In Smith’s article, “Curriculum Theory and Practice” he focuses on four different models of curriculum that have been seen in schools historically, as well as in today’s world. The four models are curriculum as a syllabus to be transmitted, curriculum as a product, curriculum as a process, and curriculum as praxis.
- The first model of curriculum is, curriculum as a syllabus to be transmitted. This model has some flaws to it, specifically around the idea of teaching based on the syllabus. Smith states that most of the time a syllabus does not usually display the importance of the topics being studied or in which order they are going to be studied. An approach focused around the syllabus is only concerned with content, when overall “curriculum is a body of knowledge-content and/or subjects” (Smith, p.3).
- The second model is, curriculum as a product. It is produced around the idea of having the objectives set, a plan laid out, and then the product being tested and measures. This model really focused on the efficiency movement. People wanted to figure out how they could educate students to become more efficient workers when working in labor oriented jobs. Smith states that something that was highly liked about this model was that it was believed to teach people exactly what they needed to know to work and live their lives. Another attraction Smith talks about is how this model had great organizing power. This model became more and more unpopular during the 1900’s, due to the fact that child-centred approaches became more popular. One major issue with this model is that it “takes much away from the learners. They can end up with little or no voice. They are told what they must learn and how they will do it” (Smith, p.4). Another issue Smith states in this model is there can be unknown results. With pre drawn out goals it may brush over any extra learning that occurs as a result of interaction, but is not listed as an end goal.
- The third model is curriculum as a product. In this approach curriculum looks at the interactions between teachers, student and knowledge. It is a more hands on view of what truly goes on in the classroom as well as what teachers and students do to prepare and evaluate. It views curriculum as active, on going, and a process. Smith talks about some key differences between this model and those stated previously include, that objectives and the final outcome is not the central idea of the model, learners have a voice and are not viewed as objects, it is unique to each and every classroom. However, Smith also discusses some down falls to this model as well. The flaws include, it is a problem when educators want more unity and uniform in what is being taught between different classrooms. Another flaw is that it may not focus enough on the context in which learning happens.
- The fourth model is curriculum as praxis. This model is a development of the third model. The praxis model focuses on human well-being and the freedom of human spirit. Smith states this model plays close attention to emancipation. In this model curriculum develops through the interaction of action and reflection. Smith explains that in this model teachers enter the classroom with an ability to think critically, an understanding of their role and continually evaluate the process.
In my own schooling and learning I would say pretty much all of the models have been used depending on the class that I was in, as well as the teacher that I had. In some of my math classes as well as history classes the models, curriculum as a syllabus to be transmitted as well as curriculum as a product were the main models due to the fact that they were very informational dense and were quite ordered classes. We ultimately learned the information in some of the classes to write and pass the final exam. However, in some of my other classes it was very much focused on people as a whole and benefiting the individual student and the process of learning rather than the final destination.
The third and fourth models made it possible for each individual to succeed a bit more since it was more focused on the process and expansion of learning. They provided more assignment to show understanding of knowledge as you went in the class. As well as the more syllabus and end goal based models made it possible to have a better understanding of what was expected in the end in order to succeed. The first and second model had more of a focus on testing and reaching the end goal. All four of the models have both pros and cons and different individuals prefer different models.
Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000). “Curriculum Theory and Practice” [PDF]. The Encyclopaedia of Informal Education, Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/12yUit4yJm9nhWB_wYXGMTZNiCJumaT02/view
Erin's ECS 210 Blog 