Introduction:

For the purpose of this assignment, the syllabus under consideration is the mathematics syllabus and the outcome that is to be discussed shall be the level 3 outcome for topic N 3.2. This outcome shall take in consideration the students’ ability to add and subtract numbers that are either whole or in fraction. This is related to a problem solving scenario where the students are not just given the numbers to work on but they are given a word problem that they would have to interpret and then solve in order to understand how the rules of addition and subtraction would work in the real life situations. This paper shall take a look at this outcome in terms of the various conceptions of the curriculum that Eisner and Vallance have laid out in their paper entitled “Five Conceptions of Curriculum: Their Roots and Implications for Curriculum Planning.” Keeping this in mind, it is vital for us to understand that even though it is the children that present us with the outcome of a curriculum, it is the teachers’ job to lead them to it. It is thus very important for the teachers to be professional and that they undergo specific professional development programs.

Conceptions of Curriculum

1. The cognitive process approach to curriculum:

a. Pedagogy

In this regard, the teachers would need to focus on ‘how’ to teach the students instead of what they are teaching. With respect to our outcome, it is imperative that the teacher teaches the children to extract the relevant information from a given worded problem and then to figure out whether the addition or the subtraction operator has to be used. This is sometimes very hard to convey to the children and the teachers must find a way in order to get through to the students. It is not just important that the children learns how to add and subtract after reading the problem, it is also important that the teacher finds the right means to get through to the students so that the

Cited: 1. Atkins, Sandra L. (1999) “Listening to Students: The Powers of Mathematical Conversions”, Teaching Children Mathematics 5 no5 289-95 2 5. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C.P., & Loef, M. (1989). “Using knowledge of children 's mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study”. American Education Research Journal, 26, 499-532 6 7. Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum 8 9. Darling-Hammond, L. and M.W. McLaughlin. (1995). “Policies That Support Professional Development in an Era of Reform”. Phi Delta Kappan 76(8): 597-604. 10 11. Englert, C. S., Tarrant, K. L., & Mariage, T. V. (1992). “Defining and redefining instructional practice in special education: Perspectives on good teaching”. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15(2), 62-86. 12. Grouws, D. A. (Ed.). (1992). Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan. 13 14. Kelly, A. V. (1990) The National Curriculum: A Critical Review. London: Paul Chapman. 17. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. 18. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. 19 20. NeirTec. Website. http://www.neirtec.org (Accessed October 07, 2005) 21 22. Orpwood, G. and Barnett, J. (1997) ‘Science in the National Curriculum: an international perspective’. The Curriculum Journal 8(3): 331–49. 23. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 24 25. Sparks, D. and S. Hirsh. (1997). A New Vision for Staff Development. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 26. Thornton, C. A., & Bley, N. S. (1994). Windows of opportunity: Mathematics for students with special needs. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.