What do you think?
Rate this book
Curriculum and Aims
info Description Offers a perspective on the basic curriculum questions educators face regarding the purposes, content, design, and structure of educational programs. This book examines aims that have been proposed by classical educational thinkers and reviews the dominant educational debate of the 20th century between traditionalists and progressives. Key Features Author(s) Decker F. Walker, Frances Schoonmaker, Jonas F. Soltis Publisher Teachers' College Press Date of Publication 15/09/2009
- GenresEducationNonfiction
132 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1986
4 people are currently reading
32 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 28, 2022
NB: This book is not for academics, rather for students and practitioners looking for a concise and detailed introduction to the loosely defined field of “curriculum studies.” For definitive contributions to this field, addressing all levels of its historical development, see the voluminous works of William Pinar and William Schubert. Thus, for interested students and practitioners, read on…
There is a need for educational professionals and practitioners to understand the relationship between the function, purpose, and goals of education and the planning, developing, and enacting of the curriculum, which assumes the critical role of structuring effectively the many and varied components of a flourishing educational program. Attempting to analyze and clarify the intricate processes involved when envisioning, constructing, evaluating, and reforming the curriculum, the authors traverse a broad and highly complex spectrum of curriculum issues and problems, including: the debate on educational aims, the concern for the best type of general education to pursue, procedures for effectively making curriculum, and methods for critiquing the curriculum with the potential for successful change and reform.
The book, in a logical and coherent manner, synthesizes a staggering number of curriculum issues for the reader. Although the authors successfully organize and thoroughly explain their topic, the reader is left with the undeniable impression that curriculum making is an intricate and highly complex endeavor - i.e., inspired to the mode of "questioning" with regard to question-worthy issues in preparation for the formidable task of understanding and enacting a/the curriculum for students. For example, even when attempting to decide which sets of basic skills are best to teach, an issue that might be traditionally conceived in terms of reading, writing, and counting, the reader is brought to the realization that these basic issues also include ancillary concerns of an indispensable nature such as the issue of media in relation to education, ethics, physical and psychological health, political and civic responsibility, and a sense of economic awareness.
Curriculum and Aims makes an impressive contribution to introducing and clarifying contemporary curriculum studies for at least three reasons: (1) It situates the issues associated with curriculum making within an historical context, within a confluence of competing political-social-economic forces, and it addresses the influence of the critical theorists, ideological critique, and media studies on the curriculum process, which includes the growing concern with education as a means to achieve social justice. (2) It makes the reader aware of the indispensable role of a critical philosophical method in the realm of curriculum debate within a `pluralist' democratic society, for it is only by means of an historically informed perspective that educators are able to see beyond the narrow and limited confines of their own historical moment, opening them up to other ways of viewing education, "suggesting that these different views might again be valid if similar circumstances prevailed," while at once understanding the "historical circumstances that gave rise to a certain point of view enables us to ask now whether these views continue to be pertinent to our situation today" (p. 30). (3) It offers a highly accessible inroad for practitioners into the complex and dense field of curriculum scholarship, and indeed masterfully distills the essence of the philosophical positions discussed without sacrificing the weight or import of the arguments. In doing so, with the inclusion of the final chapter, which contains realistic vignettes, dialogues, and case studies, the authors suggest that a maneuverable bridge between theory and practice, thinking and doing, in education might be constructed.
On this last point, however, two concerns arise: First, whether or not, with the inclusion of the final chapter containing the numerous empirical case studies, the book overextends itself. To the point, in the authors' inspired attempt to melt theory and practice, they present a somewhat disingenuous picture of educational theory in general to practitioners who might have no idea of the difference between the ways in which specific theories function, depending on the discipline, depending on the realm of investigation; and second, whether or not the detailed case studies were truly required in order to "raise a number of issues not dealt with directly or at length in the text" (p. 97).
