CHAPTER ONE

Overview of Curriculum
Processes and Products

ackson (1992) notes that the best adjective used to describe the state or affairs

J
in curriculum is "confused," due in part to a lack of clear definitions. The ques-
"
tions "What is curriculum? " and " To what should this term be applied? have
several answers.
Responses to these questions form the core of communication about curricu-
lum, as used in this text, particularly the meanings of curriculum processes con-
sidered in the context of change. The concepts introduced here are revisited in
subsequent chapters, where their meanings are broadened.
Goal: To increase your understanding of the meanings of, and the relation-
ships among, major curriculum concepts.

DEFINITIONS
Curriculum
Over the years definitions of curriculum have included the following: "1) the cumu-
lative tradition of organized knowledge; 2) modes of thought; 3) race experience;
4) guided experience; 5) a planned learning environment; 6) cognitive/affective
content and process; 7) an instructional plan; 8) instructional ends or outcomes;
and 9) a technological system of production " (Tanner & Tanner, 1980, p. 36).
Because curriculum emphases reflect changing social policies, these definitions
are not unusual. Although somewhat disparate, they share generally the idea pre-
sented by the third edition of Webster's New World Dictionary, which provides this
meaning for curriculum: " all of the courses, collectively, offered in a school, col-
lege, etc., or in a particular subject. "
Differences among definitions are not unusual, because some individuals
refer to curriculum levels interchangeably or do not distinguish between " cur-
riculum" and " instruction." This text does not insist on an elaborate definition.
Instead, curriculum' is defined here simply as what is taught to students. This

' Terms in bold are included in the glossary.

3
PART ONE Introduction to Curriculum Processes, Products, and Personnel

broad definition includes the intended and unintended information, skills, and
attitudes that are communicated to students in schools. This definition also per-
mits consideration of curricula based on several content sources and planned for
different purposes of education.

Instruction
Instruction is how the curriculum is delivered to students. It is the interaction
between a teaching agent and one or more individuals intending to learn knowl-
edge that is appropriate for students to learn (Johnson, 1967). Of course, teach-
ers qualify as teaching agents. But agents also include other students, school staff,
instructional materials, programmed instruction, computer-assisted instruction,
videos, and other technology-based instruction.

Learning
Usually learning is considered "acquired knowledge or skill" as defined in
third edition. A slightly expanded definition holds that
Webster's New World Dictionary,
learning is what students take from classrooms in three classes of outcomes: knowl-
edge (facts, concepts, generalizations), techniques (processes, skills, abilities), and
values (norms, attitudes, interests, appreciations, aversions) (Cuban, 1992; John-
son, 1967). In recent years learning has also been defined as meeting standards or
benchmarks—statements of what students "should be able to know and be able to
do" by the time they reach certain grade levels (A Standards Glossary, 1995, p. 8).

LEVELS OF CURRICULUM
Educators—as well as laypersons—sometimes refer to the different levels of cur-
riculum interchangeably, provoking a situation that can lead to confusion about
the meaning of curriculum. As used here, the term levels of curriculum refers to
the degree of remoteness from the students for whom the curricula were
planned. This section provides information about levels of curriculum based on
the account of Goodlad and Su (1992). These levels include societal, institutional,
instructional, and experiential curricula.
• The societal level is curriculum farthest removed from learners and is designed
by the public, including politicians, representatives of special interest groups,
administrators at different levels, and professional specialists. Using sociopolit-
ical processes, these groups often decide the goals, the topics to be studied, the
time to be spent, and the materials to be used.
• Institutional curricula serve schools and are derived largely from societal curric-
ula with modifications by local educators and laypersons. This curriculum is
commonly organized according to subjects and includes the topics and themes
CHAPTER 1 Overview of Curriculum Processes and Products 5

