Journal of In-Service Education

ISSN: 0305-7631 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjie18

Curriculum Development and Teacher Education

Robert G. Gough

To cite this article: Robert G. Gough (1977) Curriculum Development and Teacher Education,
Journal of In-Service Education, 3:3, 217-219, DOI: 10.1080/0305763770030310

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0305763770030310

Published online: 12 Sep 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5661

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjie20
 Curriculum Development and Teacher Education
Robert G. Gough
Director, Schools Council Materials for Curriculum Planning Unit (United Kingdom)
217 (Paper presented to the American Association
• of Teacher Educators' National Convention,
Atlanta, Georgia, February 1977)
We need perhaps to take a wider view of
knowledge than that suggested by the general
use of the term 'curriculum'. Before we can
begin to grapple with the notion of curriculum
change (or 'development' or 'innovation'), we
might first need some understanding of what a
curriculum is, and how and why it got that
way. 'Curriculum' is generally used to refer to
the .structural arrangements of areas of know-
ledge in schools. Such a use implies an objecti-
vity in which knowledge is regarded as a
defined set of facts constituting some sort of
cognitive 'map' that exists quite independently
of classroom activity. Teacher and students set
out together to acquire a portion of this exter-
nality, perhaps after the teacher has seen that
the students are 'ready' for it (in the primary
school, that is; the concept of 'readiness' does
not seem to be as much used in secondary
education).
But in addition, curriculum should be seen
as a product of what people say and do in class-
rooms. Then school knowledge becomes a
social construct, derived in the main from the
interactions of individuals and groups who are
themselves socially and historically located in
particular contexts. Knowledge is seen as some-
thing that is not only transmitted, but also
socially constructed.
In a manner similar to the first view of curri-
culum above, curriculum development has
largely been typified by centralised teams
producing resource material and teaching
material sometimes for teachers, sometimes for
pupils, sometimes both; in a framework that
treats curriculum development as material
handed down by the 'innovators' for the
teacher to distribute. The 'research, develop-
ment, and dissemination' model implies that
curriculum development is the product of
'experts' at the center, while at the periphery is
the teacher who is viewed at best as a neutral
transmitter of the curriculum message and at
worst as someone who will foul up the whole
thing (and so needs 'training' to cope with it).
Teachers in the schools, often under great
stress from the activity of coping with the very
severe (and often extracurricular) demands
made upon them may be forgiven for regarding-
initially, anyway-project materials as a lifeline,
a ready-made package that will alleviate (if not
'cure') their troubles. This implies the assump-
tion that there is a best way of doing things
and the purpose of the curriculum, process is to
find it. The attention devoted to producing
'solutions' for curriculum 'problems' has too
often been focused on surface symptoms rather
than, on the underlying processes that affect
curriculum outcomes. Consequently, what has
been acquired by teachers exposed to curri-
culum development has been the surface
manifestations of curriculum change, enshrined
in curriculum 'packs'; the 'deep structure' of
the curriculum process has hardly been trans-
mitted at all.
An alternative view of curriculum develop-
ment has a concern with process rather than
products. If one is not involved in 'selling' a
product, then one is hot concerned with
'success' in some narrow sense (and, after all,
one can always be successful if one aims low
enough). The teacher is no longer looked upon
as a deficit system who may require retraining
in order to deal with the change. The teachers'
(and students') classroom practices are seen as
the source of curriculum, and not as the trans-
mitter of it. Although the latter view may be of
value in indicating the shortcomings of so-called
'classical' curriculum models, it is itself
inadequate in not taking account of the wider
contexts of which the teacher's activity is a part.
Inservice Education and Training
It seems appropriate, then, to start from the
teacher's practice. Teachers are more likely t o *
become involved in curriculum innovation if
they can see how it applies to them in their
individual situations. A central task for the
teacher-educator is to help teachers locate
themselves in that particular context and to
enable them to reflect on their practice and the
features of the context that affect their practice. ment of a teacher is curriculum planning. There
The teacher seeking further professional
development has tended to be confined to one
of two possible routes, which for convenience
may be labelled 'academic' and 'practical'. The
academic route has generally involved the
seeking of further qualifications — a higher
degree, a diploma, etc. — (and often in areas
somewhat divorced from classroom realities).
It thus has tended to bring higher status and
rewards, and frequently promotion to positions
outside classroom teaching. The 'practical' type
of inservice education is concerned with the .
day-to-day, bread-and-butter issues of teaching
— new methods, techniques in such areas as
modem mathematics, approaches to geography,
eta Although very relevant to the improvement
of work in classrooms, this approach has tended
to bring with it little extrinsic reward. It is
desirable and possible to combine these kinds
of inservice education and produce programs
that are both relevant, in terms of their relation-
ship to what goes on in classrooms, and
rigorous, in terms of their intellectual weight
and their validity for accreditation purposes.
The curriculum is the raison d'etre of
schools. Teachers and administrators do, of
course, devote much time to other matters, and
necessarily so, but only so that the central busi-
ness of getting on with curriculum matters can
be facilitated. It follows that curriculum
development needs to be high on the agenda of
any inservice teacher education program.
Although much curriculum development has
arisen in response to a perceived national need,
what should not be ignored is the desirability of
providing a supportive framework within which
teachers can reflect on their individual curri-
cular contexts. Much can be accomplished by
means of courses, conferences, seminars, and
workshops with colleagues from various settings,
but the increased interest in school-focused*
inservice education reflects a concern with
particular schools and their needs.
'School-focused' is used rather than 'school-based'. The latter might be taken to imply 'school-located,' and
although it-is frequently highly appropriate to locate inservice work in a school, it might fruitfully be located
elsewhere — e.g., a Teachers' Centre or college — and yet still be 'school-focused'.
A central theme forthe professional develop-
218
may be different kinds of emphasis depending
on such factors as the extent to which the curri-
culum is centrally determined and the extent to
which individual schools and teachers possess
autonomy in curriculum matters. However, all
teachers have some degree of freedom with
regard to their practice, and they all have to
come to terms with the curriculum implications
of a changing society.
In the Materials for Curriculum Planning
Unit of the Schools Council, we have suggested
that curriculum planning involves a consideration
of a whole range of questions that are largely
derived from, or supplementary to, three
central questions: Why are you changing? Who
are the people involved? What is the nature of
the change? The 'Why' questions seek to
ascertain whether the involvement (and hence
the level of commitment) stems from
educational reasons, personal/social reasons, or
other reasons (e.g., being press-ganged). The
'Who' questions explore the status and credi-
bility of those initiating, supporting, and
opposing change, and focus attention on those
who stand to gain or lose as a result. The 'What'
questions focus on the nature of the curriculum
material — frequently the teacher's first point
of contact with change. There is often
confusion here because of different meanings
being placed on some of the terms employed.
Teachers conversing about 'integration' or
'team-teaching' or 'open education' may have
widely differing images in their minds, and the
Unit devotes attention therefore, to some con-
ceptual clarification, some sharpening of the
terminology.
Focusing on the 'Why,' and 'What' of
Change, as well as the context within which it is
operating, involves the teacher in an arduous,
sometimes threatening, process. However, this
involvement is likely to lead to an 'extended
professional' rather than a 'restricted profes-
sional' outlook, and teachers will be involved
219 with curriculum-making rather than curriculum- she may not have acknowledged expertise in
taking. To help teachers in this enterprise, the the curriculum area under examination, but has
providers of inservice teacher education need to the role of a 'critical friend' who reflects back
make available a whole variety of kinds of to a planning group the essence of their dis-
knowledge and skills. The 'traditional' providers cussions, revealing inconsistencies, latent
in the UK (e.g., the Department of Education conflicts, unanswered questions, etc. The con-
and Science and the universities) have tended to sultant could also provide a link with specific
operate on the principle of offering a 'menu' of resources elsewhere.
courses from which teachers choose those that Such provision could, and should, be only a
most nearly approximate to their needs. The part of teachers' total inservice experience.
growth and development of local Teachers' They will need different kinds and levels of in-
Centers has put more emphasis on getting prac- service education at different stages of their
tising teachers to indicate their wants and needs careers (although at every stage there will be
and play a part in the design of activities to try matters of curriculum development that will be
to meet their needs. a significance to them). The notion of teachers
There is a need to build up and sustain a provided with the means of professional
network of providing agencies such that renewal, being intellectually stimulated in a
teachers may be put in contact with the supportive situation that keeps the focus on
personnel and resources — local, regional or them as skilled practitioners in the classroom,
national — that can best cater to their require- might help bridge the chasm between edu-
ments. Although it is tempting (and adminis- cational theory and practice. It might also lead
tratively convenient) to parcel out different to the increment of skill, knowledge, awareness,
kinds of inservice work to different institutions and expertise gained from the inservice experi-
(e.g., universitiesdealing only with credit-bearing ence being retained in the school and not, as
courses, and Teachers' Centers dealing only now, so often lost from it.
with 'practical' workshops), benefit is likely to
accrue from some flexibility in procedures.
Several Teacher Centers in the UK have been
the venue for Open University courses staffed
by practising teachers, attended by practising
teachers, and eligible for accreditation. It is also
the case that university personnel may be able
to make a significant contribution to a work-
shop dealing with approaches to primary
mathematics, for example, or to a school-focused
activity on the planning of an integrated
. humanities course.
It is within the school itself that the issues
need to be diagnosed and the necessary
resources defined, although some kind of
consultanty by providing agencies could be
fruitful. It seems useful to distinguish two kinds
of consultancy — task consultancy and process
consultancy. Task consultancy involves the
recruitment of an expert in a field for a specific
task to which his or her particular knowledge or
expertise is directly applicable. Process consul-
tancy involves the consultant as a catalyst. He/