations ma! enhance specialied scholarship, the! tend to become selfserving

e&ercises that cloud rather than illuminate curricular problems.

Fach of the aforementioned definitions of curriculum onl! partiall! represents the meaning of the

term. #ome curriculum writers contend that unless a fi&ed, universall! agreedupon definition of

curriculum is developed, there can be little progress in the field. /ut the fact that scientists have not

agreed on a fi&ed definition of science has not impeded scientific progress. :f course, differentscientists have some up with different working definitions of science, and such definitions can be

helpful in their work. /ut the idea of fi&it! is inimical to the ver! spirit of science.

n view of the limitations of each of the proposed definitions of curriculum, a more comprehensive,

tentative, working definition is suggested in this chapter. +he authors regard curriculum as that


45/49


46/49

. $hickering,

Education and )dentity #an Grancisco0 6osse!/ass, 1A3, p. 1AW.

Jive e&amples to illustrate how changes in teaching practices, the uses of different kinds of

tests, and changes in grading practices would likel! result in vibrations affecting the

sub)ect matter and learning outcomes.

8. n devising various s!stems of direct observation in the stud! of teaching, onl! rarel! have

the authors of these s!stems sought to relate teaching activities to the sub)ect matter that is

being taught and the resultant learning outcomes. "ow do !ou account for this omissionE

5. n searching for a theor! of instruction, /runer acknowledges that a curriculum reflects not

onl! the nature of knowledge itself but also the nature of the knower and the knowledge

getting process, and he concludes that knowledge is a process, not a product 6erome #.

/runer, To+ard a Theory of )nstruction $ambridge, Mass.0 "arvard @.%., 1AA3, 8'W.

n view of /runers statement, does it make sense to seek a theor! of instruction apart from

a theor! of curriculumE F&plain.

. *s a highschool or college student, did !ou participate in an! school activities outside the

formal course of stud! that e&erted a positive or negative influence on !our attitudes,

appreciations, values, or academic achievementE F&plain.

14. n what wa!, if an!, should the school curriculum be distinguished from life e&periencesoutside the schoolE

SELECTED REFERENCES

1. *lbert!, "arold /., and *lbert!, Flsie 6. Reorganiing the &igh chool !urriculum, -rd ed.

=ew (ork0 Macmillan %ublishing $o., nc., 1A'.

'. /eauchamp, Jeorge. *. !urriculum Theory, -rd ed. >ilmette, ll.0 +he Iagg %ress, 182.

-. /elth, Marc.Education as a Discipline% /oston0 *ll!n X /acon, nc., 1.A2.


47/49

inston, 188.

'2. Jiles, ". ".; Mc$utchen, #. %.; and Nechiel, *. =. Exploring the !urriculum% =ew (ork0

"arper X 7ow, %ublishers, 1


48/49

ile! X #ons, nc.,

18-.

-4. Iing, *rthur 7., 6r., and /rownell, 6ohn *. The !urriculum and the Disciplines of

4no+ledge%=ew (ork0 6ohn >ile! X #ons, nc., 1AA.

-1. Iuhn, +homas #. The tructure of cientific Re$olutions, 'nd ed. $hicago0 @niversit! of

$hicago %ress, 184.

-'. ?amm, Nvi. !onflicting Theories of )nstruction% /erkele!, $Ylif.0 Mc$utchan %ublishing

$orp., 18A.

--. ?awton, Denis. !lass, !ulture and the !urriculum% ?ondon0 7outledge X Iegan %aul ?td.,

182.

-illiam M. Planning !urriculum for chools% =ew (ork0

"olt, 7inehart and >inston, 18


49/49

. 5asic Principles of !urriculum and )nstruction% $hicago0 @niversit! of

$hicago %ress, 1arwick, David. !urriculum tructure and Design% ?ondon0 @niversit! of ?ondon %ress

?td., 182.

2einberg, *lvin M.Reflections on 5ig cience% $ambridge, Mass.0 +he M..+. %ress, 1A2.

22. >hitehead, *lfred =orth. The Aims of Education% =ew (ork0 Macmillan %ublishing $o.,

nc., 1'.

Tanner y Tanner Changing

Documents

Transcript of Tanner y Tanner Changing