4+Curriculum+Orientations

In his classic curriculum text //Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility// (1985), William Schubert identifies four orientations to curriculum theory and practice that have competed for attention in the public conversation about schooling in the United States. Each of the orientations represents a general perspective or philosophy regarding curriculum, though in practice there is often overlap among them. A brief summary of each orientation follows (adapted from Schubert, 2003 & 2004):

The **__Social Behaviorist__** believes that the study and practice of curriculum should be based on a scientific research base and that curriculum plans should be systematic and strategic. Schools and classrooms should base the success of their curriculum on measurable outcomes, and lessons should contain measurable objectives. This view sees teachers as “curriculum engineers” who prepare students for the “real world” of work and adult life. The curriculum is built around scientific studies of the activities and skills of successful people. Of the theorists we have reads thus far, Franklin Bobbitt (and to an extent, Ralph Tyler) would be a proponent of this vision.

The **__Intellectual Traditionalist__** believes that curriculum should be based on the “great works” that have stood the test of time. These works contain the best wisdom and knowledge in philosophy, literature, the arts, history, science, and mathematics, and students today need to be steeped in these classics. The curriculum, then, can be centered around the six “great ideas”: truth, beauty, goodness, liberty, equality, and justice. This view asserts that the methods of education aren’t as important as the content, but uses methods such as lecture and Socratic seminars to impart and discuss information and ideas with students. A proponent of this perspective who is represented in our text is Mortimer Adler (who you will read next week).

The **__Experientialist__** believes that a child-centered curriculum should find its beginnings in the curiosities, interests, and questions of students themselves. As students pursue these interests, the teacher’s role is to help them see and make connections to the subject matter -- from the known to the unknown. This perspective, as its name would imply, values //experience// -- rather than theory or disembodied texts -- as the primary teacher (though books certainly have their place in this approach). John Dewey (Chapter 3 in CSR) is the theorist experientialists look to most for inspiration and guidance, but there have been many other educators who have embraced this vision as well.

The **__Critical Reconstructionist__** connects the curriculum and the work of schools to larger concerns for equity and justice in society. Critical reconstructions believe that, too often, schools simply serve to reproduce the social order that exists: privileged kids go to privileged schools and get an abundance of opportunities; poor kids go to neglected schools that lack resources and challenging curriculum. A related belief is that things could be different, and that schools and teachers can (and should) be engines of social change and help bring about a more equitable society. Of the scholars whose work we have read, George Counts would be classified as a critical reconstructionist (and Paulo Freire, from next week’s readings, as well).

As I mentioned above, in practice there is often overlap among two or more of these orientations. As teachers, many of us don’t pledge ourselves to a single stance (though some do). For the purposes of this activity, however, I want you to choose the one orientation that you see yourself most closely aligned with as a teacher, and explain why in a Twitterized 140 characters or less. (For those of you who don’t use the social networking service Twitter -- and I don’t either -- “tweets”, or contributions to the virtual conversation, must be done in 140 characters or less). Click here and follow the model to add your thoughts.