Introduction
Educational theorists have been battling between each other for centuries on what a curriculum should contain, which approach holds to greatest value for tomorrow’s students. In this essay two significant models, being the social efficiency and learner centric models have been chosen; as both represent an apparent duality in curriculum theory.
The main aim is to discuss ‘what is the most democratic and educational approach to curriculum?’ To answer this question, both terms need to be defined to give scope to the argument; Educational (Ad.) : A measure or value of the process of knowledge transmission or adaption which is termed an ‘education’. Democratic (Ad.): A form of governance where society either convene to develop social values or in large western countries, elected representatives of society convene; which is egalitarian in nature and promotes fairness for all classes (Oxford Compact dictionary, 2012)
Social efficiency model
"Social efficiency educators" such as theorists Ross, Bobbitt, Gilbreth, Taylor, and Thorndike were aiming to design a curriculum that would optimize the “social utility” of each individual in a society. By using education as an efficiency tool, these theorists believed that society could be controlled. Students would be scientifically evaluated (such as IQ tests), and educated towards their predicted role in society. This involved the introduction of vocational and junior high schools to address the curriculum designed around specific life activities that correlate with each student’s societal future. The socially efficient curriculum would consist of minute parts or tasks that together formed a bigger concept. This educational view was somewhat derived with the efficiency of factories which could simultaneously produce able factory workers.
Atomism, that being “putting objectives in a behavioural form that is self-contained, unitary in effect and definite and particularized” (Schiro, 2008, pp.68) seeks to increase educational productivity by creating independent units of work, which (like in science) can be combined to produce whatever product is needed. This paired with objective reality (going into society and studying people at work) are the key drivers in the push for education to cater for society’s needs.
Critique of the Social efficiency model
Graham (2007) provides an effective analogy to illustrate a key issue with the standardisation of educational practice, by using the corporate model of Mc Donalds; she comments that across Australia all the same materials (equipment, resources and training) are being used to produce a consumable object of the same quality (i.e. the management can predict the end product. However Graham (2007) then suggests that this model would be problematic in educational design; with the main issue being the multitude of socioeconomic factors which surround students.
Freire (2005) would critique this model of curriculum as being that students are viewed as products or vessels to be filled with the necessary knowledge to complete their job, for which he coined the idea of the banking principle. Freire (2005, pp. 73) suggests the result of this banking education approach reproduces a culture which;
1. the teacher speaks and the students are to listen
2. the teacher makes the decisions, and the students are forced to comply
3. the teacher teaches and the students are taught;
4. the teacher thinks for the students, the students just learn;
5. the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined;
6. the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing;
7. the teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through the action of the teacher;
8. the teacher chooses the program content, and the adapt to it;
9. the teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his or her own professional authority, which she and he sets in opposition to the freedom of the students;
10. The teacher is the subject of the learning process, while the pupils are mere objects.
In other words Freire (2004) and Graham (2007) suggest that the social efficiency model in its pure form would serve to disengage all learners who question or do not comply with the ethos of the educational institution; which in turn would lead to the reproduction of that same occurrence, suggesting that the social efficiency model has the potential to resist change and potentially creating a society which being ‘qualified’ is of greater importance to critical thinking skills.
The second model of focus, Learner centric model focuses more toward the psychological development of the students over the needs of the state; Schiro (2008) suggests that the learner centric curriculum relies heavily on student autonomy and discovery learning, ideally through direct and hands on exposure to the subject material, in a sense the curriculum can be viewed as the curriculum being aligned to the needs and wants of the learner.
Dewey (1938/1997) would argue that such emphasis on learning has enabled students to take a self-directed alternative to learning and become the primary source of knowledge, as for in the teacher-centred classroom, teachers are the primary source for knowledge. Real consideration needs to be given to educational ideas such as Bloom's Taxonomy and Gardner’s Theory of Multiple intelligences as the can be beneficial to a student-centred classroom because it promotes various modes of diverse learning styles. Since this approach would cater for multiple intelligences, students are capable of achieving life-long learning goals, which can further enhance student motivation in the classroom.