To begin with the second concern, the case studies, although well-intentioned, and beyond, necessary if indeed the abstract nature of the philosophical speculation can be effectively concretized in practice, came off as slightly contrived, in terms of representing a superfluous and unnecessary adjunct to an otherwise solid effort on curriculum aims, issues, and philosophy. Admittedly, the book, for the sake of thoroughness, includes the final section with case studies and `qualitative' practical examples, however, it is the case that the many questions for further thought and debate, which the authors set out at the conclusion of each chapter, were more than sufficient to inspire any concerned educator to engage the problems, issues, and concerns of curriculum building in light of the philosophical ground that was already so thoroughly covered by the authors in the other sections of the book. Adding this final section seemed to clutter and confuse what was an otherwise lucid and streamlined effort.
With respect to the first concern, I could not help thinking when reading the authors' description of Herbert Kliebard's critique of the Tyler rationale, which is reducible to the smuggling in of value judgments under the guise of a pseudo-empirical theory, that the authors were guilty of a similar misrepresentation of educational theory. It is possible to interpret the book as giving the false impression that the potential exists for educational theory to be like scientific theory, which is to say, that curriculum theory, if conceptualized and approached properly, as presented in this book, holds the potential to describe, explain, and ultimately, with an inflated sense of confidence, predict and control the outcome of events (although I believe that the authors clearly understand the nature of educational theory).
In fairness to the authors, they take great care outlining the way in which our assumptions and recommendations for a sound education inform the theory in question, and that these assumptions and recommendations are eventually scrutinized through a process of critique that occurs across a multitude of varying levels. The informed reader can take from this the indication that it is indeed possible to test an educational theory and either accept or reject it based on determining the soundness of its claims for (1) the aims of education, (2) testable assumptions about students and how they best learn, and (3) philosophically sound assumptions about knowledge theory. Indeed, the fact that much of the material is presented in the mode of the interrogative, in the form of critical questions, allows the reader to draw her own conclusions regarding the best ways in which to approach the many and varied interrelated components of curriculum, which are grounded in a thoroughly informed perspective.
However, since the book is written specifically for students and preservice and in-service practitioners, it would have been helpful to include at least one section, perhaps in "Conceptualizing Curriculum Phenomena" (Chapter 4), which explains for the reader the nature, form, and function of educational theory in general. All too often, educators wrongly conflate and confuse educational theory with `scientific theory,' which works explicitly to tell us, importantly, how the world `is,' how things operate, and through induction, what to expect in the future. Education theory, and this includes theorizing on the curriculum, falls under the categorization of `practical' theory, and going back to Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics, practical theory suggests to us what we `ought' to be doing in praxis, where things can always be otherwise. Concomitant with this functional difference is the issue of validation: Practical recommendations for a specified program of education (or, as in Aristotle, a prescribed course of `virtuous', moral action) cannot be verified in empirical terms, for practical theory (normative theory) does not admit of proof in the same way, for practical knowledge does not reside on the same epistemological plane.
In a book that strives and succeeds in so many aspects to make the `esoteric' in curriculum theorizing accessible to students and practitioners, it would have been wise to explicitly draw out the difference between educational theory and the other forms of theory we encounter in science and mathematics for the reader. What might appear on the surface as a subtle difference, is in fact monumental, and these are the types of crucial distinctions, which the authors point out, careful and critical philosophy must strive to analyze and understand, for such distinctions can spell the difference between `sound' and `unsound' approaches to educational/curriculum issues great and small.
Dr. James M. Magrini
College of Dupage
Philosophy and Religious Studies
There is a need for educational professionals and practitioners to understand the relationship between the function, purpose, and goals of education and the planning, developing, and enacting of the curriculum, which assumes the critical role of structuring effectively the many and varied components of a flourishing educational program. Attempting to analyze and clarify the intricate processes involved when envisioning, constructing, evaluating, and reforming the curriculum, the authors traverse a broad and highly complex spectrum of curriculum issues and problems, including: the debate on educational aims, the concern for the best type of general education to pursue, procedures for effectively making curriculum, and methods for critiquing the curriculum with the potential for successful change and reform.
