A visual representation of the connections between key curriculum conceptions, curriculum philosophies and curriculum designs.
By: Sarah Walker & Amy-Jo Coghlan
For our collaborative visual, we highlighted the relationships between the different conceptions of curriculum to the different philosophical foundations, and then to the different curricular designs through a simple chart. The three main categories are headings at the top of our chart.
Each row begins with one of the 5 main curriculum conceptions indicated by Al Mousa (2013) and is to be read horizontally. As you read the content in each area, you should be able to identify the essential connections that create a ‘through line’ between the categories. Under each section, there is a white box that further synthesizes the relationships between curriculum conceptions, philosophies, and design. Although we did interpret additional associations than what is listed, we decided to portray what we think best shows an interconnectedness between the main categories.
Through the reflection process, we found it helpful to refer to philosophies as either “traditional” or “contemporary”. Both classroom teachers, we found ourselves contemplating the importance of implementing multiple philosophies dependent on external factors such as the environment, topic, student needs, etc. Contemplating the philosophies and designs within our professional context revealed to us that curriculum is certainly not a “one size fits all” approach. Since “philosophy determines principles for guiding actions”, it’s important that not one single philosophy solely guided decisions at schools, but instead, a balanced combination should be clear, in order to meet a common goal of supporting students achieve success (Ornstein, 1991, p.103).
References
Al Mousa, N. (2013). An examination of cad use in two interior design programs from the perspectives of curriculum and instructors, pp. 21-37 (Master’s Thesis).
Eisner, E., & Vallance, E. (Eds.). (1974). Five conceptions of the curriculum: Their roots and implications for curriculum planning.In E. Eisner & E. Vallance (Eds.), Conflicting conceptions of curriculum (pp. 1-18). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.
McNeil, J. D. (2009). Contemporary curriculum in thought and action (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Pages 1, 3-14, 27-39, 52-60, 71-74.
Ornstein, A. C. (1991). Philosophy as a basis for curriculum decisions. The High School Journal, 74, 102-109
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2013). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Read Chapter 6, pp. 149-173.
Schiro, M. S. (2013). Introduction to the curriculum ideologies. In M. S. Schiro, Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns (2nd ed., pp. 1-13). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sowell, E. J. (2005). Curriculum: An integrative introduction (3rd ed., pp. 52-54, 55-61, 81-85,103-106). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Vallance. (1986). A second look at conflicting conceptions of the curriculum. Theory into Practice, 25(1), 24-30.
Comments