Define what is meant by curriculum

CDIP assignment Part 1:
What is meant by curriculum? A curriculum is a body of knowledge or perhaps better put, the set of courses and experiences that you would receive if you studied at an institution such as a college. It is the whole experience of that institution. Kerr defines curriculum as, 'All the learning which is planned and guided by the school, whether it is carried on in groups or individually, inside or outside the school.’ (Quoted in Kelly 1983: p.10). However, one would tend to find that each department or faculty of an institution would have another sub-set of curriculums for each topic or programme area i.e. the technology faculty would have the subject areas of engineering, motor vehicle, IT, construction and perhaps technical design, each having their own curriculums. Each curriculum would be delivered in uniquely different ways with very differing criteria’s for success. This leads us to consider that this difference might be modelled on the results the particular faculty is trying to achieve in the context of its success criteria.
What I hope to show is that even in one subject area there is more than one curriculum model being used. I will look at two programmes within my own specialist field and try to compare them; Painting and decorating (P&D) Open Award level one diploma, and the Edexcel maths that we embed into that course at entry level 3. Both are taught throughout the first term or semester with the curriculum for the P&D course being the main driver that continues during the whole year and with the EL3 maths ending with exams just before the end of that first term.
Before we look at the specifics of these two examples I should explain some of the various curriculum models that are generally accepted today:
The product model; with this model learning objectives are unmistakeably defined and the subject matter specified clearly. Often the whole learning experience is predetermined. The product model is heavily dependent on behavioural objectives and the curriculum is principally, a set of documents for putting into practice. The two American writers Franklin Bobbitt (1918; 1928) and Ralph W. Tyler (1949) dominate theory and practice within the product model. In The Curriculum Bobbitt writes: The central theory [of curriculum] is simple. Human life, however varied, consists in the performance of specific activities. Education that prepares for life is one that prepares definitely and adequately for these specific activities. However numerous and diverse they may be for any social class they can be discovered. This requires only that one go out into the world of affairs and discover the particulars of which their affairs consist. These will show the abilities, attitudes, habits, appreciations and forms of knowledge that men need. These will be the objectives of the curriculum. They will be numerous, definite and particularized. The curriculum will then be that series of experiences which children and youth must have by way of obtaining those objectives. (1918: 42)
The process model; is about learning how to learn, develop critical and analytical thinking. Cultural values are important and generally tends to a more cognitive approach to teaching and learning. Lawrence Stenhouse (1975) defined curriculum: 'A curriculum is an attempt to communicate the essential principles and features of an educational proposal in such a form that it is open to critical scrutiny and capable of effective translation into practice '. He suggested that a curriculum is rather like a recipe in cookery, open to interpretation.
The Content model; this looks at first glance like a product model but it has some major differences, it is a very fixed or set curriculum and one that would be used to school professionals such as a medical doctor or solicitor. It is therefore limited in intake of students, with fixed knowledge and predetermined outcomes. Learners are passive to the process with restricted choices and pathways.
The Situational model; here the teacher/student modify the curriculum to suit the situation and or environment in which they are embedded. Goals are formed, programmes are set, interpreted and monitored by assessment and feedback that are all governed by the teacher/pupil relationship following a situational analysis of the environment and culture.
Following these definitions it is easy to place the P&D curriculum in to the product model in that, it has a distinct set of criteria that has to be met within the subject matter of painting and decorating, clearly defined by a set of modules that have to be passed. There are mandatory modules and then a set of options for the student to choose from, however, this is optimistic at best for a student, as it is the teaching staff that set the options students ‘have’ to take to pass the diploma. This clearly sets the curriculums within the product model, nonetheless, elements do exist that would lead one to believe that part of the curriculum sits within the ‘process model’. Students are encouraged to self-evaluate and correct work before any assessment takes place, there is a lot of theory work, about 30% of the course, and embedded into the programme are a series of ‘work skills’ modules that encourage students to work independently as well as in teams, examining cultural, political and social influences on the subjects they are studying.
