A ‘curriculum framework’ can be defined as a group of related subjects or themes, which fit together according to a predetermined set of criteria to appropriately cover an area of study. Each curriculum framework has the potential to provide a structure for designing subjects and a rationale and policy context for subsequent curriculum development of these subjects. Examples of school-oriented curriculum frameworks include ‘science’ (including, for example, biology, chemistry, physics, geology) and ‘commerce’ (including, for example, accounting, office studies, economics, computing). In the USA the term ‘social studies’ was first used by the National Education Association in 1894 to describe predominantly history, but also geography, economics, government and civics. However, there have been many other frameworks which have been proposed by educators over the decades, and these are examined next.
Educational theorists over the years have produced their ideal framework groupings. For example, Hirst (1974) has argued convincingly that knowledge can be classified into eight forms, which he labels as:
mathematics;
physical sciences;
human sciences;
history;
religion;
literature and the fine arts;
philosophy;
moral knowledge.
As noted by Ribbins (1992), Hirst distinguishes between ‘forms’ and ‘fields’ of knowledge, and in some cases there is considerable overlap with school subjects and university disciplines but in other cases very little. Hirst (1967) states:
I have argued elsewhere that although the domain of human knowledge can be regarded as composed of a number of logically distinct forms of knowledge, we do in fact for many purposes, deliberately and self-consciously organize knowledge into a large variety of fields which often form the units employed in teaching. The problems that arise in teaching such complex fields as . . . geography . . . are much more difficult to analyse than those arising in such forms as, say, mathematics, physics and history. (Hirst, 1967, p. 44)
Phenix in his work Realms of Meaning (1964) maintains that there are six fundamental patterns of meaning that determine the quality of every humanly significant experience . Young (1971) argues that society selects, classifies, distributes, transmits and evaluates educational knowledge. He maintains that academic curricula assume that some kinds and areas of knowledge are much more worthwhile than others. Young argues that frameworks based upon subject-based academic curricula are rarely examined and that they should be seen for what they are – ‘no more than historic constructs of a particular time’. Goodson (1981) is not entirely convinced about the historical basis for the control by dominant groups. Based upon a number of studies he argues that sociologists such as Young have ‘raided’ history to support their theory:
Studies develop, so to speak, horizontally working out from theories to social structure and social order. When historical evidence is presented it is provided as a snapshot from the past to prove a contemporary point. (Goodson, 1985, p. 358)
A framework based on ‘Realms of Meaning’
Realm of Meaning Disciplines
Symbolics: Ordinary language, mathematics, non-discursive symbolic forms
Empirics: Physical sciences, life sciences, psychology, social sciences Aesthetics Music, visual arts, arts of movement, literature
Synnoetics: Philosophy, psychology, literature, religion; in their existential aspects Ethics The varied special areas of moral and ethical concern
Synoptics: History, religion, philosophy
Recent Approaches
Curriculum frameworks developed in the 1990s and twenty-first century are predominantly guides that have been explicitly designed and written to assist school communities of teachers, students and parents in their curriculum ‘decision- making’ about K-10 programmes (Kerr, 1989). It should be noted that curriculum frameworks can assist in the review and development of curricula by schools and system-level personnel. That is, there is an important ‘control’ element involved too.
Components
A curriculum framework document usually includes:
a rationale or platform;
scope and parameters of the curriculum area;
broad goals and purposes of subjects within the curriculum area;
guidelines for course design;
content;
teaching and learning principles;
guidelines for evaluation of subjects;
criteria for accreditation and certification of subjects;
future developments for the area.
Hardy (1990) argues that the rationale or platform for a curriculum framework is of major importance – a statement of the values, principles and assumptions that have guided those who produced the framework.
Features
A comprehensive and well-developed framework should contain the following features:
strong links between theory and practice;
up-to-date and relevant information about pedagogy, learning and
resources;
evocative and inspiring to teachers – they become impressed by its
potential as a curriculum area.
