Curriculum Development & Theorization: Pluto to Present - Research Paper

Introduction

Curriculum development and theorization are as old as educational institutions. However, it can be argued that philosophers, theorists, and practitioners in one way or another, have questioned the process and purpose curriculum formulation at least since Pluto's design for education, and how effective the implementation process is being carried out (Riders & Thomtom). Philosophy, on the other hand, is an essential tool and a central factor in curriculum development. The philosophy or theory of a particular school influence the objectives, and the design of the curriculum (MyEdLeadershipLab). This paper, therefore, endeavors to examine the Progressive curriculum philosophy. The article will be a synthesis of the literature that has been published in major educational journals. The integration will encompass critical engagement of authors' arguments and counter-arguments and offer a personal reflection of the past and present perspectives of the curriculum philosophy. The essay will also include personal experiences and transformations. It will also highlight the implications of the philosophy, as well as offer recommendations for curriculum policy development.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

It is quite unfortunate, however, that during Pluto's time, curriculum development was mainly left to the small elite and the learned portion of the public that was directly concerned with school operations. Effective learning possesses three fundamental principles that students actively use the studied concepts for the social and career goals, they expand their cognitive and knowledge based on their perceptions and understanding, and thirdly, develop their value. Although standardized tests have proven to be among the most effective ways of evaluating student's ability to understand, retain and remember what has been taught in class as well as assess the teacher's performance, the tests are now resulting in excessive drill rather than reciprocating. Today in most developing school and remote schools, students are even being punished for falling in exams that are asking things from as far as three to five years back. It is no longer about how well a student understood the concept but instead how well they can remember. As a result, students are investing most of their time cramming ideas rather than understanding them because of the tests now demand that (Oakes, Lipton, Anderson, & Stillman, 2018).

John Dewey argues that student's educational needs should focus on an action-oriented experience - that is, learning by doing it, under the progressive paradigm. Thus according to Dewey, the schools ought to encourage democracy from the students, which will lead to social reconstructions in the learning institutions building a better society. Dewey's emphasis on a liberal education was mainly on students participation. In the modern education system, there are no significant differences between Dewey's and contemporary teaching practices. Modern schools are encouraging students to engage in learning exercise through active participation and inclusion actively (Riders & Thomtom). Dewey school in Chicago even after himself is long gone (1904), his ideology of developing a curriculum, the problems, successes, limitations, and implementation process has been barely explored as compared to Dewey's models of teaching. Although curriculum is often defined as a set of rules and principles that are aimed at guiding the transmission of knowledge from one party to another (Young 2014): It is equally important to understand how is a curriculum developed, and what leads to or influences the choice and approach for a particular institution, or subject to use a specific or combination of these curricula models. In that regards, therefore, Young (2014), attempts to define what curriculum is in his article.

Curriculum, according to Michael Young (2014); are 'social facts' that can never be reduced to believes, acts or individual motivation. Young argues that the notion of perceiving curriculum as a social fact was first used by a French Professor of Pedagogy and sociologist, Emile Durkheim (Durkheim, 1938). Thus, a curriculum is a social structure that confines activities both the primary stakeholders - mainly teachers and students, and the designers of the curricula or those who attempt to obtain a particular goal(s) with them (Young, 2014). Young further argues that the curriculum not only limits cognitive actions but it also makes most things that would be impossible to learn without the curriculum possible and at the same constrain what is likely to be easily learned in a learning institution not to be over-learned. Based on the argument above, one can argue that the curriculum is like a 'specialized' institution - such as a family and business, which have a particular purpose.

Eagea-Kuehne article to some extends also supports the notion that the various curricula models are designed to serve specific needs and purposes. Eagea-Kuehne publication mainly focused on the Canadian system of education and curriculum development for Canadian institutions. She argues that whether the curriculum focuses on an individual school or the syllabus for the whole Nation, "both are structures designed for particular purposes" (Egea-Kuehne). The article has thus dwelt mainly on the Issue referring to these purposes. However, in all the materials that will be discussed later in this paper, one question remains consistent: To what extent has the assumption that knowledge defines both the design and tenacity of a curriculum; and although none of the scholars denies the significance of knowledge transmission - how then does the purpose and model of a particular curriculum affect knowledge transmission. In my brief comments on each article, I acknowledge that seeing the progressive curriculum as a 'social structure' that constrains and makes it possible is a useful way of introducing knowledge or purpose debate introduced by (Skrbis & Woodward, 2007).