'
to be studied. Institutional curricula include the district or school s written
documents containing standards, philosophies, lesson plans, and guides.
Sometimes this curriculum, also called the explicit curriculum, is the target of
reform efforts.
• The instructional curriculum refers to the one that teachers plan and deliver in
schools. Teachers base instructional curricula on what has been determined as
necessary or desirable for their school by school authorities. As expected,
however, this curriculum takes on the individual teacher ' s priorities, views of
education, and style and is also subject to reform and criticism. An instruc-
tional curriculum that is actually used in a classroom often varies from the
planned curriculum, however, because of student responses or other unfore-
seen circumstances.
• Finally, the experiential curriculum is tthe one perceived and experienced by
students. What is experienced differs from one student to the next because
students have different backgrounds, motivations, and levels of aspirations, to
name just a few differences. For example, some students form similar pur-
poses for learning experiences to those held by their teachers, but other stu-
dents hold very different purposes or no purpose at all. Therefore, the expe-
riential curriculum is the one internalized and made personal by learners
(Goodlad & Su, 1992).

The ability to distinguish accurately among curriculum levels can prevent mis-
interpretations and increase your understanding of curriculum. Check your
ability to make these distinctions by answering this question for situations 1–3:
With which level is the curriculum in each of these statements most closely
associated? Explain.
1. John Q. Public, a local banker, was reading the morning newspaper when
he saw that the agenda for the school board meeting listed plans to dis-
cuss a new high school economics curriculum. On seeing this item, he
promptly announced to Mrs. Public that he planned to attend the meet-
ing.
2. Ms. Chiu was having dinner with her three school-age children. During
dinner Ms. Chiu asked the children to describe something they had
learned in school earlier that day.
3. Mrs. Rodriguez was pleased when her grandson Felix, a teacher who lives
in a neighboring city, called to ask if he could stay overnight in her home.
He indicated that he would be in town attending a district-wide curricu-
lum development workshop, where he and his colleagues expect to begin
revisions of the social studies curriculum.
6 PART ONE Introduction to Curriculum Processes, Products, and Personnel

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CURRICULUM

AND INSTRUCTION
Previous discussion pointed out that the terms curriculum and instruction are
sometimes used interchangeably. This section describes alternative views of the
relationships between curriculum and instruction, including one in which the
interchange of terms is plausible. The section also explains why knowledge of the
distinctions is important.

Nature of Possible Relationships

The definitions for curriculum and instruction suggest that a relationship
" " "
should exist between what is taught" and how it is taught. To suggest that
these entities have no relationship defies common sense. That leaves two possi-
bilities: Curriculum and instruction could either be disjoint entities with some
interrelated functions or not disjoint, sharing several functions. Each possibility
is described here.
Curriculum and instruction can be thought of as separate, but interrelated,
entities. This means that although curricular functions are separate from those
for instruction, the effects of decisions in one entity affect decisions in the other.
A number of models have been proposed that show curriculum to be interrelated
with instruction (Hunkins, 1980; Johnson, 1967; Miller & Seller, 1985; Oliva,
1992; Saylor, Alexander, & Lewis, 1981; Taba, 1962; Tyler, 1949). For example, as
conceived by Johnson (1967), curriculum and instruction are systematically
related; curriculum system decisions feed into an instructional system as shown in
Figure 1.1.
Frequently in this model the curriculum and instructional functions are han-
dled by different sets of people. Curriculum developers select and sequence (or
structure) content from the available teachable cultural content in the form of
intended learning outcomes, two actions that are clearly curricular functions.
Based on their repertoires of teaching strategies, instructional planners/teachers
deliver instruction that enables students to attain actual learning outcomes. As
part of this process, teachers choose additional content from the same source
(shown in Figure 1.1 as instrumental content) that helps students learn the
intended outcomes. For example, teachers who provide vocabulary development
instruction often use similes or metaphors as instrumental content to help stu-
dents learn the meanings of new words.
In this model, curriculum clearly guides instruction. Although an evaluation
system is not shown in Figure 1.1, Johnson's (1967) model requires that observ-
able evidence be gathered in the instructional system. These empirical results are
fed back into the curriculum system, setting up potential changes in the curricu-
lum and completing the cycle. Curricular functions are separate from, but related
to, instructional functions.
FIGURE 1.1 A Model Showing the Relationship Between Curriculum and Instruction
in a Technical Approach
From "Definitions and Models in Curriculum Theory" by M. Johnson, 1967, Educational Theory, 17(2),
p. 133. Copyright 1967 by Educational Theory. Reprinted by permission.

Hunter and Scheirer's (1988) model illustrates the alternate curriculum–

instruction relationship, in which the entities are not readily separable (see Figure
1.2). In this approach the planner-teacher begins by identifying a general area
for study, clearly a curricular function. Then the teacher guides the initial shared
experience and assists students in interactions among themselves with the con-
tent and teacher.
These interactions make the area of study meaningful through a series of
instructional functions such as sharing experiences, observation, recording expres-
sions, questioning, analyzing, and hypothesizing. In Figure 1.2, double-headed
arrows suggest this two-way activity between students and teacher. The planner-
teacher may also provide further input and foster closure. Beyond the first step in
this particular model, curriculum and instruction are not easily distinguished.

Importance of Understanding the Relationships

How educators view the relationship between curriculum and instruction influ-
ences their approach to curriculum processes. Views of the curriculum–instruc-
'
tion relationship can probably be traced to educators interpretations of reality,
which lie along an objective–subjective continuum. Individuals who view the
world objectively believe it can be understood and that events proceed in an
orderly fashion. Others interpret reality subjectively, believing that individual
realities differ significantly and that events are not predictable.

Technical Approach Those who view curriculum and instruction as separate but
related entities typically hold an objective interpretation of reality that is demon-
8 PART ONE Introduction to Curriculum Processes, Products, and Personnel

FIGURE 1.2 A Model Showing

the Relationship Between
Curriculum and Instruction
in a Nontechnical Approach
From The Organic Curriculum:
Organizing for Learning 7—12
by R. Hunter and E. A. Scheirer,
1988, p. 55. Philadelphia: Falmer.
Copyright 1988 by R. Hunter
and E. A. Scheirer. Reprinted
by permission.

strated in a technical approach to the curriculum processes. The processes are

expected to be rational and systematic. Given their commitment to rationality,
these individuals are quite comfortable deciding what the intended outcomes of
learning should be for students who study a curriculum.
The technical approach is the traditional way of developing curricula that
focus on subject matter or subject matter standards. Typically a committee of
nonteaching staff (administrators and sometimes curriculum specialists or con-
sultants), teachers, and community members revises a curriculum for a school dis-
trict. Although knowledge from teachers is included, this approach relies heavily
on curriculum knowledge from nonteachers.
The result of this development is a curriculum that is usable in a variety of
classroom situations because it is relatively free of concerns about the context in
which it will be used (Snyder, Bolin, & Zumwalt, 1992). After the curriculum is
CHAPTER 1 Overview of Curriculum Processes and Products 9

planned, teachers are responsible for implementing it in their particular teach-

ing situations.
Nothing within the technical approach itself prevents teachers from assuming
important roles in any of the curriculum processes. Teachers do assume major
responsibilities in school-based approaches, where these types of curricula are
used. Indeed, this text takes the position that teachers should be proactive in cur-
riculum processes. The politics of curriculum decision making, a topic discussed
in Chapter 2, are at work here.

Nontechnical Approach Other educators use a nontechnical approach to cur-

riculum processes because they do not see curriculum and instruction as readily
separable entities. Educators with a subjective interpretation of reality favor this
approach because it allows them to interact with students and content to develop
their own realities. As used here, the nontechnical approach relies heavily on teach-
ers as the major source of curriculum knowledge because they know their students
and teaching contexts. They also know why the curriculum needs revision.
A nontechnical approach is often used when the major source of curriculum
content is the needs and interests of students or needs of society and culture. Par-
ticularly with these sources, curriculum developers do not state their intended
learning outcomes at the outset (Klein, 1991b), because what students are
expected to learn is not easily predicted. Largely because teachers are the main
persons involved in nontechnical approaches, the resulting curricula are planned
for specific contexts (Paris, 1993; Short & Harste, 1996; Williams, 1997).
Technical—nontechnical approaches and objective—subjective interpretations of
reality are revisited in the discussion of educational change later in this chapter.
The personnel involved in both approaches are described in Chapter 2, and how
the approaches are put into operation is described in subsequent chapters.

CURRICULUM PROCESSES AND PRODUCTS

As used here, curriculum processes are the procedures involved in creating,
using, and evaluating the curricula represented in various documents or products
such as guides, syllabi, and others. This section briefly defines these terms.

Processes
Curriculum processes is a collective term that encompasses all of the considera-
tions about which curriculum workers ponder and ultimately use to make choices
in the development and evaluation of a curriculum project. These processes
involve changes that some students, teachers, school staff, and community mem-
bers welcome, but that others resist either actively or passively.
Rarely is a school curriculum developed from scratch, because most "new"
curricula represent revisions of those in existence. However, whether generating a
10 PART ONE Introduction to Curriculum Processes, Products, and Personnel

brand-new curriculum or revising an existing one, curriculum development

means recreating or modifying what is taught to students. Development includes
a number of decisions whose outcomes aggregate as a curriculum design.
Curriculum designs are based on the primary sources of curriculum content
(i.e., subject matter, needs of society-culture, or needs and interests of learners)
that make possible the realization of a particular purpose of education. These
purposes typically emphasize cultivating cognitive achievement (also known as
transmitting the cultural heritage), developing learners to their fullest potentials,
or preparing people for living in a changing, unstable world.
In addition to establishing a purpose for the curriculum project, developers
" "
also prepare a views of education statement outlining the anticipated relation-
ships among teachers, students, and curriculum content. The views statement usu-
ally shows how the curriculum relates to the community beyond the school. Devel-
opers then select and organize content so that these relationships can be realized.
Curriculum use involves making arrangements for and using curriculum pro-
jects in school settings for the purpose of school program development. This
term encompasses implementation and enactment used with technical and non-
technical processes, respectively. Sometimes technically developed curricula are
tested in a few classrooms before they are put to full use in a district.
Both curriculum development and use involve several considerations that
must be managed effectively. Among these are the scope and complexity of the
curricular change, communication among all the participants involved, profes-
sional development, and resources.
Curriculum evaluation encompasses the processes used in the systematic inves-
tigation of the worth or merit of programs of study (Joint Committee on Stan-
dards for Educational Evaluation, 1994). Specifically, the intent of these processes
is to improve school programs through delineating, obtaining, and providing
descriptive and judgmental information about the worth and merit of curricula.
Evaluation guides decision making, serves the need for accountability, and pro-
motes understanding of the curriculum (Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 1985). Evalua-
tion of existing curricula for the purpose of determining strengths and weaknesses
may occur as the first step in curriculum revision. This evaluation i s commonly
referred to as needs assessment. Typically, revised curricula developed for use in
classrooms are also evaluated in at least two ways: whether curricula were actually
used in classrooms and how well curricula satisfy their intended purposes.

Products
Curriculum products or projects result from curriculum development
processes and provide the bases for instructional decisions in classrooms.
Curriculum projects include curriculum guides, courses of study, syllabi, resource
units, lists of goals and objectives, and other documents that deal with the con-
tent of schooling.
Curriculum guides "usually include details about the topics to be taught,"
pre-
determined teaching goals and suggestions for instructional strategies (Ben-
CHAPTER 1 Overview of Curriculum Processes and Products 11

Peretz, 1990, p. 25). Curriculum guidelines furnish information about predeter-

mined learning outcomes and are generally less complete than curriculum
guides. Courses of study or syllabi usually specify the content, the learning out-
comes, and time allocations for the various topics. Sometimes a rationale for the
choices of content is included in syllabi.
Resource units typically include learning outcomes, suggestions for teaching,
sources of information, and prepared instructional units. Lists of curriculum
goals and objectives, along with their rationales, are another form of project.

These activities ask you to note content and audience in three real-world cur-
riculum documents. This knowledge is a practical consideration for thinking
about your own curriculum project.
Scan each of the following projects in Appendix A:
• English Language Arts Curriculum, K—8 (A3)
• Wyoming Arts Education Curriculum (A5)
• Into Adolescence: Caring for Our Planet and Our Health, Grades 5–8 (A6)
Answer these questions for each project:
1. Does the project contain goals/objectives, suggestions for teaching, or
both? Explain.
2. For whom is the project intended? Primarily curriculum developers?
Primarily classroom users? Explain.

