Foundations of curriculum theory and design

Foundations of curriculum theory and design
http://www.umanitoba.ca/centres/ukrainian_canadian/hlynka/courses


Curriculum theory and design to some must sound like a dull but required course activity. I hope that this is not the case. Curriculum theory at its best is a challenging and exciting intellectual puzzle. It is a vibrant field full of contradictions, challenges, uncertainties and directions. Yet it is a critical field, the outcome of which does matter. When we teach, whether from preschool to high school; from children to adult, whether educating or training, what we do must make a difference. We cannot waste our audiences time with training that doesn't help, with educating that doesn't educate, or teaching that which may be irrelevant or even wrong. If a surgeon makes a mistake, his patient dies. If teachers, educators, professors, trainers make a mistake, we do not readily see the consequences, and indeed may never see the consequences. Ask yourself: Have you hurt anyone lately by giving misinformation? Did you really make a difference in your teaching, say yesterday? How do you know? Does the curriculum that you help design and deliver really do the job it is supposed to?

This course deals with the theory and practice of curriculum design. Participants will want to ask "How do I do curriculum design?" "What are the theoretic underpinnings which inform the practical problems of making curriculum?" The first question tends to be a practical one and is, at least initially, managed effectively and efficiently through a variety of systematic design models, which have their origin in the work of Ralph Tyler in the middle of the 20th century. This course will begin with the Tyler rationale and then explore contemporary design models as expressed in the literature.

For this course, however, the underlying theoretic foundations which inform how and what one does will bias our discussions into particular directions.

The foundations that I shall somewhat arbitrarily select are critical theory, identity politics and a systematic model of curriculum design.

The first underlying foundation is that of critical theory and postmodernism. This is a term which I deliberately use, and then immediately reject. The problem is that Critical Theory (capitalized) is a specific (and useful) approach to contemporary intellectual thinking. But it is not an all encompassing theory and deliberately excludes a huge variety of critical methodologies. There seems to be no one term that captures them all. Narrative approaches, post-structural, feminist, post colonial, post-modern, hermeneutic, and semiotic are some of the terms often used to identity particular intellectual traditions. My particular bias, is to use the term postmodern, and I use a broad definition which is not a mainstream one. Postmodern to me simply means a focus on the conflict which occurs when multiple and alternative discourses confront each other in a struggle for identity and hegemonic power. It is critical to identify these alternative discourses, whichever they are.

The second underlying foundation is that of identity politics. In our context, this means that we need to focus what it means to be Canadian and to ask whether there is a unique Canadian curriculum. Philosophers have asked "Is there a Canadian philosophy?" Others have tried to explicate the nature of Canadian identity, especially today as we lie within the pull of globalization, and North American free trade. It may well be that national politics is disappearing, but this is not a foregone conclusion. Identity politics today has a dark side, characterized by extreme fundamentalism, and "ethnic cleansing." In light of terrorist activity of September 11, 2001, it is necessary to re-think the implications of a still popular Molson's beer commercial which extols the theme "I am a Canadian." There is nothing dark or frightening to claim ones own heritage. As long as we have competitive sports, we will always have a division along alternative lines of commitment and identity. So this second foundation explores what it means to produce a Canadian curriculum, and what will be unique to that curriculum as compared to similar curricula of other countries.

A third foundation revolves around the technical and systematic models of progress. There are clear and specific ways to design, develop and evaluate a curriculum, and these form the very practical base by which we move from vagueness into specificity. Or is it from specificity into vagueness?

Are their other foundations? Of course there are. At the moment these will remain unstated. It will be part of the goal of this course to identify hidden assumptions, hidden curricula, and other significant themes which inform how contemporary curricula are and should be constructed.