0.2 Curriculum theories  (Page 2/3)

Curriculum as process

By contrast, if we look at curriculum as "Process" the learners in this model are not objects to be acted upon. They have a clearvoice in the way that the sessions evolve. The focus is on interactions. This can mean that attention shifts from teaching to learning.

It need to be emphasized that "Curriculum as Process" 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 are a number of elements in constant interaction. Teachers enter particular situations with anability to think critically; an understanding of their role and the expectations others have of them; and a proposal for action that sets outessential principles and features of the educational encounter. Guided by these, they encourage conversations between, and with, people - out ofwhich may come thinking and action. They continually evaluate the process and what they can see of outcomes.

Lawrence Stenhouse (1975) produced one of the best-known explorations of a process model of curriculum theory andpractice. He defined curriculum tentatively: "A curriculum is an attempt to communicate the essential principles and features of an educationalproposal 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. A curriculum, like the recipe for a dish, isfirst imagined as a possibility, then the subject of experiment. The recipe offered publiclyis 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 inclassrooms. Finally, within limits, a recipe can be varied according to taste - so can a curriculum.

Stenhouse shifted the ground a little bit here. He was not saying that curriculum is the process, but rather the means by which theexperience of attempting to put an educational proposal into practice is made available.

Concerns

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

The major weakness and, indeed, strength of the process model is that it rests upon the quality of teachers. If they are not upto much, then there is no safety net in the form of prescribed curriculum materials. The approach is dependent upon the cultivation of wisdom andmeaning-making in the classroom. If the teacher is not up to this, then there will be severe limitations on what can happen educationally.