As Reiss and White note, the contemporary curricula, and constituent elements like the subjects, rely on the earlier curricula. This notion according to the two scholars has been contributed by (1) the modern curricula are taken for granted since "the only way to organize the conduction of knowledge" or because (2) they have revealed their capacity "to be effective instruments for learning." In a sense, the argument only recognizes the primary role of curricula of knowledge transmission from one party or generation to the next (Reiss & White, 2013).

Skrbis and Woodward's article investigates the limit of the curriculum cosmopolitan openness debated in its broad context of globalization and urbanization. Despite the difference and different understanding, demand for new changes, and the broad definition of "openness" towards other people's behaviors, abilities, things, and experiences who are foreign or non-local. The scholars argue that these attitudes are usually expressed by an ethical and emotional commitment that is aimed at universalism, worldliness, selflessness, and communitarianism, and adds that these values ought to be identifiable with the individual's attitude and identity (Skrbis & Woodward, 2007).

Skrbis and Woodward's article extends Lamont and Aksartova's (2002) category development of 'ordinary cosmopolitanism.' The sample population used in the study viewed themselves as beneficiaries of an increasingly interconnected world. Their general expression of cosmopolitan sentiments was by referring to the easily accepted opportunities related to globalization (such as travelling, music, and fashion) as compared to the more challenging aspects of openness such as hospitality to strangers, or accepting foreign human interest based on perceived assumptions (Skrbis & Woodward, 2007). The positive views the participants were, however, counterbalanced by "cultural loss and "dilution of the national culture." The article argues that cosmopolitanism like the curriculum is "a set of structurally grounded, discursive resources available to social actors which are variable deployed to deal with issues like cultural diversity, the global, and otherness. Ironically these discourses, which are the basis of the everyday accounts described, mirror academic debates on globalization" (Skrbis & Woodward, 2007).

As much I would love to agree with (Skrbis & Woodward, 2007) argument of a 'cosmopolitan curriculum. It leaves me wondering then how the issues of indirect segregation, white privilege, and education privatization affect the progressive philosophical curriculum. Segregation and education privatization had spent the better part of the nineteenth through to early twenty-first century (1954 - when the Supreme Court of the United States declared PUBLIC segregation as unconstitutional) (King Jr., 1963). King Jr further added that segregation resulted in the false notion of the segregator being superior and the segregated being inferior. However, even though in the modern social setting, segregation has been replaced by the "White-privilege," those responsible in the design of these curricula models mainly consider the white schools. Privilege according to Oakes et, al (2018), is the perception that the white society is superior, civilized, beneficent and more perfect than any other race and for this reason, they easily get access to things that the "colored" societies could easily not. This notion is not only evident in the educations sector but also other social contexts and social interactions.

Even though modern education and curriculum development are increasingly being influenced by globalization and cultural diversity, Privilege, although viewed as an advantage or exclusive right to a particular racial group or society for merely belonging to that specific race, is among the many hindering factors challenging the effectiveness of the progressive philosophy. Based on Skrbis & Woodward's article, I can already see where the problem is arising. The general expression of cosmopolitan sentiments focus only on the easily accepted opportunities related to globalization - the shared values in the diverse cultures (such as travelling, music, and fashion) but the approach foregoes what the scholars term as "difficult aspects of openness" such as hospitality to strangers, or accepting foreign human interest (Skrbis & Woodward, 2007). These so-called challenging aspects of openness are the core factors that should be considered when developing a progressive curriculum philosophy that is universal and that indeed emphasize on the argued points of "the ambivalence of ordinary cosmopolitanism" in curriculum development.

The fourth paper by Cynthia Chambers argument is that although the Canadian curriculum guides and schools materials of the 1990s, the curricula better reflect the land in which students live today than they did in Kroetsch's Alberta of the 30s, Abley's 60s or the Yukon and Northwest Territories of the50s and early 60s (Chambers, 1999). Unfortunately, curriculum philosophies in Canada do not. Today, there are more home-grown curricula in almost all Canadian provinces compared to two or three decades ago, when major educational activities were to read and attempt to apply curriculum theories into practice (Chambers, 1999). This challenge, as Chambers examines it resulted from the fact that the Canadian students and educators have a hard time viewing themse...