Curriculum Theory and Philosophy – A (Very) Brief Overview

Curriculum Theory and Philosophy – A (Very) Brief Overview 

Probably the biggest objection to Tyler’s approach, and the cause of its demise in the 1970’s, was its perceived mechanistic orientation to curriculum. As the theory was implemented in the 1950’s and 60’s, behavioral objectives provided the underpinning of its design, and the success or failure of the curriculum was based on pre-defined changes in student behavior. The assumption was that student outcomes – at least those that matter – could and should be measured. The result was that in order to measure the behaviors, tasks were broken down into smaller and smaller parts, resulting in tasks that lost their authenticity or meaningfulness. Tyler was a product of his time, and his ideas were written and interpreted in light of current educational perspective, which was behavioral in nature. His theory of curriculum development was simple, logical, and rational, but it fell out of favor as educators began to view learning experiences more holistically and assess outcomes that are not so easily measured. In response to the curriculum approach advocated by Tyler, often called the product approach, came what is known as the process approach. This approach is most associated with the work of Lawrence Stenhouse (1974), who advocated principles for selecting content, developing teaching strategies, sequencing learning experiences, and assessing student strengths and weaknesses with an emphasis on empiricism. A process curriculum was designed to be not an outline to be followed but a proposal to be tested. Gone were the behavioral objectives and tight hierarchical learning tasks.
The process approach to curriculum development was extended after Stenhouse originally laid it out, morphing into the praxis approach, which added the element of commitment to curriculum development. This approach advocates a shared idea of the common good and the goal of informed and committed action to the model of curriculum development. Even more recently there has been an emphasis on the context of curriculum and the notion of curriculum as a social

process in which personal interactions within the learning environment take on considerable significance. [For more information on curriculum as product, process, and praxis, see the article by Smith (2000) on the following website: http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.] Last, it should be mentioned that developmental theorists continue to have a strong influence on how curriculum should be structured. Wildman (2007), for example, advocates curriculum built around what is known about development and the Vygotskian concept of scaffolding, or what Wildman calls “assisted performance.”