For this reason, learning can also be constructive in the sense that the student is in full control of his or her learning. With the openness of a student-centred learning environment, knowledge production is vital when providing students the opportunity to explore their own learning styles. In that respect, successful learning also occurs when learners are fully engaged in the active learning process.
An application of this approach to curriculum is the “the integrated school” and the Alpine Leadership School: Snowy River Campus in Marlo, Victoria. Schiro (2008) classifies the integrated school by identifying five key attributes of this approach;
The main advantage of this form of schooling is that interpersonal development and thinking skills (which are two domains of the Victorian Essential Learning Standards or VELS) can be utilised to enhance the transfer of knowledge. Revisiting Noddings (2005b, cited in Schiro 2008) this complies with the idea of students being “conglomerates of intellectual, social, emotional and physical components”
Critique of the Learner Centric Model
The main critique of this approach to curriculum is that it tends to be slower and requires more resources to be effective; Roorda, (et.al) (2011) also highlights the increased reliance on the student-teacher relationship to achieve authentic learning, for this approach to education leaves much of the choice up to the student; which becomes problematic for students may just choose the easiest path rather than challenging themselves to use higher order thinking skills. As mentioned before, many of the strengths of this model are the criticisms of the social efficiency model and vice versa.
Drawing the models together to become more democratic
Both models hold merit to the value of the educated citizen and can be viewed as a dualism; one advocates for the need of society and one advocates for student development; Applying the fore mentioned information with the idea that educators are also leaders in the classroom; the effect of leadership can be observed specifically in domain of Health, (Outdoor) and Physical Education (HOPE) (outdoor education is a subset of Health and Physical Activity in VELS). This may be positively or negatively, however this is irrelevant as the focus here is the relationship between transactional and transformational leadership. Transactional involves an exchange relationship between the leader(educator) and the follower(student), be that reward/punishment or considering Freire (2004), the teacher gives knowledge, demanding compliance and the student receives an education. However transformational leadership is focus on developing the follower’s attitudes, beliefs and values, motivating the student to exceed their own capabilities. (Bass, 1985; Yukl, 1999a, 1999b; cited in Rafferty & Griffin, 2004, pp.330).
As illustrated, the Social efficiency model can be viewed as more transactional as opposed to the more transformational nature of student centric curriculum, however this is not a set rule; the main constant is the inclusion of experiential learning and experiential education in mainstream curriculum practice; however the question remains of ‘What is the most democratic and educational approach to curriculum?’
I would argue that fragmenting education in a social efficiency/learner centric duality in itself undemocratic; to have one the dominant discourse suggests that you must limit the other; which clamps down on students on either side. Why can you not educate for society, but at the same time utilise student’s interests and motivations to achieve this?
Plato (~350) would argue that the state dictates the higher level citizens that are needed and the educators select the students which have that talent, and the other students go on to do the day to day work to support the republic. However this idea would fail without considering the influence of experiential education or immersion education in lifelong learning. Dewey (1938/1997) would argue that experiential education involves the process the educator specifically developing and facilitating student experiences as to be of greater value than merely providing the answer or teaching to the test. However this is not merely limited to the physical act of experience as Kolb (1984) would argue that authentic learning progresses through the experiential learning model:
Kolb (1984) proposes that experiential learning has 6 characteristics:
‘The fact that for there to be a top there must also be a bottom and to get there one must trample on the hopes and dreams of others is an aspect little discussed in public discourse. One reason why is that those doing the clambering are terrified of becoming trampled themselves or for their children to end up on the bottom of the heap because their parents somehow failed to ensure their ascension on the educational ladder to social success. (Graham, 2007)
Conclusion
Students must be able to question and inquire, to explore and to grow towards the kind of citizen they wish to become, but requirements of the state (or country) must be met to ensure its proper functioning, which can be expressed considering that needs of the state really do outweigh the needs of the individual, for example, Plato would debate why create more guardian proper class citizens if you have no more to govern? Therefore there is no “democratic” curriculum, students cannot always grow into their dream professions and as educators it is our responsibility to cull the weaker members of our flock to create the leaders of tomorrow; in other words we need to create workers that know their place and suitably educated management to control them.