CURRICULUM PROCESSES AS CHANGE

Educators and laypersons alike agree that social change is ongoing, but many are
unsure about how to deal with it. As a result, they appear to alternately call for
and decry reform in schools. This section defines educational change, then
describes and applies different perspectives of curriculum processes as change to
technical and nontechnical approaches.

Change Defined
Fullan (1991) draws extensively on the literature related to educational innova-
tion for The New Meaning of Educational Change, which is the basis for much of the
following discussion. Change may occur in response to outside events or because
we voluntarily initiate or participate in change as part of a situation in which we
find dissatisfaction, inconsistency, or intolerability.
Whatever its cause, the meaning of change is rarely clear at its beginning and
ambivalence reigns until the change is absorbed and made part of our thinking.
12 PART ONE Introduction to Curriculum Processes, Products, and Personnel

"Ultimately the transformation of subjective realities is the essence of change" (Ful-

lan, 1991, p. 36). Change requires us to understand that behavior is based on beliefs
and values and that individuals, not groups or organizations, change (Pecan , 1994).
Bridges's (1991) distinction between changes and transitions is helpful in under-
standing the transformation of subjective realities. For him, change is external to peo-
ple and is situational—the new curriculum, the new method of evaluating the cur-
riculum, the new way of supervising teachers as curriculum users. On the other hand,
"[t]ransition is the psychological process people go through to come to terms with
the new situation. Change is external, transition is internal " (Bridges, 1991, p. 3).
Transitions begin with endings, or letting go of things. In curriculum changes,
teachers may have to give up their tried-and-true lecture notes or replace their
favorite instructional activity. When called to supervise teachers making curricu-
lum changes, administrators may have to relinquish staying in their offices
throughout most of the school day or working on budget concerns for hours at a
ti me. Such letting-go actions must occur if people are to enter the neutral zone.
This zone represents "the no-man's-land between the old reality and the new. It's
the limbo between the old sense of identity and the new " (Bridges, 1991, p. 5).
The announcement of the new curriculum (or a method of evaluating students or
ways of teaching)—the change—can happen fairly quickly. But inward transitions take
place much more slowly because of inner struggles, because of that sense of being in
"
limbo. The educator finds it inappropriate to continue with the old" ways, yet the
"new" ways are difficult even to contemplate. It is important to understand the neu-
tral zone. If educators do not expect and understand the neutral zone, they may try
to rush through it and become discouraged when they learn this is impossible. Or
they may be frightened in this no-man's-land and try to escape (Bridges, 1991).
The neutral zone is filled with ambivalence and uncertainty, conditions that
occur naturally when people feel lost or overwhelmed by more information than
they can handle (Fullan, 1991). Many teachers, for example, work in situations in
which ambivalence and uncertainty are abundant. Teachers are typically isolated
from colleagues, have few opportunities to reflect on what they do, and are
required to make many decisions involving many different people and situations
and to make them quickly (Lieberman, 1992).
If asked to participate in change, teachers may see no reason to believe in the
change or to spend time finding out if it is worthwhile. When they feel pressured,
teachers may try to escape the neutral zone quickly and "adjust to the `near occa-
sion' of change, by changing as little as possible—either assimilating or abandon-
ing changes that they were initially willing to try, or fighting or ignoring imposed
change" (Fullan, 1991, p. 36).
Such behaviors are normal because the neutral zone produces fright and con-
fusion (Bridges, 1991). However, this is the time during which reorientation and
redefinition take place. Well-designed professional development activities can
spark educators' creativity and bring about their sense of self-renewal. However,
educators make new beginnings only by reaching endings and spending time in
the neutral zone. Unfortunately, school leaders frequently " try to start with the
beginning rather than finishing with it. They pay no attention to endings. They
CHAPTER 1 Overview of Curriculum Processes and Products 13

do not acknowledge the existence of the neutral zone, then wonder why people
have so much difficulty with change " (Bridges, 1991, p. 6).
Fullan (1991) further characterizes change as multidimensional. For example, at
least three dimensions are involved in curriculum implementation: "1) the possible
use of new or revised materials (direct instructional resources such as curriculum
materials or technologies), 2) the possible use of new teaching approaches (i.e., new
teaching strategies or activities), and 3) the possible alteration of beliefs (e.g., peda-
gogical assumptions and theories underlying particular new policies or programs)"
(Fullan, 1991, p. 37). Unless modifications occur in each dimension, true implemen-
tation does not take place. To illustrate, teachers could use revised materials without
changing their strategies. Or they could alter some strategies without understanding
or operating on the beliefs underlying the change. To say that the revised curriculum
has been implemented, teachers must experience change in all three dimensions.
This description affirms that educational change is a complex, time-consum-
ing process. When the change involves more than one person, each must make
meaning and resolve ambivalence individually! If you consider the sheer num-
bers of people involved in most curriculum processes, it is clear why true change
is difficult to achieve.