However none of this is true for the embedded EL3 Maths. This is truly a ‘product model’ orientated process, with one specific goal, pass the exam. Even the subject matter is not based around the P&D curriculum, I may teach how to calculate the area of a wall but the exam will ask “what is the volume of a cake”. Therefore, a lot of the work is looking at and taking old exam papers and learning how to pass the exam. I hold discussions with the student group to establish in their minds what they need to do to pass i.e. making sure that they show all working out, it is amazing how many nearly pass but for the points they lost for simply just writing the correct answer. This calls into question the marking scheme but I’ll save that discussion for another time. How useful this is to the student is arguable, but it has to done. There is funding available!
The students enjoyment of their courses is monitored in a number of ways throughout their academic year and students continuously feedback that they enjoy the P&D course, I achieve excellent retention figures and results. The national average retention figure is 84% we achieve 98% and for achievement the national average is 93% against our 100% (2011/12). Maths, however, along with English do not enjoy the same level of good feedback, students at all levels (EL1 to L1) do not enjoy these subjects and many of them hoped, that in coming to college for a vocational subject that they would avoid these ‘school like’ subjects. Although our retention rates and success rates are similar to that of the main program this is probably because it is embedded in an area in which a student wants to succeed and so participates in the functional skills because he or she is there anyway. Although it has to be said that the more mature students, in both age and attitude, want to succeed here, seeing the worth of the qualification.
Comparing the two curriculums we can see quite clearly that although the two models are ‘product’, that they accomplish the education process in differing ways. The P&D course allowing students a lot of cognitive learning, time to reflect on what they are learning and modify their own work to achieve the various units needed to qualify. This shows that there is quite a variation from the ‘product’ model into more of a mix of product and ‘process’ models. Students start to develop critical thinking, evaluating, analysing and developing their skills in a more humanistic and cognitive way. In many ways we allow time for the students to learn how to learn again, something that a considerable number do not know how to do or only in a behaviourist way, being told what to do rather than discover it for themselves. Whereas the maths ‘product’ model is just the opposite, following the ‘product models’ strict criteria of highly defined learning objectives and specified content to achieve one aim; pass the exam.
Assessment of the two courses is also diametrically opposed, with the maths having a Edexcel exam at the end of the programme but with the added opportunity for students to re-sit should they fail. Inclusivity and differentiation are accommodated by accurate initial assessment and making very sure that students are learning at the right level and not stretched to breaking point. Studying at the ‘right’ level helps to ensure success for students and improves their progress.
However, the P&D programme is a continuous set of modules, recording student work and assessment of their skills and learning. Students are continuously monitored and given feedback, allowing students to progress somewhere near to their own pace, this helps to keep the course inclusive as I am able to adapt it to the varying learning styles and abilities of students. Use of a range of teaching styles and learning materials, video, on-line interactive learning, interactive smart board and of course the practical work all help with differentiation.
So why do we put our happy and engaged students through the painful process of the embedded maths (and English)? There are a number of influences that drive this ‘embedded’ functional skills curriculum; firstly there it is the political, the government, The Department for Education (DfE), drives and funds functional skills through a variety of awarding bodies as part of the National Curriculum. I suspect that if this funding for students was not there then this would fast disappear and I would be able to fully embed into the curriculum. The economic push for my curriculum area is the great need for skilled trades people that are competent or functional in English and maths, this the same for the social drive, employers request from the college that learners are not only skilled in a craft but more importantly to them is that they are functionally literate and ‘ready’ for the work environment. The technology push is quite clear, if you are not functionally literate then you cannot fully utilise IT, which is today essential. Similar political, economic, social and technological drives are there for the P&D course but of course it is not part of the national curriculum and the political drive comes from the labour market and the constant need for highly skilled trades’ people, even during a recession.

References
Bobbitt, F. (1918) The Curriculum, Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Kelly, A. V. (1983; 1999) The Curriculum. Theory and practice 4e, London: Paul Chapman.
Stenhouse, L. (1975) An introduction to Curriculum Research and Development, London: Heineman.
Tyler, R. W. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Word count 1830 - ex references and quotes 1641

References: Bobbitt, F. (1918) The Curriculum, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Kelly, A. V. (1983; 1999) The Curriculum. Theory and practice 4e, London: Paul Chapman. Stenhouse, L. (1975) An introduction to Curriculum Research and Development, London: Heineman. Tyler, R. W. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Word count 1830 - ex references and quotes 1641