References
Brown, M, (2009), VETiS: How It Works in Victoria, VOCAL: The Australian Journal of Vocational Education and Training in School, Vol. 7, pp.19-31
Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Criteria of experience, Experience and education. Macmillan
Freire, P, (1972) Pedagogy of the oppressed / Paulo Freire ; translated by Myra Bergman Ramos Penguin, Harmondsworth, Middlesex
Graham (2007), (Neo) Liberal doses of inequality: Advance Australia Where?, Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia
Kolb D. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Plato (Lee. H. D, 1955), The Republic, Lee. H. D. (ed.), Book Two – Four, Seven & Eight, (pg. 109-304), Great Brittan, Penguin Books
Polesel, J, (2008) Democratising the curriculum or training the children of the poor: school‐based vocational training in Australia, Journal of Education Policy
Rafferty, A.E & Griffin, M.A, (2004) Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15, pp. 329- 354
Roorda, D. L (et.al), (2011) The Influence of Affective Teacher-Student Relationships on Students' School Engagement and Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Approach Review of Educational Research Vol. 81, pp. 493-529
Schiro (2008) Curriculum theory: conflicting visions and enduring concerns, Ch.3,4, pp. 51-121, Sage publications
Educational theorists have been battling between each other for centuries on what a curriculum should contain, which approach holds to greatest value for tomorrow’s students. In this essay two significant models, being the social efficiency and learner centric models have been chosen; as both represent an apparent duality in curriculum theory.
The main aim is to discuss ‘what is the most democratic and educational approach to curriculum?’ To answer this question, both terms need to be defined to give scope to the argument; Educational (Ad.) : A measure or value of the process of knowledge transmission or adaption which is termed an ‘education’. Democratic (Ad.): A form of governance where society either convene to develop social values or in large western countries, elected representatives of society convene; which is egalitarian in nature and promotes fairness for all classes (Oxford Compact dictionary, 2012)
Social efficiency model
"Social efficiency educators" such as theorists Ross, Bobbitt, Gilbreth, Taylor, and Thorndike were aiming to design a curriculum that would optimize the “social utility” of each individual in a society. By using education as an efficiency tool, these theorists believed that society could be controlled. Students would be scientifically evaluated (such as IQ tests), and educated towards their predicted role in society. This involved the introduction of vocational and junior high schools to address the curriculum designed around specific life activities that correlate with each student’s societal future. The socially efficient curriculum would consist of minute parts or tasks that together formed a bigger concept. This educational view was somewhat derived with the efficiency of factories which could simultaneously produce able factory workers.
Atomism, that being “putting objectives in a behavioural form that is self-contained, unitary in effect and definite and particularized” (Schiro, 2008, pp.68) seeks to increase educational productivity by creating independent units of work, which (like in science) can be combined to produce whatever product is needed. This paired with objective reality (going into society and studying people at work) are the key drivers in the push for education to cater for society’s needs.
Critique of the Social efficiency model
Graham (2007) provides an effective analogy to illustrate a key issue with the standardisation of educational practice, by using the corporate model of Mc Donalds; she comments that across Australia all the same materials (equipment, resources and training) are being used to produce a consumable object of the same quality (i.e. the management can predict the end product. However Graham (2007) then suggests that this model would be problematic in educational design; with the main issue being the multitude of socioeconomic factors which surround students.
Freire (2005) would critique this model of curriculum as being that students are viewed as products or vessels to be filled with the necessary knowledge to complete their job, for which he coined the idea of the banking principle. Freire (2005, pp. 73) suggests the result of this banking education approach reproduces a culture which;
1. the teacher speaks and the students are to listen
2. the teacher makes the decisions, and the students are forced to comply
3. the teacher teaches and the students are taught;
4. the teacher thinks for the students, the students just learn;
5. the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined;
6. the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing;
7. the teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through the action of the teacher;
8. the teacher chooses the program content, and the adapt to it;
9. the teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his or her own professional authority, which she and he sets in opposition to the freedom of the students;
10. The teacher is the subject of the learning process, while the pupils are mere objects.
In other words Freire (2004) and Graham (2007) suggest that the social efficiency model in its pure form would serve to disengage all learners who question or do not comply with the ethos of the educational institution; which in turn would lead to the reproduction of that same occurrence, suggesting that the social efficiency model has the potential to resist change and potentially creating a society which being ‘qualified’ is of greater importance to critical thinking skills.
