Curriculum As Product

The dominant modes of describing and managing education are today couched in the productive form.  Education is most often seen as a technical exercise.  Objectives are set, a plan drawn up, then applied, and the outcomes (products) measured.  It is a way of thinking about education that has grown in influence in the United Kingdom since the late 1970s with the rise of vocationalism and the concern with competencies.  Thus, in the late 1980s and the 1990s many of the debates about the National Curriculum for schools did not so much concern how the curriculum was thought about as to what its objectives and content might be. 

It is the work of two American writers Franklin Bobbitt (1918; 1928) and Ralph W. Tyler (1949) that dominate theory and practice within this tradition.  In The Curriculum  Bobbitt writes as follows:

This way of thinking about curriculum theory and practice was heavily influenced by the development of management thinking and practice.  The rise of 'scientific management' is often associated with the name of its main advocate F. W. Taylor.  Basically what he proposed was greater division of labour with jobs being simplified; an extension of managerial control over all elements of the workplace; and cost accounting based on systematic time-and-motion study.  All three elements were involved in this conception of curriculum theory and practice.  For example, one of the attractions of this approach to curriculum theory was that it involved detailed attention to what people needed to know in order to work, live their lives and so on.  A familiar, and more restricted, example of this approach can be found in many training programmes, where particular tasks or jobs have been analyzed - broken down into their component elements - and lists of competencies drawn up.  In other words, the curriculum was not to be the result of 'armchair speculation' but the product of systematic study.  Bobbitt's work and theory met with mixed responses.  One telling criticism that was made, and can continue to be made, of such approaches is that there is no social vision or programme to guide the process of curriculum construction.  As it stands it is a technical exercise.  However, it wasn't criticisms such as this which initially limited the impact of such curriculum theory in the late 1920s and 1930s.  Rather, the growing influence of 'progressive', child-centred approaches shifted the ground to more romantic notions of education.  Bobbitt's long lists of objectives and his emphasis on order and structure hardly sat comfortably with such forms.

The Progressive movement lost much of its momentum in the late 1940s in the United States and from that period the work of Ralph W. Tyler, in particular, has made a lasting impression on curriculum theory and practice.  He shared Bobbitt's emphasis on rationality and relative simplicity.  His theory was based on four fundamental questions:

1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?

2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes?

3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?

4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?  (Tyler 1949: 1)

Like Bobbitt he also placed an emphasis on the formulation of behavioural objectives. 

We can see how these concerns translate into a nicely-ordered procedure:  one that is very similar to the technical or productive thinking set out below.

Step 1: Diagnosis of need

Step 2: Formulation of objectives

Step 3: Selection of content

Step 4: Organization of content

Step 5: Selection of learning experiences

Step 6: Organization of learning experiences

Step 7: Determination of what to evaluate and of the ways and means of doing it. (Taba 1962)

The attraction of this way of approaching curriculum theory and practice is that it is systematic and has considerable organizing power.  Central to the approach is the formulation of behavioural objectives - providing a clear notion of outcome so that content and method may be organized and the results evaluated.

There are a number of issues with this approach to curriculum theory and practice. The first is that the plan or programme assumes great importance.  For example, we might look at a more recent definition of curriculum as: ‘A programme of activities (by teachers and pupils) designed so that pupils will attain so far as possible certain educational and other schooling ends or objectives (Grundy 1987: 11). The problem here is that such programmes inevitably exist prior to and outside the learning experiences.  This takes much away from learners.  They can end up with little or no voice.  They are told what they must learn and how they will do it.  The success or failure of both the programme and the individual learners is judged on the basis of whether pre-specified changes occur in the behaviour and person of the learner (the meeting of behavioural objectives).  If the plan is tightly adhered to, there can only be limited opportunity for educators to make use of the interactions that occur. It also can deskill educators in another way.  For example, a number of curriculum programmes, particularly in the USA, have attempted to make the student experience 'teacher proof'.  The logic of this approach is for the curriculum to be designed outside of the classroom or school, as is the case with the National Curriculum in the UK.  Educators then apply programmes and are judged by the products of their actions.  It turns educators into technicians. 

Second, there are questions around the nature of objectives.  This model is hot on measurability.  It implies that behaviour can be objectively, mechanistically measured.  There are obvious dangers here - there always has to be some uncertainty about what is being measured.  We only have to reflect on questions of success in our work.  It is often very difficult to judge what the impact of particular experiences has been.  Sometimes it is years after the event that we come to appreciate something of what has happened.  For example, most informal educators who have been around a few years will have had the experience of an ex-participant telling them in great detail about how some forgotten event (forgotten to the worker that is) brought about some fundamental change.  Yet there is something more. 

In order to measure, things have to be broken down into smaller and smaller units.  The result, as many of you will have experienced, can be long lists of often trivial skills or competencies.  This can lead to a focus in this approach to curriculum theory and practice on the parts rather than the whole; on the trivial, rather than the significant.  It can lead to an approach to education and assessment which resembles a shopping list.  When all the items are ticked, the person has passed the course or has learnt something.  The role of overall judgment is somehow sidelined.

Third, there is a real problem when we come to examine what educators actually do in the classroom, for example.  Much of the research concerning teacher thinking and classroom interaction, and curriculum innovation has pointed to the lack of impact on actual pedagogic practice of objectives (see Stenhouse 1974; and Cornbleth 1990, for example).   One way of viewing this is that teachers simply get it wrong - they ought to work with objectives.  I think we need to take this problem very seriously and not dismiss it in this way.  The difficulties that educators experience with objectives in the classroom may point to something inherently wrong with the approach - that it is not grounded in the study of educational exchanges.  It is a model of curriculum theory and practice largely imported from technological and industrial settings. 

Fourth, there is the problem of unanticipated results.  The focus on pre-specified goals may lead both educators and learners to overlook learning that is occurring as a result of their interactions, but which is not listed as an objective. 

The apparent simplicity and rationality of this approach to curriculum theory and practice, and the way in which it mimics industrial management have been powerful factors in its success.  A further appeal has been the ability of academics to use the model to attack teachers: