WHAT DOES CURRICULUM MEAN?

The term “curriculum” has different meanings/ conceptions for different groups of people.

These groups of people are not just limited to academic conversations, namely the scholars in

the field; indeed, it is quite often to hear people such as politicians, policy makers,

headmasters, teachers and even parents talking about curriculum. However, there are

differences in interpreting the term between these groups of people. The practitioners and

others’ way of approaching curriculum is somehow linked to the idea of planning subjects

(what is to be taught) in each grade. However, as for theoreticians / scholars, there is not an

agreement on what actually the term defines. Different scholars lend different definition to the

field; as explained by Walker (2003), each one of the definitions reflects the favored idea

which makes it easy for the curriculum workers to talk about the way they prefer. Besides, it

also reflects somewhat their understanding of the curriculum and persuading others to

understand and embrace it (Breault & Marshall, 2010). As explained below in more detail,

from my point of view, I can say that the curriculum definitions tend to be varied since

scholars’ ideas on the field’s experiences are varied. One of them says that it is a linear

means- ends process because he supports it to be so or be practiced in this way. Some may

disagree with this definition if he adopts a definition reflecting more fluid practice of

curriculum.

Concluded from a number of resources (Hunkins & Ornstein, 2004; Bondi & Wiles, 2007;

Walker, 2003; Sowell, 2005), it can be said that theoreticians and practitioners are not

“talking to each other” while defining the curriculum since the second group is dealing with it

on daily basis while the first group emphasizes it in a more comprehensive way from a

number of perspectives. Just to list them, it may mean a plan of action, a system, a field of

study or simply a bunch of subject matters or all of experiences children have. Each of these

conceptions has a place in the historical evolution of the term. First, as Tyler and Taba’s

linear model suggests, the curriculum is a plan of action with a beginning – an end and

process. It has sequenced steps with pre- determined intentions. Behaviorist and managerial

approach followers define curriculum from this perspective (Hulkins & Ornstein, 2004).

However with the ideas of Dewey and Bobbitt, the notion of experiences of children and

adults is introduced to the definition (Breault & Marshall, 2010) and mostly for humanistic

educators, this definition is valid. It goes beyond this and Kliebard introduces the hidden / null

curriculum as a new dimension to the field just to emphasize that the curriculum may be also

“undirected curriculum experiences” (Breault & Marshall, 2010). On the other hand, many

managerial and systems approach followers focus on the curriculum as a “system dealing with

people and processes or the organization of personnel and procedures for implementing that

system” (Hulkins & Ornstein, 2004). Some academics (such as Tanners), however, think it as

a field of study and explain that it is not just practicable but also theoretical and to study /

research. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that they ignore its practical aspect. Since 1960s,

along with some theoreticians, the definition of curriculum has been pushed toward

performance of educational programmes as Tanners (1967, p.67 cited in Bondi &Wiles, 2007)

outline: “Curriculum is concerned not with what students will do in a learning situation but

what they will learn as a consequence of what they do. Curriculum is concerned with results.”

Finally it is the collection of subject matters according to some (mostly practitioners).

Although this academic way of defining curriculum from different aspects may somewhat

seem complex and complicated or this way may seem as a disadvantage in the field

(communicating with others on it may be troublesome and it may seem to lack direction), it is

actually not. It has many advantages. Each of the conceptions has its own way of looking

into / elaborating the field. It reflects its dynamism leading many varied voices- hence the

richness of ideas. If the definition of it was confined to just one of them, it would narrow the

scope of the field, consequently would leave no room for new ideas and aspects.

Above – mentioned, curriculum is defined differently because the scholars have different

views on its practices. Unless it turns out to be a partisanship over definitions, this point also

gives richness to the field making it possible to think in multidimensional way and suggest

different practices and evaluate each others’ ideas more critically. As a consequence, the

fieldwork is evaluated through the eyes of many distinctive scholars.

Lastly, in my opinion, the field doesn’t need to strive to find a uniform definition to it, indeed

more importantly, as Breault and Marshall (2010) underlines, field’s maturation accounts

more than the multiplicity of definition per se.

REFERENCES

Breault, D.A., & Marshall, J.D. (2010). Curriculum, definition of. In Kridel, C. (Ed)

Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies (pp. 179- 181). California, UOC: SAGE

Publications.

Hunkins, F.P., & Ornstein, A.C. (1988). Curriculum: Foundations, principles and issues.

Englawood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kliebard, H. (1992). Forging the American curriculum. New York: Routledge.

Sowell, E.J. (2005). Curriculum: An integrative introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Merill Practice HLL.

Walker, D.F. (2003). Fundamentals of curriculum: Passion and professionalism. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.