Curriculum Theory and Practice- Q and A

The four models of curriculum discussed in Smith’s Curriculum Theory and Practice are as a syllabus, a product, a process and a praxis. All four of these models are used in schools. There are good and bad things about them all as well.

Curriculum as a syllabus indicates what will be taught and in advance. There is often a timeline put in place as well. This method can be very beneficial as it is very organised and structured. It is often delivered in a way that promotes the students comprehension. The drawback form the syllabus model is that it does not indicate the importance of the material taught. Smith also says “people still equate curriculum with a syllabus they are likely to limit their planning to a consideration of the content or the body of knowledge that they wish to transmit.” (P.2) So using a syllabus also may limit what is taught in the class rather than expand it. Aspects such as the hidden curriculum may be forgotten about as well in this model.

Curriculum as a product is “ providing a clear notion of outcome so that content and method may be organized and the results evaluated.” (Smith 2000) The class or lessons are planned to have a specific end goal. This approach can be good in the sense that it motivates students to hit a specific goal or objective. It can also make it easy to mark as the teacher would just have to compare the work completed towards the final objective. Unfortunately, in this model the end goal is often an exam. Not all students perform well on exams and therefore it would not give an accurate representation of what those who have exam anxiety have learnt.

Curriculum as a process, according to Smith is, “not a physical thing, but rather the interaction of teachers, students and knowledge. In other words, curriculum is what actually happens in the classroom and what people do to prepare and evaluate.” One of the many advantages of this model is that it allows a lot of flexibility and thus allows the teacher to make more personalized lessons to fit the needs of their specific students. It’s adaptable and is based off the notion of conversation and critical thinking as part of our curriculum. Because this model is based off of the teacher’s ability to fit the needs of his or her students, a teacher who struggles to understand or who is not invested in their work could be problematic with this model.

Curriculum as a praxis is, “ an active process in which planning, acting and evaluating are all reciprocally related and integrated into the process’ (Grundy 1987: 115). Very similar to curriculum as a process, curriculum as a praxis requires the reflection of both the students and the teachers. It is advised to have a plan ready to propose but it isn’t necessarily strictly followed. This model of curriculum is beneficial because it engages the students and promotes conversation as well as critical thinking. The downside to using this model would be that it doesn’t give context to the material learnt and the focus is put on the students own self reflection rather than what has been taught.

In my own years at school, I believe that I have been taught using curriculum as a product. Especially in high school I found that at the beginning of most classes the goal for the day (on what we were supposed to achieve) would be written on the board and it would be our job to get that done. Once the work for the day was completed, you were free to leave. It was very goal oriented. The main goal was to succeed on the final exam at the end of the semester.

I’ve also experienced many classes that were taught out of the syllabus. Particularly in math classes I’ve received many sheets at the beginning of the term stating the projects for the year and then they were strictly followed. I’ve had friends who struggled with this method as they have difficulty deciding on their own which material is the most important in the class and what will be on exams.