The book, in a logical and coherent manner, synthesizes a staggering number of curriculum issues for the reader. Although the authors successfully organize and thoroughly explain their topic, the reader is left with the undeniable impression that curriculum making is an intricate and highly complex endeavor - i.e., inspired to the mode of "questioning" with regard to question-worthy issues in preparation for the formidable task of understanding and enacting a/the curriculum for students. For example, even when attempting to decide which sets of basic skills are best to teach, an issue that might be traditionally conceived in terms of reading, writing, and counting, the reader is brought to the realization that these basic issues also include ancillary concerns of an indispensable nature such as the issue of media in relation to education, ethics, physical and psychological health, political and civic responsibility, and a sense of economic awareness.
Curriculum and Aims makes an impressive contribution to introducing and clarifying contemporary curriculum studies for at least three reasons: (1) It situates the issues associated with curriculum making within an historical context, within a confluence of competing political-social-economic forces, and it addresses the influence of the critical theorists, ideological critique, and media studies on the curriculum process, which includes the growing concern with education as a means to achieve social justice. (2) It makes the reader aware of the indispensable role of a critical philosophical method in the realm of curriculum debate within a `pluralist' democratic society, for it is only by means of an historically informed perspective that educators are able to see beyond the narrow and limited confines of their own historical moment, opening them up to other ways of viewing education, "suggesting that these different views might again be valid if similar circumstances prevailed," while at once understanding the "historical circumstances that gave rise to a certain point of view enables us to ask now whether these views continue to be pertinent to our situation today" (p. 30). (3) It offers a highly accessible inroad for practitioners into the complex and dense field of curriculum scholarship, and indeed masterfully distills the essence of the philosophical positions discussed without sacrificing the weight or import of the arguments. In doing so, with the inclusion of the final chapter, which contains realistic vignettes, dialogues, and case studies, the authors suggest that a maneuverable bridge between theory and practice, thinking and doing, in education might be constructed.
On this last point, however, two concerns arise: First, whether or not, with the inclusion of the final chapter containing the numerous empirical case studies, the book overextends itself. To the point, in the authors' inspired attempt to melt theory and practice, they present a somewhat disingenuous picture of educational theory in general to practitioners who might have no idea of the difference between the ways in which specific theories function, depending on the discipline, depending on the realm of investigation; and second, whether or not the detailed case studies were truly required in order to "raise a number of issues not dealt with directly or at length in the text" (p. 97).
To begin with the second concern, the case studies, although well-intentioned, and beyond, necessary if indeed the abstract nature of the philosophical speculation can be effectively concretized in practice, came off as slightly contrived, in terms of representing a superfluous and unnecessary adjunct to an otherwise solid effort on curriculum aims, issues, and philosophy. Admittedly, the book, for the sake of thoroughness, includes the final section with case studies and `qualitative' practical examples, however, it is the case that the many questions for further thought and debate, which the authors set out at the conclusion of each chapter, were more than sufficient to inspire any concerned educator to engage the problems, issues, and concerns of curriculum building in light of the philosophical ground that was already so thoroughly covered by the authors in the other sections of the book. Adding this final section seemed to clutter and confuse what was an otherwise lucid and streamlined effort.
With respect to the first concern, I could not help thinking when reading the authors' description of Herbert Kliebard's critique of the Tyler rationale, which is reducible to the smuggling in of value judgments under the guise of a pseudo-empirical theory, that the authors were guilty of a similar misrepresentation of educational theory. It is possible to interpret the book as giving the false impression that the potential exists for educational theory to be like scientific theory, which is to say, that curriculum theory, if conceptualized and approached properly, as presented in this book, holds the potential to describe, explain, and ultimately, with an inflated sense of confidence, predict and control the outcome of events (although I believe that the authors clearly understand the nature of educational theory).
In fairness to the authors, they take great care outlining the way in which our assumptions and recommendations for a sound education inform the theory in question, and that these assumptions and recommendations are eventually scrutinized through a process of critique that occurs across a multitude of varying levels. The informed reader can take from this the indication that it is indeed possible to test an educational theory and either accept or reject it based on determining the soundness of its claims for (1) the aims of education, (2) testable assumptions about students and how they best learn, and (3) philosophically sound assumptions about knowledge theory. Indeed, the fact that much of the material is presented in the mode of the interrogative, in the form of critical questions, allows the reader to draw her own conclusions regarding the best ways in which to approach the many and varied interrelated components of curriculum, which are grounded in a thoroughly informed perspective.
However, since the book is written specifically for students and preservice and in-service practitioners, it would have been helpful to include at least one section, perhaps in "Conceptualizing Curriculum Phenomena" (Chapter 4), which explains for the reader the nature, form, and function of educational theory in general. All too often, educators wrongly conflate and confuse educational theory with `scientific theory,' which works explicitly to tell us, importantly, how the world `is,' how things operate, and through induction, what to expect in the future. Education theory, and this includes theorizing on the curriculum, falls under the categorization of `practical' theory, and going back to Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics, practical theory suggests to us what we `ought' to be doing in praxis, where things can always be otherwise. Concomitant with this functional difference is the issue of validation: Practical recommendations for a specified program of education (or, as in Aristotle, a prescribed course of `virtuous', moral action) cannot be verified in empirical terms, for practical theory (normative theory) does not admit of proof in the same way, for practical knowledge does not reside on the same epistemological plane.
In a book that strives and succeeds in so many aspects to make the `esoteric' in curriculum theorizing accessible to students and practitioners, it would have been wise to explicitly draw out the difference between educational theory and the other forms of theory we encounter in science and mathematics for the reader. What might appear on the surface as a subtle difference, is in fact monumental, and these are the types of crucial distinctions, which the authors point out, careful and critical philosophy must strive to analyze and understand, for such distinctions can spell the difference between `sound' and `unsound' approaches to educational/curriculum issues great and small.
Dr. James M. Magrini
College of Dupage
Philosophy and Religious Studies
June 4, 2018
Just...nah. I've read so much better and recent, like Schiro's Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns, that I just felt bored overall. If you have no knowledge of curriculum work/history, this is a nice, short introductory to it, but I wouldn't pay money for it.
I did mildly appreciate:
How Walker and Soltis (whose name is not mentioned on this website...) aren't afraid to point out how meaningful change in curriculum barely happens without political backing and there isn't much individual teachers can do on a grand scale (however, since we are well past 2004 and technology has advanced, I do not think it is as bleak currently).
To read how the Committee of Ten had blanketed, lose standards. Of course everything falls apart with objectives so vague as "health" (28).
The references to Dewey's work of learner-centered, self-directed learning.
Learning what the Tyler Rationale was and how people can take a rationale and twist it into a doctrine (56).
The analysis of if evaluation is actually effective (68).
The Pros and Cons of reform (93). Yes, I think it's needed; I've worked with some utterly horrible colleagues. No, I do not think it is always done well and often does more bad than good.
I did mildly appreciate:
How Walker and Soltis (whose name is not mentioned on this website...) aren't afraid to point out how meaningful change in curriculum barely happens without political backing and there isn't much individual teachers can do on a grand scale (however, since we are well past 2004 and technology has advanced, I do not think it is as bleak currently).
To read how the Committee of Ten had blanketed, lose standards. Of course everything falls apart with objectives so vague as "health" (28).
The references to Dewey's work of learner-centered, self-directed learning.
Learning what the Tyler Rationale was and how people can take a rationale and twist it into a doctrine (56).
The analysis of if evaluation is actually effective (68).
The Pros and Cons of reform (93). Yes, I think it's needed; I've worked with some utterly horrible colleagues. No, I do not think it is always done well and often does more bad than good.
Read
March 18, 2021notink is better in here
Read
September 2, 2016375.00109 W1784 2009
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews