,CUS3701 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) 2025 - DUE
2025; 100% correct solutions and explanations.
QUESTION 1: Curriculum approaches
Total Marks: 15
Task description: Different approaches to curriculum are crucial for
sound curriculum
implementation for several reasons. These approaches allow teachers to
cater to learners'
diverse learning needs, provide flexibility and adaptability in teaching
methods and content
delivery, and provide a comprehensive approach to education. Referring
to the learner-centred
approach of Lawrence Stenhouse and the behavioural approach of John
Bobbitt, analyse and
compare their ideas in terms of:
1.1 The theoretical foundations of the approaches. (5)
1.2 The practical implications for teachers. (5)
1.3 The practical implications for learners. (5)
NB: (i) Work copied directly from the handbook without citations will
be penalized.
(ii) You are encouraged to write in your own words to show your
understanding of the
approaches to the curriculum.
(iii) You are also encouraged to use other sources and cite these to give
credit to the
original authors.
(iv) Proofread your work for clarity, coherence, and grammatical
accuracy.
(v) Length: ONE-TWO PAGES.
Analysis and Comparison of Curriculum Approaches: Lawrence
Stenhouse and John Bobbitt
,1.1 Theoretical Foundations of the Approaches (5 Marks)
The learner-centred approach proposed by Lawrence Stenhouse is rooted
in progressive education theory, emphasizing active student engagement,
inquiry-based learning, and the role of the teacher as a facilitator rather
than an instructor. Stenhouse advocated for a flexible curriculum that
adapts to learners' needs, fostering critical thinking and autonomy
(Stenhouse, 1975).
In contrast, John Bobbitt's behavioural approach is influenced by
behaviourism, particularly the work of psychologists like John B.
Watson and B.F. Skinner. Bobbitt viewed education as a systematic
process of shaping behaviour through well-defined objectives and
outcomes (Bobbitt, 1918). His curriculum model is structured,
standardized, and designed to achieve measurable learning objectives.
While Stenhouse promotes open-ended exploration, Bobbitt focuses on
efficiency and direct instruction. Stenhouse’s approach aligns with
constructivist theories, whereas Bobbitt’s model reflects a positivist,
outcomes-based framework (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2018).
1.2 Practical Implications for Teachers (5 Marks)
For teachers, Stenhouse’s approach requires flexibility, creativity, and
adaptability. Teachers must design lessons that encourage inquiry,
discussion, and problem-solving. They act as facilitators, guiding
students in their exploration of knowledge rather than simply delivering
content. This approach demands continuous professional development
and a reflective teaching practice (Stenhouse, 1975).
On the other hand, Bobbitt’s approach demands precise lesson planning
with clear learning objectives, direct instruction, and structured
assessment methods. Teachers follow a prescribed curriculum with a
focus on measurable outcomes. This method is often easier to implement
but can limit teacher autonomy and responsiveness to individual student
needs (Bobbitt, 1918).
, 1.3 Practical Implications for Learners (5 Marks)
In a Stenhouse-inspired curriculum, learners actively engage with
content, collaborate, and develop critical thinking skills. They have more
autonomy in their learning process, allowing for deeper understanding
and personal growth. However, some students may struggle with self-
directed learning if they lack the necessary skills or motivation
(Stenhouse, 1975).
Conversely, Bobbitt’s structured approach provides clear expectations
and consistency, benefiting learners who thrive in organized settings.
However, it may not accommodate diverse learning styles and can limit
creativity and problem-solving skills. Students are assessed based on
predefined criteria, which may not fully capture their understanding or
potential (Bobbitt, 1918).
References
Bobbitt, J. (1918). The Curriculum. Houghton Mifflin.
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2018). Curriculum:
Foundations, Principles, and Issues. Pearson.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and
Development. Heinemann.
Your assignment will be graded according to the following assessment
rubric:
Criteria Level 1
(1 mark)
Level 2
(2 marks)
Level 3
(3 marks)
2025; 100% correct solutions and explanations.