The second model of focus, Learner centric model focuses more toward the psychological development of the students over the needs of the state; Schiro (2008) suggests that the learner centric curriculum relies heavily on student autonomy and discovery learning, ideally through direct and hands on exposure to the subject material, in a sense the curriculum can be viewed as the curriculum being aligned to the needs and wants of the learner.
Dewey (1938/1997) would argue that such emphasis on learning has enabled students to take a self-directed alternative to learning and become the primary source of knowledge, as for in the teacher-centred classroom, teachers are the primary source for knowledge. Real consideration needs to be given to educational ideas such as Bloom's Taxonomy and Gardner’s Theory of Multiple intelligences as the can be beneficial to a student-centred classroom because it promotes various modes of diverse learning styles. Since this approach would cater for multiple intelligences, students are capable of achieving life-long learning goals, which can further enhance student motivation in the classroom.
For this reason, learning can also be constructive in the sense that the student is in full control of his or her learning. With the openness of a student-centred learning environment, knowledge production is vital when providing students the opportunity to explore their own learning styles. In that respect, successful learning also occurs when learners are fully engaged in the active learning process.
An application of this approach to curriculum is the “the integrated school” and the Alpine Leadership School: Snowy River Campus in Marlo, Victoria. Schiro (2008) classifies the integrated school by identifying five key attributes of this approach;
- First, people are integrated organisms, meaning that individuals are complex “conglomerates of intellectual, social, emotional and physical components”( Noddings, 2005b, p.12, as cited in Schiro 2008, p.100) This is opposed to a more “traditional” viewpoint in which the individual can be deconstructed and the components targeted separately.
- Second, knowledge is integrated into broader, multidisciplinary pursuits rather than specific knowledge disciplines; with the main objective is to contextualise the content knowledge to real occurrences in the outside world,
- Third, integrated schools (such as the Alpine Leadership School at Mt Hotham, Victoria) tend to have few fixed periods during the day, which is aimed towards enhancing the transfer of knowledge between activities by letting students commence and conclude activities in a flexible timeframe.
- Fourth, integrated schools tend to run simultaneous activities or utilise a greater degree of interdisciplinary knowledge in the attempt to target as many of Gardner’s learning styles
- Fifth, Integrated schools attempt to integrate the students’ home life with their school life, which aims to portray that the world is not fragmented between work and home or occupation and leisure. The consequence of this is the production of more ecological students who are aware of their place in society.
The main advantage of this form of schooling is that interpersonal development and thinking skills (which are two domains of the Victorian Essential Learning Standards or VELS) can be utilised to enhance the transfer of knowledge. Revisiting Noddings (2005b, cited in Schiro 2008) this complies with the idea of students being “conglomerates of intellectual, social, emotional and physical components”
Critique of the Learner Centric Model
The main critique of this approach to curriculum is that it tends to be slower and requires more resources to be effective; Roorda, (et.al) (2011) also highlights the increased reliance on the student-teacher relationship to achieve authentic learning, for this approach to education leaves much of the choice up to the student; which becomes problematic for students may just choose the easiest path rather than challenging themselves to use higher order thinking skills. As mentioned before, many of the strengths of this model are the criticisms of the social efficiency model and vice versa.
Drawing the models together to become more democratic
Both models hold merit to the value of the educated citizen and can be viewed as a dualism; one advocates for the need of society and one advocates for student development; Applying the fore mentioned information with the idea that educators are also leaders in the classroom; the effect of leadership can be observed specifically in domain of Health, (Outdoor) and Physical Education (HOPE) (outdoor education is a subset of Health and Physical Activity in VELS). This may be positively or negatively, however this is irrelevant as the focus here is the relationship between transactional and transformational leadership. Transactional involves an exchange relationship between the leader(educator) and the follower(student), be that reward/punishment or considering Freire (2004), the teacher gives knowledge, demanding compliance and the student receives an education. However transformational leadership is focus on developing the follower’s attitudes, beliefs and values, motivating the student to exceed their own capabilities. (Bass, 1985; Yukl, 1999a, 1999b; cited in Rafferty & Griffin, 2004, pp.330).
