Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
References
All Topics
Sociology
Family and Consumer Sciences

Curriculum Development: A Critical Science Perspective

Profile image of Bette MontgomeryBette Montgomery

2008

Abstract

Standard 5 of the National Standards for Teachers of Family and Consumer Sciences (National Association of Teacher Educators for Family and Consumer Sciences [NATEFACS], 2004) focuses on the development, justification, and implementation of issue or problem-based curriculum. This paper (a) examines the meaning of curriculum; (b) examines family and consumer sciences curriculum from empirical-rational and critical science-based perspectives; and (c) identifies strategies to develop, justify, and implement family and consumer sciences curriculum. Curriculum development and implementation are important components of a teacher's responsibilities . It is essential that family and consumer sciences (FCS) teachers are able to develop and implement issues-based curriculum in order to meet the needs of individuals, families, and communities today. This is further expressed in Standard 5 of the National Standards for Teachers of Family and Consumer Sciences which states that beginning teachers of family and consumer sciences should be able to "Develop, justify, and implement curricula that address perennial and evolving family, career, and community issues; reflect the integrative nature of family and consumer sciences; and integrate core academic areas" (National Association of Teacher Educators for Family and Consumer Sciences [NATEFACS], 2004). The purpose of this paper is to examine the meaning of Standard 5, Curriculum Development, for family and consumer sciences teachers. More specifically this paper includes an overview of the meaning of curriculum and examination of FCS curriculum from empiricalrational and critical science-based perspectives. In addition, strategies to develop, justify, and implement FCS curriculum will be identified. Broadly, curriculum identifies "what should be taught" in the classroom. More specifically, as defined by Posner ( ), curriculum includes official and operational components. The official curriculum, known as the written curriculum, includes the content to be taught as well as provides the basis for lesson plans, student evaluation, and teacher accountability. The operational, or implemented, curriculum is the content that is actually taught to students, including the importance of what is taught and the learning outcomes for which students are ultimately held accountable. In relationship to Standard 5, it is expected that the teacher will be able to both write curriculum and implement curriculum. What is actually implemented in the classroom, however, may or may not match the written curriculum. This can have positive consequences. For example, the written curriculum in a high school level family relationships course included the student learning outcome of "identify alternative parenting styles." However, when engaged in the lesson, students moved beyond identification of parenting styles but also engaged in perspective taking (a component of critical thinking) as they role played parent-child interactions from different parenting approaches. In the follow-up discussion, the teacher further emphasized the importance of perspective taking as related to parenting. Lastly, the teacher assigned a poster project upon

Related papers

The Various Concepts of Curriculum and the Factors Involved in Curricula-making
Shao-Wen Su, Ecem GULDEREN

—This paper aims at probing into the nature of curriculum by critically reviewing literature relevant to the term " curriculum. " The multiple definitions associated with the term are inductively presented in conceptualizations so as to clarify what are the curricular issues that teachers should be concerned about in the school context. This paper then argues for the need to consider a broader spectrum of " curriculum " that embraces the whole aspects in the curriculum development process, for example, objectives, content, methodology, and evaluation of students, especially when a curricular review or evaluation is undertaken.

View PDFchevron_right
From Curriculum Theory to Theorizing
Robert Helfenbein

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education, 2020

Curriculum theory is shaped and held within the larger field of curriculum studies, but its distinctive focus on understanding curriculum as opposed to developing it places it is stark contrast with other parts of the larger field. This focus is further distinctive when curriculum theory shifts to curriculum theorizing. Curriculum theorizing emerged in the United States, principally at Bergamo conferences and precursor conferences, in the Journal of Curriculum Theorizing (JCT), and through scholars associated with the reconceptualization. It has spread internationally via the International Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies and its subsidiaries in many different countries and cultures. Some scholars hold that curriculum theory includes curriculum theorizing as well as normative and analytic conceptualizations that justify or explain curriculum decisions and actions. Curriculum theorizing attempts to read broadly in social theory so as to embody those insights in d...

View PDFchevron_right
The Role of Curriculum: Conservative, Critical and Evaluative, and Creative
Shella Shabarina

Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Education and Management (COEMA 2019)

Curriculum is guidelines for the implementation of learning process. It is compiled by the government. Curriculum has changed and developed from time to time. This research is aim to know the role of curriculum in conservative, critical and evaluative, dan creative ways in school. This research used qualitative descriptive method. The result of this research is SDN 01

View PDFchevron_right
CHAPTER 2 CURRICULUM THEORY, CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AND CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION
Isyaka Hamisu
View PDFchevron_right
Working the curriculum
Tommi Eränpalo

The curriculum of the school shoud be seen as acore document of teaching and learning. That is why curriculum development in the schools should be a continuing process. There are several factors affecting all curriculum development in meeting the needs of 21st century learners. Educators must have espoused a philosophy or philosophies that are deemed necessary for planning, implementing, and evaluating a school curriculum. We also need a commonly accepted definition for the curriculum, and, we need to keep in mind the history of curriculum: The idea of curriculum is hardly new - but the way we understand and theorize it is all the time altering over the years - and there remains considerable dispute as to meaning.