Change Applied in Curriculum Processes

Depending on their preferred view of reality, those involved with curricula are
likely to pursue the curriculum processes very differently. Not only do they
undertake and carry out the curriculum tasks differently, but they explain the
processes and results of their efforts with different terms.
One perspective (Leithwood, 1991) on curriculum processes that has been
tried repeatedly follows a rational-logical process. Based on the idea that events
in the world are understandable and predictable, this technical approach says
that developing a revised curriculum provides a relatively complete solution to a
problem in a school or school system. Individuals with this belief assume that
teachers can implement the revised curriculum as the developers and school staff
conceived it. Under this perspective implementation is a nonproblematic event
in which teachers are expected quickly to understand, value, and carry out the
practices required by the revised curriculum.
In fact, one aspect of evaluation is judging how faithfully implementers follow
the planned curriculum. Of course, evaluators also check to see if the curriculum
meets its intended purpose. For individuals who view the curriculum processes as
described in this perspective, the change process is both rational and systematic
and often involves top-down strategic planning.
Much evidence exists to show that this perspective on change is usually inef-
fective (Fullan, 1991; Patterson, Purkey, & Parker, 1986). Its proponents believe
that changes in programs or procedures, rather than changes in people, lead to
i mprovement. When proponents act on these beliefs, however, they often find
that procedural changes do not bring improvement. Sometimes individuals
remain unconvinced and try tightening procedures even more. Most of the time
14 PART ONE Introduction to Curriculum Processes, Products, and Personnel

these efforts are also unsuccessful. This thinking is characteristic of school per-
sonnel who believe in a rational, objective view of reality.
A second perspective takes a different view of change. Patterson et al. (1986)
propose to treat school systems as nonrational social organizations whose logic is
nonlinear and complex, but understandable and amenable to influence.
"
[N]onrational doesn ' t necessarily mean irrational. Related to organizational life,
nonrational behavior usually manifests a weak relationship among goals, struc-
tures, activities, and outcomes" (p. 23).
Nonrational systems recognize that competing forces, in and out of these sys-
tems, constantly try to make their goals the organization's agenda. Decision mak-
ers in nonrational systems find ways of handling conflicting goals, such as dealing
with them in sequence or moving along multiple fronts toward organizational
goals (Patterson et al., 1986).
This second perspective fully recognizes schools as nonrational social organi-
zations. Its proponents develop a revised curriculum to provide a partial solution
to a problem in a school or school system. In a process separate from develop-
ment, implementers—including teachers and school staff—collaborate with
developers to adapt the revised curriculum to particular contexts where the cur-
riculum is implemented with students. The adaptation is expected to provide teach-
ers with ownership of the revised curriculum and enable them to use the curricu-
lum effectively with students. Evaluation includes assessing the degree to which
the negotiated curriculum is implemented as well as the degree to which its pur-
pose is attained (Leithwood, 1991). Individuals who view the curriculum
processes as described in this perspective see change processes as growth in a val-
ued direction brought about by collaboration among the professionals involved.
A third perspective is based on a subjective view of reality. Its proponents are
typically teachers characterized as having deep knowledge of their students, of
what students need to learn, and of themselves as professionals (Paris, 1993).
This group sees curriculum development as a mutual construction of content and
meaning by teachers and students that varies with alterations among the people.
As teachers acquire additional information about subject matter, teaching, stu-
dents' needs, or other pertinent matters, they design curricula that incorporate
this information if it benefits students. Because the curriculum is created in the
same situation in which it is used, the curriculum is said to be enacted, rather than
implemented (Doyle, 1992; Snyder et al., 1992).
Working out and using the curriculum, however, typically involves negotia-
tions among teachers as well as school staff and people in the community. In this
perspective, enactment follows development very closely and is handled by the
same individuals. Evaluation is assessing the degree to which the purpose of edu-
cation is met. This group also sees change processes as growth in valued direc-
tions, similar to the second group. However, the change processes are more indi-
vidually oriented than those within the second group.
In subsequent discussions, the processes described in the first and second per-
spectives are referred to as the technical approach to development and evalua-
tion, and use in this approach is called implementation. Whenever these
 CHAPTER 1 Overview of Curriculum Processes and Products 15

