Mandhir Singh Sambhi

EDUC 471 Pre-Class Writing 2 - May 24, 2018

Develop an outline of Joseph's chapter for this writing assignment, and consider the following
questions as you summarize and analyze this reading:

What is the purpose of this chapter? How does Joseph accomplish this purpose?
Educators need to revise their conceptualization of their role in teaching about curricular
content. To be perceived as valuable, the inquiry and introspection involved in the curriculum
needs to be valued. Joseph demonstrates a critical analysis of various curriculum models and
presents a discussion that proponents of each perspective put forth. By “Naming, questioning,
and critique” of perspectives, Joseph exhibits the different -- yet similar -- perspective to helps
the reader gain knowledge on many prevalent models, but also urges the reader to apply a lens of
discussion on curriculum rather than conformation. Joseph wants the reader to not only find
supporting and refuting arguments for each curricular model in this discussion, but rather to
expand this conceptualization and inquiry to our own practice as educators.

Choose 2 or 3 examples from this chapter of how other authors (i.e. not Joseph) have
discussed curriculum. Choose examples that you find particularly compelling, and note
what you find interesting or compelling about these examples.
William Doll (1993) suggests that curriculum should “engage the imagination”, and as he
points to a change in trend of curricula from Pre-Modern to Modern to Post-Modern (p.11), the
ideology has evolved from one that teaches students about a single truth (or a small number of
truths) to one that promotes realizing the co-existence of multiple versions of the truth. Students
within the Post-Modern paradigm do not follow the educator as the presenter of knowledge;
rather, they experience learning through their own experiences. I find this shift in paradigm very
intriguing and reminiscent of my early childhood education. I can remember being taught to
think a certain way, address problems in a prescribed procedure; during high school, I
experienced the rigorous standardization that Doll encompasses under the Modern perspective.
Eventually, post-secondary education experiences gravitated towards the independent inquiry
and learning through my own experiences. I find it most fascinating that these perspectives
coexist in the education system and manifest at different times, with different levels of popularity
and prevalence. In this model, the concept of curriculum has added and grown to meet social and
political needs of a democratic society.
Larry Cuban (1993) suggests four categories that make up curricula: the official
curriculum that is found in government mandated guidelines; taught curriculum that is often
dependent on and emphasized by the teacher’s knowledge, interests and beliefs; learned
curriculum that students may learn through intended and unintended actions, and; tested
curriculum that makes up the portion of taught or learned curriculum that makes up assessments
(p. 5).
 Mandhir Singh Sambhi

I feel this model resonates with I experienced in the classroom. An educator may be
obliged to teach everything from the curriculum mandated by the government, but the educator’s
own interests, abilities, and beliefs may limit what and how he or she teaches. Students may not
absorb and learn all that the teacher explicitly teaches them, but they may become influenced by
course content (or teacher behaviour) that the educator may not have anticipated. Finally, what
the teacher tests and assesses students on may represent only a small portion of all that is taught,
and may not constitute the same portions that the students actually learned. My personal
testimonies and experiences may not be completely representative of the model, so a more
complete discussion of curriculum requires considering all the different perspectives and
experiences for any proposed model.

Are there any examples that seem useless or irrelevant to you? Which ones and why?
Henderson and Gornik’s (2006) conceptualization of curriculum focuses on student
performance, students as potential adults, and students as future contributors to society (p.13) .
Although this view would describe the education system thus far, the new curriculum in BC is
moving away from this view of molding children into citizens serving committed roles in
society. Furthermore, the new BC curriculum is trying to bring in constructionism and social
learning into the classroom, which contradicts the constructivist approach this model proposes.
Rather than teaching for testing purposes, schools now want to teach students to become well-
rounded individuals. Where the new curriculum is shifting away from standardized assessments,
the model described by Henderson and Gornik will soon be outdated and irrelevant.

Joseph does not mention Michael Schiro and his curriculum ideologies in this chapter.
Where would Schiro’s work fit in?
Schiro’s work on the different ideologies shows the effect of society and politics on the
education system, and how trends in teaching changed with time, so different parts of his work
fit under different categories. For example, his general discussion of the term “ideologies”
reflects the cultural influence on education. Changing political and social scenes drove different
views on curriculum to popularity while eradicating some out of existence. John Goodlad
concurs with Schiro that “sociopolitical processes” determine which “interests prevail over
others for a period of time” (p. 14). Likewise, his elaboration on Social Efficiency ideology
could fit under Henderson and Gornik’s (2007) conceptualization that prefers standardization.
Schiro may have exhibited the various ideologies, but he didn’t establish his own distinct
thoughts on curriculum that Joseph could have perhaps included in this discussion.