View PDFchevron_right
Editorial: Curriculum: What, how and for whom?
Carol Mutch

Curriculum Matters, 2009

Curriculum is a hotly contested notion, yet it is a relatively new concept in educational thought. claims that it was only during the 20th century that attempts were made to describe, analyse and interpret curriculum as a phenomenon. other writers (for example, Hargreaves, 1994) also claim that it took until the 1960s for it to become a substantial field of study within educational research and development. in the New Zealand context, ivan snook suggests that we did not have a tradition of curriculum theorising. He explains (1995, p. 167), "a sturdy pragmatism, liberal sentiment and political slogans have served in its place." Clive McGee's (1997) book, Teachers and Curriculum Decision-Making marked a key point in moving New Zealand curriculum theorising forward to the point where, over the last 20 years, we have seen it evolve into a common topic of deliberation and debate as policy makers, academics and practitioners contest definitions, challenge assumptions and bring different lenses to bear on the concept. the development of scholarly journals based in New Zealand, such as Curriculum Matters, helps keep these deliberations and debates to the fore, albeit with a continuing thread of sturdy pragmatism and liberal sentiment. this issue of Curriculum Matters is released as schools take time to reflect on what curriculum means for them individually and collectively. the release of The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) provided the opportunity for schools to design a curriculum for their own particular contexts. some schools have embraced this challenge, while others are only beginning (Education review office, 2009). For those with an interest in curriculum as a phenomenon, these are exciting times. the development at a system-wide level and the design at a school-based level get to the heart of what "curriculum" is and how it can be interpreted. one of the most commonly cited models

View PDFchevron_right
Curriculum theory what it is and why it is important
Adeoye Babalola

In this paper we discuss the importance of curriculum theory and its specialists in the current debate on school curriculum. After a short account on the evolution of the field of curriculum studies, we delve into the critique and normative aspects of curriculum theory, suggesting that these two objectives have been separated, much to the demise of both of them. Next, when defending education as a practical and specialized activity, we suggest that the curriculum theory unite both aspects and regard the curriculum as a form of specialized knowledge. Lastly, we postulate that curriculum theorists concentrate their efforts on the development of curricula that not just reproduce learning opportunities, but rather broaden them. IAM CONVINCED THAT THERE IS NO MORE CRITICAL EDUCATIONAL CRITICAL EDUCATIONAL issue today than the curriculum. To put the issue more directly we need to answer the question "what should all students know by the time they leave school?". As curriculum theorists we should have answers to such questions. After all we are the specialists on curriculum matters. This does not mean that we are the un-questioned authorities on the curriculum, far from it. But it does mean, as I see it, that we have the responsibility that goes with being specialists, to speak the truth in our field as we see it. At the same time, such questions about "what to teach in school" are only one level of enquiry for curriculum theory; the curriculum has for too long been associated only with schools. Colleges, and universities have curricula too. Curriculum theory applies to any educational institution. Curriculum questions are far from straightforward-and this is not made easier by the fact that everyone thinks they have answers to them especially in relation to the school curriculum. Those with political power often do not recognize the authority of our specialist knowledge as curriculum specialists. This lack of recognition is partly our fault; there is little agreement among curriculum specialists about what the object of their theory should be.

View PDFchevron_right
Chapter No 1 Concepts of Curriculum
Fariha Hassan
View PDFchevron_right
Introduction to Curriculum Studies EDU 5260
Nicholas Ng-A-Fook
View PDFchevron_right
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT THE TEACHER, SCHOOL & SOCIETY CURRICULUM DEFINITIONS
Twapewa Nghipandulwa
View PDFchevron_right

References (36)

  1. McGregor, S. L. T. (2003). Critical science -A primer. Kappa Omicron Nu Forum 15(1). Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.kon.org/archives/forum/forum_archives.html#f11a Provides an overview of the critical science-based approach, as well as using critical science in the classroom.
  2. Staaland, E., & Strom, S. (1996). Family, food and society: A teacher's guide. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Excellent critical science-based curriculum example.
  3. Thorsbaken, P., & Schield, B. (1999). Family systems of action. In J. Johnson & C. Fedje (Eds.), Family and consumer sciences curriculum: Toward a critical science approach (pp. 117- 131). (Family and Consumer Sciences Teacher Education Yearbook 19, Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. (For information on availability, contact the Family and Consumer Sciences Education Association, http://www.cwu.edu/~fandcs/fcsea/) Examines the systems of action (technical, communicative, and reflective/critical) and incudes reflections of one teacher in applying these ideas to the classroom.
  4. Vincenti, V., & Smith, F. (2004). Critical science: What it could offer all family and consumer sciences professionals. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 96(1), 63-71. Examines critical theory and critical science; attention given to dispositions of curriculum development.
  5. Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York: Macmillan. Examines alternative curriculum orientations.
  6. Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or praxis? New York: Falmer. Discussion of curriculum as a product or process; examines curriculum from technical, interpretive, and critical perspectives.
  7. Plihal, J., Laird, M., & Rehm, M. (1999). The meaning of curriculum: Alternative perspectives. In J. Johnson & C. Fedje (Eds.), Family and consumer sciences curriculum: Toward a critical science approach (pp. 2-22). (Family and Consumer Sciences Teacher Education Yearbook 19, Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. (For information on availability, contact the Family and Consumer Sciences Education Association, http://www.cwu.edu/~fandcs/fcsea/) Examines alternative meanings of curriculum in family and consumer sciences.
  8. Posner, G. J. (2004). Analyzing the curriculum. New York: McGraw-Hill. Examines alternative meanings of curriculum and theoretical approaches.
  9. Staaland, E. (1987). A guide to curriculum planning in home economics. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Excellent critical science-based curriculum example. References
  10. Brown, M. M. (1978 ). A conceptual scheme and decision-rules for the selection and organization of home economics curriculum content. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
  11. Brown, M. M., & Paolucci, B. (1979). Home economics: A definition. Washington, DC: American Home Economics Association.
  12. Burden, P. R., & Byrd, D. M. (2007). Methods of effective teaching. Boston: Pearson.
  13. Coomer, D., & Hittman, L. (1982, November). Questioning: A basic skill. JC Penney Forum, 8- 9.
  14. Coomer, D., Hittman, L., & Fedje, C. (1997). Questioning: A teaching strategy and everyday life strategy. In J. Laster & R. Thomas (Eds.), Thinking for ethical action in families and communities (pp. 173-183). (Family and Consumer Sciences Teacher Education Yearbook 17). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.
  15. Daggett, W. R. (2003). The future of career and technical education. Rexford, NY: International Center for Leadership in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED476028).
  16. Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  17. Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York: Macmillan.
  18. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2005). America's children: Key national indicators of children's wellbeing 2005. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://childstats.ed.gov/americaschildren/hea9.asp
  19. Gentzler, Y. S. (1999). What is critical theory and critical science? In J. Johnson & C. Fedje (Eds.), Family and consumer sciences curriculum: Toward a critical science approach (pp. 23-31). (Family and Consumer Sciences Teacher Education Yearbook 19, Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. (For information on availability, contact the Family and Consumer Sciences Education Association, http://www.cwu.edu/~fandcs/fcsea/)
  20. Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or praxis? New York: Falmer.
  21. Hauxwell, L., & Schmidt, B. (1999). Developing curriculum using broad concepts. In J. Johnson & C. Fedje (Eds.), Family and consumer sciences curriculum: Toward a critical science approach (pp. 91-102). (Family and Consumer Sciences Teacher Education Yearbook 19, Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. (For information on availability, contact the Family and Consumer Sciences Education Association, http://www.cwu.edu/~fandcs/fcsea/).
  22. Holcombe, M., & Fedje, C. (1983). The TLP: An approach to planning. Journal of Vocational Home Economics Education, 1(1), 39-48.
  23. Johnson, J., & Montgomery, B. (1997). Advanced instructional theory resource packet. Lincoln: University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
  24. Kister, J. (1999). Forming a rationale: Considering beliefs, meanings, and context. In J. Johnson & C. Fedje (Eds.), Family and consumer sciences curriculum: Toward a critical science approach (pp. 45-57). (Family and Consumer Sciences Teacher Education Yearbook 19, Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. (For information on availability, contact the Family and Consumer Sciences Education Association, http://www.cwu.edu/~fandcs/fcsea/).
  25. McGregor, S. L.T. (2003). Critical science -A primer. Kappa Omicron Nu Forum 15(1). Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.kon.org/archives/forum/forum_archives.html#f11a
  26. Montgomery, B. (1999). Continuing concerns of individuals and families. In J. Johnson & C. Fedje (Eds.), Family and consumer sciences curriculum: Toward a critical science approach (pp. 80-90). (Family and Consumer Sciences Teacher Education Yearbook 19, Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. (For information on availability, contact the Family and Consumer Sciences Education Association, http://www.cwu.edu/~fandcs/fcsea/).
  27. Montgomery, B. (2003). Reasoning for action in consumer education. Journal of Consumer Education, 21, 1-11.
  28. Montgomery, B. (2006). Rethinking sewing as an educational experience in middle and high schools. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 98(1), 47-52.
  29. Montgomery, B., & Davis, S. (2004) Building strong families and communities: A critical science rationale for family and consumer sciences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 96(1), 52-56.
  30. National Association of State Administrators for Family and Consumer Sciences (NASAFACS). (2008). National standards for family and consumer sciences education (2nd ed.). Retrieved December 14, 2007, from the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (AAFCS) Web site: http://aafcs.org/FCSstandards/ National Association of Teacher Educators for Family and Consumer Sciences (NATEFACS). (2004, December). National standards for teachers of family and consumer sciences. Retrieved October 7, 2008 from http://www.natefacs.org/National%20Standards%20for%20Teachers%20of%20Family% 20and%20Consumer%20Sciences.pdf
  31. Nebraska Department of Education (1995). Nebraska framework for family and consumer sciences education curriculum development. Lincoln, NE: Author.
  32. Olson, K. (1999). Practical reasoning. In J. Johnson & C. Fedje (Eds.), Family and consumer sciences curriculum: Toward a critical science approach (pp. 132-142). (Family and Consumer Sciences Teacher Education Yearbook 19, Education and Technology Division, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. (For information on availability, contact the Family and Consumer Sciences Education Association, http://www.cwu.edu/~fandcs/fcsea/).
  33. Posner, G. J. (2004). Analyzing the curriculum. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  34. Richardson, V. (2003). The dilemmas of professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 4, 401- 406.
  35. White, P. A. (1992). Teacher empowerment under "ideal" school-site autonomy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 69-82.
  36. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Related papers

Module 1. Curriculum: Concepts, Nature and Purposes Lesson 1 Concepts, Nature and Purposes of Curriculum
kevin gaper

Curriculum -dynamic process -Listing of subjects -Total learning experiences e.g. PCSPE, SOUTELE, PCER, NCBTS -can be viewed as a field of study -made up of foundations (philosophical, historical, psychological, and societal foundations)

View PDFchevron_right
The Concept of Curriculum and Curriculum Development (Curriculum and Material Development) The Definition of Curriculum
JUNI BAYU

A. The Definition of Curriculum 1. Curriculum, or course, design is largely a "how-to-do-it" activity that involves the integration of knowledge from many of the areas in the field of Applied Linguistics, such as language acquisition research, teaching methodology, assessment, language description and materials production. (Macalister, 2010) 2. Curriculum is a social artefact. It is configured according to elements of a cultural heritage that are deened worthy of transmitting or communicating to a new generation of learners. (Hamilton, 1999) 3. Curriculum is a construct or concept, a verbalization of an extremely complex idea or set of ideas. (Olivia, 2012) 4. Curriculum indicated a plan to educate students, which means the curriculum is a part of the curriculum and the assessment scope contains curriculum components.

View PDFchevron_right
Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment, and Standards CURRICULUM: WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT
Lina Anabossi

I n this chapter, curriculum is defined so that readers can have a shared understanding of this key term. Next, we examine approaches to curriculum that schools use to address standards and high-stakes testing as a way to discuss the interrelationships of curriculum, instruction, assessment, and standards. I suggest why these approaches may not work over the long term and propose a model demonstrating how the balanced curriculum integrates curriculum, instruction, assessment, and standards.

View PDFchevron_right
Curriculum development
zenaida jeremias
View PDFchevron_right
Curriculum Theory: Characteristics And Functions
anne syomwene Kisilu

European Journal of Education Studies, 2020

This is a concept paper in education specifically about curriculum theory. Curriculum theory is a sub-theory of educational theory. Theories provide views about the world. They explain reality. The process of education in general and the field of curriculum in particular are embedded in theory. Teachers and other educators rely on theory in research about the school curriculum. Curriculum theory gives direction and guidance in the process of curriculum planning, development, implementation, supervision, evaluation among others. This concept paper delves on curriculum theory: Its definition, development, functions and characteristics. The paper also explains categories of curriculum theories and theorists. The issues discussed in this paper can trigger research in theory development and inform educationists and teachers in theory development and research in curriculum.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Sociology
  • Consumer and Family Science
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved