Now I realize why it is so difficult to give a precise definition for the word curriculum. It is related to the development of the curriculum itself where we can know about it from the history of curriculum development. For example, Dr Stoney asked us to give definition of what does it mean to be American during multicultural class, yet, no one could give exact definition because firstly, everybody in the class has their own definition of being American. I notice as well in everyone definition there will be the elements of historical aspect, for example, “ American means those who were born here” or “ she/he migrated here few years back”. Phrases of “were born” and “migrated” are past tense verbs, so basically they were historical as the events themselves are important to those who involved.
Due to that, shallowing and narrowing the meaning will circumscribe the nature of curriculum itself. It comes from a long,diverse and complex history. Understanding curriculum will be distorted if we make the definitions rigid as it means we will neglect the up and down of its development or curriculum history. Sigmund Freud put emphasis on understanding past history of his patients to develop a big picture in order to understand what contributes to the ailment, what about curriculum which is so vast and deep.
The fallback of neglecting curriculum history is that we will neglect the intellectual and spiritual growth of curriculum. As I mention in my first week epiphany, that curriculum is dynamic, so it does have elements of growth that I mention previously. This lead to my believe that curriculum can appear as a living human being due to elements of growth that it has. Can I say curriculum becomes enrich as societies develop? I think it is, as in curriculum history we will see the changes that happen to curriculum that contributes to its dynamic. Progressive nations will have a dynamic and complex curriculum that will cover many aspects of their life, as progressive and modernism can be attributed to complexities and dynamic. Both of these attributes show there are elements of blended and intertwined perspectives and thoughts adopted into education system that particular nations preferred over.
Curriculum history is one way understanding the past. Understanding the past does not mean we have to follow the ways that previous generations outlined as the suitability and compatibility of their methods can be questioned. Importantly, I notice even they themselves could not solve the problems that they faced. However, we still look at their solutions to the problems so that we can take whatever good and leave whatever bad for us to reflect. Thus it will be the best way to understand the present day situation as we know the origin,the root of the problems.
I believe we must teach students according to what suits them best, according to the compatibility and suitability of present day situation and at the same time to prepare them for future. Learning and understanding curriculum history will tell us what is compatible and suitable for them after we reflect the pros and cons of every elements within curriculum. I will prefer subject matter mastery as it helps me to understand and memorize deep but at the same time, I just can’t imagine myself sitting in a class with drilling and rote learning as they will bore me to death. Boredom is not a choice for nowadays quality education as we are not preparing our students for clergymen/women. Our society is not a dogmatic anymore compared to hundred years ago. My dad used to bring me to hunt as a past time hobby but it does not mean that I have to bring my son to the same playing field again 17 years later. However, I do understand that spending time with my son by doing various activities like swimming or playing table tennis can help to maintain the relationship as well.
That is the goal of learning curriculum history and understand them as everybody of us wants to choose and to be involved in developing now and future generation based on what we believe/perceive. They believe they can do that best through education system. That is a faith in curriculum.
When I reflect back on Sputnik achievement by communist realm( Russia), Americans felt the achievement by the “other side” was hurtful. Americans believe their curriculum that is based on democracy value must be superior than the “other side” that implement communist system. Anyway,if we think critically, was it a total failure on behalf of American curriculum? If we think critically, it is not a failure but rather a challenge to compete and to improve education system to be better.
The main thing is that there is something we can learn from them.
Tags: curriculum, curriculum development, curriculum history, education system, modernism, progressive nations, quality education, relationship, sigmund freud