As illustrated, the Social efficiency model can be viewed as more transactional as opposed to the more transformational nature of student centric curriculum, however this is not a set rule; the main constant is the inclusion of experiential learning and experiential education in mainstream curriculum practice; however the question remains of ‘What is the most democratic and educational approach to curriculum?’
I would argue that fragmenting education in a social efficiency/learner centric duality in itself undemocratic; to have one the dominant discourse suggests that you must limit the other; which clamps down on students on either side. Why can you not educate for society, but at the same time utilise student’s interests and motivations to achieve this?
Plato (~350) would argue that the state dictates the higher level citizens that are needed and the educators select the students which have that talent, and the other students go on to do the day to day work to support the republic. However this idea would fail without considering the influence of experiential education or immersion education in lifelong learning. Dewey (1938/1997) would argue that experiential education involves the process the educator specifically developing and facilitating student experiences as to be of greater value than merely providing the answer or teaching to the test. However this is not merely limited to the physical act of experience as Kolb (1984) would argue that authentic learning progresses through the experiential learning model:
Kolb (1984) proposes that experiential learning has 6 characteristics:
- Learning is best conceived as a process, not in terms of outcomes.
- Learning is a continuous process grounded in experience.
- Learning requires the resolution of conflicts between dialectically opposed modes of adaptation to the world (learning is by its very nature full of tension).
- Learning is a holistic process of adaptation to the world.
- Learning involves transactions between the person and the environment.
- Learning is the process of creating knowledge that is the result of the transaction between social knowledge and personal knowledge
‘The fact that for there to be a top there must also be a bottom and to get there one must trample on the hopes and dreams of others is an aspect little discussed in public discourse. One reason why is that those doing the clambering are terrified of becoming trampled themselves or for their children to end up on the bottom of the heap because their parents somehow failed to ensure their ascension on the educational ladder to social success. (Graham, 2007)
Conclusion
Students must be able to question and inquire, to explore and to grow towards the kind of citizen they wish to become, but requirements of the state (or country) must be met to ensure its proper functioning, which can be expressed considering that needs of the state really do outweigh the needs of the individual, for example, Plato would debate why create more guardian proper class citizens if you have no more to govern? Therefore there is no “democratic” curriculum, students cannot always grow into their dream professions and as educators it is our responsibility to cull the weaker members of our flock to create the leaders of tomorrow; in other words we need to create workers that know their place and suitably educated management to control them.
References
Brown, M, (2009), VETiS: How It Works in Victoria, VOCAL: The Australian Journal of Vocational Education and Training in School, Vol. 7, pp.19-31
Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Criteria of experience, Experience and education. Macmillan
Freire, P, (1972) Pedagogy of the oppressed / Paulo Freire ; translated by Myra Bergman Ramos Penguin, Harmondsworth, Middlesex
Graham (2007), (Neo) Liberal doses of inequality: Advance Australia Where?, Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia
Kolb D. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Plato (Lee. H. D, 1955), The Republic, Lee. H. D. (ed.), Book Two – Four, Seven & Eight, (pg. 109-304), Great Brittan, Penguin Books
Polesel, J, (2008) Democratising the curriculum or training the children of the poor: school‐based vocational training in Australia, Journal of Education Policy
Rafferty, A.E & Griffin, M.A, (2004) Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15, pp. 329- 354
Roorda, D. L (et.al), (2011) The Influence of Affective Teacher-Student Relationships on Students' School Engagement and Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Approach Review of Educational Research Vol. 81, pp. 493-529
Schiro (2008) Curriculum theory: conflicting visions and enduring concerns, Ch.3,4, pp. 51-121, Sage publications