Impact upon Teachers
Impact of curriculum frameworks upon teachers:
frameworks provide greater coherence across subjects and across the grade levels K–12 – they demonstrate the commonalities between subjects within a framework and enable content and skills to be sequenced across grade levels;
frameworks encourage teachers to evaluate the total learning environment – teachers need to consider the effectiveness of the taught curriculum, and their teaching effectiveness as well as student performances; frameworks enable curriculum boundaries to be reconsidered and sometimes redefined – they highlight the changing emphases and the evolving boundaries of subjects;
frameworks encourage teachers to reconsider their packaging and delivery of subjects – it enables them to develop new emphases (for example, vocational, recreational) and career pathways;
frameworks enable relatively low-status subjects to be given a more prominent place in the school programme because equal status is given to all frameworks.
Advantages of Using Curriculum Frameworks
The advantages of using curriculum frameworks are:
students have access to a broader education by being able to select from a number of curriculum frameworks rather than a narrow range of traditional subjects;
the curriculum will be more coherent and orderly because the framework for each curriculum area is arranged, usually from kindergarten to secondary levels, and priorities are established for each level;
high-quality curriculum development is likely to occur because planning criteria and standards apply consistently across all curriculum frameworks;
there are opportunities for curriculum frameworks to include subjects which are highly prescriptive and those that allow considerable flexibility and variation at the school level;
new content areas and skills can be easily accommodated in curriculum frameworks including various multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary variations;
curriculum frameworks developed at a state or regional level have the potential to become accepted as national frameworks;
there are opportunities to incorporate desirable skills into each framework such as communication and language skills, numeracy skills, problem-solving skills.
Disadvantages of Using Curriculum Frameworks
The disadvantages of using curriculum frameworks are:
if frameworks become too detailed they can become very directive for teachers;
they can become an instrument of compliance and used as a means of control by central education authorities.
Reflections and Issues
1. ‘Frameworks improve the quality of curriculum by assisting in the evaluation of existing curriculum and helping to revise and develop curriculum’ (Hardy, 1990, p. 5). In what ways is this likely to occur?
2. ‘Schools should operate within the general guidelines of central office personnel – curriculum frameworks enable this to occur.’ Discuss.
3. ‘Curriculum frameworks provide opportunities for an education system to include new subjects to suit a country’s present and future social and economic needs.’ To what extent can this occur? Give examples of where such initiatives have been successful.
4. ‘The National Curriculum (in the UK) will equip students with the knowledge, skills and understanding that they need for adult life and employment’ (Baker, Secretary of State, in Cooper, 1990, p. 144). Do you agree? What have been some of the problems?
5. ‘There has been an almost total lack of argument for the National Curriculum (UK), both in general terms and in detail’ (Wiegand and Rayner, 1989). Why do you think the foundation subjects were selected for special attention in the framework? What could have been some alternative ways of organizing the curriculum? What opportunities are there for themes and for interdisciplinary work?
6. ‘We are left with a curriculum (UK) founded upon a myth about the educational excellence of the old grammar school curriculum. Central to this myth is the idea that the traditional disciplines or subjects encapsulate standards of educational excellence’ (Elliott and Chan, 2002, p. 20). Discuss.
7. The national statements and profiles (Australia) reinforce the move towards an outcomes-based education system, in common with many other developed countries. The move towards an outcomes basis is associated with a call for more explicit specification of what should be valued and reported on in schools (Boston, 1994, p. 30). Discuss.
8. The national statements (Australia) represent a summation of the best available knowledge about the content in the eight learning areas. ‘It builds upon some of the best of current practice and provides moral support for the continuance of a range of good practices’ (Willis 1991, p. 4). Discuss.
9. ‘The enthusiasm Australian educational agencies have shown for diverting resources into centrally-driven curriculum development has not translated well into useful products’ (Blyth, 2002, p. 21). Discuss.
No comments:
Post a Comment