QUESTION 1: Curriculum approaches
Total Marks: 15
Task description: Different approaches to curriculum are crucial for
sound curriculum
implementation for several reasons. These approaches allow teachers to
cater to learners'
diverse learning needs, provide flexibility and adaptability in teaching
methods and content
delivery, and provide a comprehensive approach to education. Referring
to the learner-centred
approach of Lawrence Stenhouse and the behavioural approach of John
Bobbitt, analyse and
compare their ideas in terms of:
1.1 The theoretical foundations of the approaches. (5)
1.2 The practical implications for teachers. (5)
1.3 The practical implications for learners. (5)
NB: (i) Work copied directly from the handbook without citations will
be penalized.
(ii) You are encouraged to write in your own words to show your
understanding of the
approaches to the curriculum.
(iii) You are also encouraged to use other sources and cite these to give
credit to the
original authors.
(iv) Proofread your work for clarity, coherence, and grammatical
accuracy.
(v) Length: ONE-TWO PAGES.
Analysis and Comparison of Curriculum Approaches: Lawrence
Stenhouse and John Bobbitt
,1.1 Theoretical Foundations of the Approaches (5 Marks)
The learner-centred approach proposed by Lawrence Stenhouse is rooted
in progressive education theory, emphasizing active student engagement,
inquiry-based learning, and the role of the teacher as a facilitator rather
than an instructor. Stenhouse advocated for a flexible curriculum that
adapts to learners' needs, fostering critical thinking and autonomy
(Stenhouse, 1975).
In contrast, John Bobbitt's behavioural approach is influenced by
behaviourism, particularly the work of psychologists like John B.
Watson and B.F. Skinner. Bobbitt viewed education as a systematic
process of shaping behaviour through well-defined objectives and
outcomes (Bobbitt, 1918). His curriculum model is structured,
standardized, and designed to achieve measurable learning objectives.
While Stenhouse promotes open-ended exploration, Bobbitt focuses on
efficiency and direct instruction. Stenhouse’s approach aligns with
constructivist theories, whereas Bobbitt’s model reflects a positivist,
outcomes-based framework (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2018).
1.2 Practical Implications for Teachers (5 Marks)
For teachers, Stenhouse’s approach requires flexibility, creativity, and
adaptability. Teachers must design lessons that encourage inquiry,
discussion, and problem-solving. They act as facilitators, guiding
students in their exploration of knowledge rather than simply delivering
content. This approach demands continuous professional development
and a reflective teaching practice (Stenhouse, 1975).
On the other hand, Bobbitt’s approach demands precise lesson planning
with clear learning objectives, direct instruction, and structured
assessment methods. Teachers follow a prescribed curriculum with a
focus on measurable outcomes. This method is often easier to implement
but can limit teacher autonomy and responsiveness to individual student
needs (Bobbitt, 1918).
, 1.3 Practical Implications for Learners (5 Marks)
In a Stenhouse-inspired curriculum, learners actively engage with
content, collaborate, and develop critical thinking skills. They have more
autonomy in their learning process, allowing for deeper understanding
and personal growth. However, some students may struggle with self-
directed learning if they lack the necessary skills or motivation
(Stenhouse, 1975).
Conversely, Bobbitt’s structured approach provides clear expectations
and consistency, benefiting learners who thrive in organized settings.
However, it may not accommodate diverse learning styles and can limit
creativity and problem-solving skills. Students are assessed based on
predefined criteria, which may not fully capture their understanding or
potential (Bobbitt, 1918).
References
Bobbitt, J. (1918). The Curriculum. Houghton Mifflin.
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2018). Curriculum:
Foundations, Principles, and Issues. Pearson.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and
Development. Heinemann.
Your assignment will be graded according to the following assessment
rubric:
Criteria Level 1
(1 mark)
Level 2
(2 marks)
Level 3
(3 marks)