TABLE 1.1 Perspectives on Curriculum Processes as Change

Technical Approaches Nontechnical Approach

Views of reality/ Objective; rational-logical; Objective; nonlinear Subjective; related to
change processes strategic planning/change and complex logic; individuals involved;
in programs is deemed changes within people changes within people
important. are deemed important. are deemed important.
Development Revision/development Revision/development Revision/development
represents solution to a represents partial solu- calls for mutual con-
problem. solu tion to a problem. struction of content and
meaning by teachers
and students.
Use Curriculum can be used Curriculum must be Curriculum is enacted;
(i mplemented) as con- adapted for use (imple- it comes into being as
ceived by developers. implemented) in particular part of development.
contexts; developers
and users work together
on adaptation.
Evaluation Product—checks to see Product—checks to Product—checks to
if curriculum, as planned, see if curriculum, as see if curriculum meets
meets its purpose. adapted, meets its its intended purpose.
Process—checks on purpose.
faithfulness of imple- Process—checks on
menters in following degree to which imple-
plans. menters use adapted
curriculum.
Results; Usually ineffective; Usually growth in valued Usually growth in valued
outcomes of implementers are not directions by groups of directions by individuals
curriculum part of change process. people occurs. occurs.
processes

processes are discussed, the second perspective is clearly favored. The first per-
spective is discussed primarily because schools continue to attempt its use.
Processes described in the third perspective are referred to as the nontechni-
cal approach to development and evaluation; use is called enactment. See Table
1.1 for a summary of these perspectives on curriculum processes as change.
Chapter 2 continues this overview through discussions of the nature of cur-
riculum decision making and the personnel involved in curriculum. Of particular
i mportance is the involvement of both school and community personnel.

SUMMARY
This chapter provides information about key concepts in curriculum. Differences
in definitions of curriculum and relationships between curriculum and instruction
6 PART ONE Introduction to Curriculum Processes, Products, and Personnel

may be either real differences in views or simple interchanges of terminology. Cur-

riculum personnel with an objective view of reality view a world that is knowable
with orderly events, but other curriculum people hold that reality is subjective and
personal, and those events are 'not predictable. Differences in interpretations of
reality often lead to different approaches to curriculum processes.
Curriculum processes encompass valuing and decision making in developing,
using, and evaluating curricula. The output of these processes is products or pro-
jects with different designations (e.g., guides, courses of study, and resource units).
Educational change requires that individuals develop their own meanings of
social phenomena. Unless they do, there is little likelihood of change. Because
people have different interpretations of reality, they describe the curriculum
processes and the change processes differently.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. Ask at least two people associated with schools and two laypersons to define
curriculum and instruction. Do their definitions agree with those mentioned at
the beginning of this chapter? Explain.
2. Classify the definitions of curriculum in Question 1 according to one of the lev-
els of curriculum described in this chapter. Give reasons for your classifications.
3. Provide at least one original example for each class of learning outcomes
described in the Cuban Johnson definition of learning.
4. Which of the two curriculum—instruction relationships makes more sense to
you? Why?
5. Explain why it is important to evaluate curricula.
6. Explain what is meant by the statement "each individual has to make his/her
own meaning of educational change." Why is this statement important?
7. Explain the importance of distinguishing among the three perspectives on
the curriculum processes described as change.

Curriculum-instruction-learning enactment
levels of curriculum evaluation
Curriculum processes needs assessment
technical—nontechnical Curriculum products (projects)
approaches guidelines
development guides
use courses of study (syllabi)
implementation resource units