,ACTIVITY 1: TASK: CREATE A VISUAL REPRESENTATION
BRANCH 1: Traditional Perspective
The Traditional Perspective is one of the most longstanding and familiar views of curriculum,
conceptualizing it as a pre-determined, static body of knowledge to be transmitted from teacher to
student. This perspective prioritizes content, structure, and efficiency, often casting the teacher in
the role of the expert and the student as the passive recipient of knowledge.
Firstly, the view of Curriculum as a Syllabus reduces the concept to a mere list of topics, units, and
sometimes prescribed texts to be covered within a specific timeframe (Posner, 2003). This
definition is narrow and administrative, focusing exclusively on the "what" of education—the
outline of content—without delving into the deeper processes of learning, teaching methods, or
the underlying educational aims. It is a document that signals what should be taught, but not
necessarily why or how.
, A slightly broader traditional view is Curriculum as a Planned Course of Study. This perspective sees
the curriculum as a comprehensive blueprint or a systematic plan for learning. It encompasses not
just content, but also sequenced learning objectives, activities, and resources (Ornstein & Hunkins,
2018). The emphasis here is on order, structure, and predictability, ensuring that all students follow
a common path. The success of this model is often measured by how closely classroom instruction
adheres to the initial, detailed plan.
Finally, the most product-oriented view within this perspective is Curriculum as Content to Be
Delivered. Here, knowledge is treated as a commodity or a product—a defined set of facts,
principles, and skills—that teachers are responsible for "delivering" to students (Schiro, 2013). This
metaphor frames education as a transactional process, where the curriculum is the package of
information to be transferred. The primary goal is the accurate and efficient transmission of this
cultural heritage, with student learning assessed based on their ability to recall and reproduce the
delivered content. Collectively, these traditional definitions have been highly influential but are
often criticized for their rigidity and failure to account for the dynamic, interactive nature of
learning in practice.
BRANCH 2: Process / Experiential Perspectives
In direct contrast to the Traditional Perspective, the Process and Experiential Perspectives shift the
focus from a static body of content to the dynamic processes of learning and the lived experiences
of the learner. This branch argues that the essence of a curriculum is not found in documents, but
in the classroom interactions and personal engagements that lead to growth and understanding
(Dewey, 1938). It is a more student-centred and constructivist view, where knowledge is not
transmitted but actively built.
The view of Curriculum as Learning Experiences radically expands the definition beyond the
planned syllabus to encompass the totality of experiences a learner has under the guidance of the
school. This includes not only the intended lessons but also the unintended, informal, and even
unplanned interactions that occur throughout the school day (Schiro, 2013). From this vantage
point, the playground dynamics, the school's culture, and a student's personal reaction to a lesson
are all part of the curriculum, as they all contribute to the learner's development.
Building on this, the concept of the Curriculum as the Enacted Curriculum makes a critical
distinction between the official, written curriculum (the plan) and what teachers and students
actually create and do in the classroom (the reality). Snyder, Bolin, and Zumwalt (1992) identified
this as the difference between the "formal" and "enacted" curriculum. The enacted curriculum
emerges from the teacher's pedagogical choices, the students' responses and questions, and the
unique social environment of the classroom, meaning it can vary significantly from what was
originally intended on paper.
Finally, Curriculum as Interaction frames education as a dynamic, social process of dialogue and
co-construction. This perspective, heavily influenced by sociocultural theorists like Vygotsky, posits
that learning and knowledge are generated through the interactions between the teacher, the
students, and the subject matter (Kelly, 2009). The curriculum, therefore, is not a pre-packaged
product but the evolving "conversation" that happens within the learning community, where
meaning is negotiated and understanding is developed collaboratively, rather than being delivered
from a single authority.
BRANCH 1: Traditional Perspective
The Traditional Perspective is one of the most longstanding and familiar views of curriculum,
conceptualizing it as a pre-determined, static body of knowledge to be transmitted from teacher to
student. This perspective prioritizes content, structure, and efficiency, often casting the teacher in
the role of the expert and the student as the passive recipient of knowledge.
Firstly, the view of Curriculum as a Syllabus reduces the concept to a mere list of topics, units, and
sometimes prescribed texts to be covered within a specific timeframe (Posner, 2003). This
definition is narrow and administrative, focusing exclusively on the "what" of education—the
outline of content—without delving into the deeper processes of learning, teaching methods, or
the underlying educational aims. It is a document that signals what should be taught, but not
necessarily why or how.
, A slightly broader traditional view is Curriculum as a Planned Course of Study. This perspective sees
the curriculum as a comprehensive blueprint or a systematic plan for learning. It encompasses not
just content, but also sequenced learning objectives, activities, and resources (Ornstein & Hunkins,
2018). The emphasis here is on order, structure, and predictability, ensuring that all students follow
a common path. The success of this model is often measured by how closely classroom instruction
adheres to the initial, detailed plan.
Finally, the most product-oriented view within this perspective is Curriculum as Content to Be
Delivered. Here, knowledge is treated as a commodity or a product—a defined set of facts,
principles, and skills—that teachers are responsible for "delivering" to students (Schiro, 2013). This
metaphor frames education as a transactional process, where the curriculum is the package of
information to be transferred. The primary goal is the accurate and efficient transmission of this
cultural heritage, with student learning assessed based on their ability to recall and reproduce the
delivered content. Collectively, these traditional definitions have been highly influential but are
often criticized for their rigidity and failure to account for the dynamic, interactive nature of
learning in practice.
BRANCH 2: Process / Experiential Perspectives
In direct contrast to the Traditional Perspective, the Process and Experiential Perspectives shift the
focus from a static body of content to the dynamic processes of learning and the lived experiences
of the learner. This branch argues that the essence of a curriculum is not found in documents, but
in the classroom interactions and personal engagements that lead to growth and understanding
(Dewey, 1938). It is a more student-centred and constructivist view, where knowledge is not
transmitted but actively built.
The view of Curriculum as Learning Experiences radically expands the definition beyond the
planned syllabus to encompass the totality of experiences a learner has under the guidance of the
school. This includes not only the intended lessons but also the unintended, informal, and even
unplanned interactions that occur throughout the school day (Schiro, 2013). From this vantage
point, the playground dynamics, the school's culture, and a student's personal reaction to a lesson
are all part of the curriculum, as they all contribute to the learner's development.
Building on this, the concept of the Curriculum as the Enacted Curriculum makes a critical
distinction between the official, written curriculum (the plan) and what teachers and students
actually create and do in the classroom (the reality). Snyder, Bolin, and Zumwalt (1992) identified
this as the difference between the "formal" and "enacted" curriculum. The enacted curriculum
emerges from the teacher's pedagogical choices, the students' responses and questions, and the
unique social environment of the classroom, meaning it can vary significantly from what was
originally intended on paper.
Finally, Curriculum as Interaction frames education as a dynamic, social process of dialogue and
co-construction. This perspective, heavily influenced by sociocultural theorists like Vygotsky, posits
that learning and knowledge are generated through the interactions between the teacher, the
students, and the subject matter (Kelly, 2009). The curriculum, therefore, is not a pre-packaged
product but the evolving "conversation" that happens within the learning community, where
meaning is negotiated and understanding is developed collaboratively, rather than being delivered
from a single authority.
