Abstract
I start the article from my own experience of teacher training addressed to the “curriculum development”, characteristic of technicist theories which dominated the last two decades of the twentieth century in Portugal, to contrast the “how to teach” movement with the new focus on “what to teach” brought to the field of curriculum studies by critical and post-critical theories. In fact, these theories have been responsible for drawing the attention of educational sciences to the issue of knowledge transmitted by the school without questioning it, i.e., only based on the simplistic view that “knowledge is knowledge”. They accuse the curriculum disciplines and subjects of reinforcing social inequalities, due to this concept of abstract, standard and universal knowledge without considering the specific regional, local, individual and popular knowledge. This curriculum is viewed as if it was castrating the raw material arriving at school in order to better adapt it to the desired standards. As a curriculum theorist, I acknowledge and share the dilemma regarding the ultimate mission of the school and the type of knowledge that is supposed to be valued: either an experiential knowledge, originated from the so-called commonsense, and limited to the students' worldviews of everyday experience; or a more academic and specialized knowledge, even if it is quite often labeled as elitist. And in a context of massive expansion of education, this dilemma becomes more relevant because the existing curriculum orthodoxy comes into conflict with nowadays cultural diversity of our schools. But at the same time, the present globalized and highly competitive world of accelerated change at all levels demands well-qualified, critical and creative citizens who has broader horizons, based on an academic knowledge, totally different from commonsense. Inspired by Paulo Freire and Michael Young, I end the article defending the idea that the curriculum can also be an instrument of emancipation, because every student, irrespective of color, race, gender or social class should have the same chances of exercising scientific thinking. In this context, “how to teach” gains a renewed relevance in a demanding curriculum with emancipatory possibilities. For this aim it is crucial that the two curriculum trends start a dialogue for the benefit of the field of curriculum studies.
Highlights
As an elementary and secondary school teacher in the eighties of last century, I was trained for a rigorous execution of national-wide subject programs, which were based on prior definitions of general and specific goals, divided into cognitive [1], affective [2] and psychomotor [3] objectives, which by their turn were sub-divided into behavioral and operational [4,5,6] objectives
Blaming the over-psychological approach to the learner as a self-centred individual and not a social being situated in a social environment with rules and demands externally determined [50], he claims for a clear distinction between academic knowledge and mere commonsense, derived from everyday experiences
This article aimed to bring to the discussion the ongoing debate between two main subfields of curriculum theories (Figure 1): on the one side, the technicist curriculum theories, which since the early years of the twentieth century, have been focusing on the best teaching methodologies, the ‘means’ to attain the goals externally determined by the labor market; on the other side, the critical and post-critical curriculum theories, born from the Frankfurt School, who have been drawing the attention to what is taught at school and to what extent it contributes to social inequalities in general, including others as gender, sexuality, ‘race’ and colour
Summary
As an elementary and secondary school teacher in the eighties of last century, I was trained for a rigorous execution of national-wide subject programs, which were based on prior definitions of general and specific goals, divided into cognitive [1], affective [2] and psychomotor [3] objectives, which by their turn were sub-divided into behavioral and operational [4,5,6] objectives. The training of attitudes of obedience and discipline was necessary for the hard work in the factories To this aim, nothing better than a mass school, i.e., a public school supported by a rigid and orthodox prescriptive curriculum. In this organization, the teacher had to execute a linear and progressive plan, sequenced from the simplest to the most complex levels, which were step by step externally defined, according to the following curriculum definitions: 1. I was trained for the time control in minutes during the school lesson, for the space organization of the classroom, for the efficient use of technological resources, for the diversification of teaching strategies, having in mind behavioral objectives. I was trained for the orthodox execution of a prescriptive and didactive curriculum, with very little space to assume myself as a real professional of Education
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
