Curriculum Landscapes and Trends

Curriculum Landscapes and Trends

by

Jan van den Akker

University of Twente, Faculty of Behavioral Sciences,
Enschede, The Netherlands

Wilmad Kuiper
University of Twente, Faculty of Behavioral Sciences,
Enschede, The Netherlands
and

Uwe Hameyer
University of Kiel,
Institute of Education, Germany

SPRINGER-SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN 978-90-481-6511-7 ISBN 978-94-017-1205-7 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-1205-7

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved

© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 2003
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2003
No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording
or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception
of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered
and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE vii

1. CURRICULUM PERSPECTIVES: AN INTRODUCTION 1

Jan van den Akker

2. CONTRASTING TRADITIONS: THE ENGLISH EXPERIENCE OF CURRICULUM

CHANGE 1960-2000 11
Bob Moon

3. IMAGES OF THE INQUIRY CURRICULUM: INNOVATIVE PROFILES OF PRIMARY

SCHOOLS IN GERMANY 29
Uwe Hameyer

4. CURRICULUM REFORM IN ISRAEL: THE POWER OF INDIVIDUALS AND OTHER

FORCES 45
Miriam Ben-Peretz

5. DUTCH SECONDARY CURRICULUM REFORM BETWEEN IDEALS AND

IMPLEMENTATION 61
Jan van den Akker

6. MATHEMATICS TEXTBOOKS AND THEIR USE BY TEACHERS: A WINDOW INTO

THE EDUCATION WORLD OF PARTICULAR COUNTRIES 73
Birgit Pepin & Linda Haggerty

7. IMPLICATIONS OF THE MODULAR CURRICULUM IN THE SENIOR SECONDARY

SCHOOL IN FINLAND 101
Jouni Välijärvi

8. EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT AN OPEN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

CURRICULUM 117
Karel Stokking
vi Table of contents

9. SUBSTANTIVE TRENDS IN CURRICULUM DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION:

AN ANALYSIS OF INNOVATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS 137
Jan Terwel, Monique Volman & Wim Wardekker

10. SOCIAL AND POLITICAL FACTORS IN THE PROCESS OF CURRICULUM CHANGE 157
Jos Letschert & Joseph Kessels

11. CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT FROM A TECHNICAL-PROFESSIONAL PERSPECTIVE 177

Wilmad Kuiper, Nienke Nieveen & Irene Visscher-Voerman

12. ICT TOOLS FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 199

Susan McKenney & Nienke Nieveen

13. CONSEQUENCES OF ICT FOR AIMS, CONTENTS, PROCESSES, AND

ENVIRONMENTS OF LEARNING 217
Joke Voogt

14. DIGITAL LEARNING MATERIALS: CLASSIFICATION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR

THE CURRICULUM 237
Ellen van den Berg, Peter Blijleven & Leanne Jansen

ABOUT THE AUTHORS 255

PREFACE

Curriculum problems are everywhere. That is, for the trained eye and educated mind
of alert observers. For them it is hardly possible to read a newspaper without
discovering curricular elements. The media often report about educational reforms
(mostly in critical terms: another failure…) or even about curriculum wars where
opposing parties fiercely debate about the aims, content and organization of learning.
Few people tend to analyze these trends and discussions from a curricular conceptual
framework. That might be caused by the elusive nature of the concept of curriculum,
since there is little agreement about the definition and components of a curriculum,
perhaps besides the basic notion that curriculum refers to a plan of learning. It is not
our intention to tackle, let alone to solve, all those conceptual issues in this book.
However, we do feel that a more conscious and systemic curriculum perspective is
helpful in coming to grips with many problematic issues in education. Therefore, it is
the general purpose of this book to sharpen the eyes and minds of a broader audience
in identifying, understanding, addressing and reflecting upon curriculum problems.

The book starts with an introductory chapter that outlines a number of central
curriculum concepts and analytical perspectives on curriculum problems. Afterwards,
four chapters (2-5) offer reflective accounts of recent nation-wide curriculum reform
efforts in four different countries. Together, they constitute an illustrative variety of
curricular landscapes. The remaining part of the book consists of chapters (6-14) that
address various curriculum trends and innovations of a more specific nature.

Altogether, the chapters illustrate an interesting combination of three well-known

perspectives on curriculum problems: focusing on substantive matters (what to learn
and why?), technical-professional issues (how to develop?), and/or socio-political
aspects of curriculum decision-making. Moreover, they represent in varying degrees
the helicopter view that is characteristic for comprehensive curriculum analysis, paying
attention to both the 'roots' (origins, basic motives, initiative, foundational tenets) as
well as the 'fruits' (results, outcomes, impact) of the curriculum in various contexts. A
related common distinction, often made in curriculum studies, refers to the intended,
implemented and attained curriculum. Traces of these different concepts (introduced
in the first chapter) can be found throughout the book.
vii
J. van den Akker et al. (eds.), Curriculum Landscapes and Trends, vii–viii.
© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
viii Preface

The origin of the chapters varies. Many of them were initially contributions to
various conferences, especially for ECUNET, the European Curriculum Research
Network. Originally founded as an independent researchers’ network about a decade
ago, it has been incorporated as one of the very of first networks within EERA, the
European Educational Research Association. All three editors have made active
contributions to the start and continuation of that network. This ECUNET roots also
imply that the book has a strong European flavor, although not all chapters originate
from that network. After selection and adaptation of previous ECUNET papers for
this book, also some authors have been invited to adapt recent curriculum papers
presented at other conferences (like AERA, the American Educational Research
Association) or the Dutch Educational Research Association (VOR) for inclusion in
this volume.

Although people sometimes think that their curriculum approaches and problems
are rather unique and context-specific, numerous international experiences (via
conferences and international collaborative research projects) have convinced us that
we can learn a lot from curriculum issues elsewhere. We do hope that this book will
contribute to more exchange, discussion and reflection on all those curriculum
problems that are so central to learning worldwide.

Last but not least, we like to thank Sandra Schele for her much appreciated
assistance with the layout of the book.

June 2003
Jan van den Akker
Wilmad Kuiper
Uwe Hameyer
1 CURRICULUM PERSPECTIVES:
AN INTRODUCTION

JAN VAN DEN AKKER

University of Twente
The Netherlands

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The primary aim of this introductory chapter is to outline some basic notions on curriculum
and curriculum development. It is certainly not my aspiration to offer a comprehensive
overview and analysis of the scholarly field of curriculum theory. For that purpose a
number of thorough, extensive books are available, for example The Handbook of Research
on Curriculum (Jackson, 1992a) or, more recently, Curriculum Books, The First Hundred
Years (Schubert, Lopez Schubert, Thomas & Carroll, 2002). Nor is it my intention to
provide a synoptic guide for the study of curriculum. For that purpose many valuable books
have been published, for example Fundamentals of Curriculum (Walker, 1990, 2003) and
Curriculum: Alternative Approaches and Ongoing Concerns (Marsh & Willis, 2003), to
name two of my favorites.
Both Walker (1980) and Jackson (1992b) have pointed to the confusion that can easily
arise when trying to absorb and interpret the vast literature on curriculum theory. Actual
involvement in practical tasks of curriculum development and change can also be rather
confusing. The increasing attention to international aspects of curriculum development and
debate (see, for example, Pinar, 2003) complicates the domain even more. Although these
various perspectives may be enriching in several respects, they make conceptual clarity and
understanding difficult to obtain.
Within the various possible emphases, my own view on the field of curriculum is
essentially as a practical endeavour "whose central professional task is that of giving
professional advice to practitioners as they try to improve the curriculum" (Jackson, 1992b;
see also Walker, 2003, for a comparable view). Given this orientation, I have learned over
the years that it helps to have a number of basic concepts and analytical perspectives
available that can structure curricular deliberations and reduce the complexity of the
1
J. van den Akker et al. (eds.), Curriculum Landscapes and Trends, 1–10.
© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Jan van den Akker 2

curriculum tasks at hand. Thus my main focus in this chapter is on summarizing a set of
concepts and perspectives that, in the experience of students, colleagues and myself, has
helped to increase the transparency and balance of curriculum analysis, development and
discourse.

1.2 DEFINITION AND LEVELS OF CURRICULUM

When there is a myriad of definitions of a concept in the literature (as with curriculum), it is
often difficult to keep a clear focus on its essence. In those cases it often helps to search for
the etymological origin of the concept. The Latin word 'curriculum' refers to a 'course' or
'track' to be followed. In the context of education, where learning is the central activity, the
most obvious interpretation of the word curriculum is then to view it as a course or 'plan for
learning' (cf. Taba, 1962). This very short definition (reflected in related terms in many
languages) limits itself to the core of all other definitions, permitting all sorts of
elaborations for specific educational levels, contexts, and representations.
Given this simple definition, a differentiation between various levels of the curriculum
has proven to be very useful when talking about curricular activities (policy-making; design
and development; evaluation and implementation). The next distinction appears to be
helpful:
ƒ system/society/nation/state (or macro) level
ƒ school/institution (or meso) level
ƒ classroom (or micro) level
ƒ individual/personal (or nano) level.
(In educational systems with a prominent role for districts that are responsible for a large
number of schools, one might see a mixture of macro and meso aspects.)

Curriculum development at the system level is usually of a 'generic' nature, while 'site-
specific' approaches are more applicable for the remaining levels. Moreover, the process of
curriculum development can be seen as narrow (developing a curricular product) or broad
(comprehensive and ongoing improvement). In order to understand problems of curriculum
decision-making and enactment, a broader description is often most appropriate: usually a
long and cyclic process with many stakeholders and participants; in which motives and
needs for changing the curriculum are formulated; ideas are specified in programs and
materials; and efforts are made to realize the intended changes in practice.
3 Curriculum perspectives: An introduction

1.3 DIFFERENT CURRICULUM REPRESENTATIONS AND ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES

Curricula can be represented in various forms. Clarification of those forms is especially

useful when trying to understand the problematic efforts to change the curriculum.
A common broad distinction is between the three levels of the 'intended', 'implemented',
and 'attained' curriculum. A more refined typology is outlined in box I.

Box 1. Typology of curriculum representations

INTENDED Ideal Vision (rationale or basic philosophy
underlying a curriculum)
Formal/Written Intentions as specified in curriculum
documents and/or materials
IMPLEMENTED Perceived Curriculum as interpreted by its users
(especially teachers)
Operational Actual process of teaching and learning
(also: curriculum-in-action)
ATTAINED Experiential Learning experiences as perceived by
learners
Learned Resulting learning outcomes of learners

Besides this differentiation in representations, curriculum problems can be approached

from various analytical angles. For example, Goodlad (1994) distinguishes the following
three different perspectives:
ƒ substantive, focusing on the classical curriculum question about what knowledge is of
most worth for inclusion in teaching and learning;
ƒ technical-professional, referring to how to address tasks of curriculum development;
ƒ socio-political, referring to curriculum decision-making processes, where values and
interests of different individual and agencies are at stake.
Some might argue that this list is too limited as it refers especially to curriculum issues
for 'traditional' planning for learning in schools, and does not include the more 'critical'
perspectives that are amply present in curriculum theory literature (e.g. Pinar, Reynolds,
Slattery & Taubman, 1995). However, from a primary interest in curriculum improvement,
the three perspectives seem useful and appropriate.
Jan van den Akker 4

1.4 THE VULNERABLE CURRICULUM SPIDERWEB

One of the major challenges for curriculum improvement is creating balance and
consistency between the various components of a curriculum (i.e. plan for learning). What
are those components? The relatively simple curriculum definition by Walker (1990)
includes three major planning elements: content, purpose and organization of learning.
However, curriculum design and implementation problems have taught us that it is wise to
pay explicit attention to a more elaborated list of components. Elaborating on various
typologies of, for example, Eash (1991) and Klein (1991), we have come to adhere to a
cadre (see Box 2) of ten components that address ten specific questions about the planning
of student learning.

Box 2. Curriculum components

Rationale Why are they learning?
Aims & Objectves Toward which goals are they learning?
Content What are they learning?
Learning activities How are they learning?
Teacher role How is the teacher facilitating learning?
Materials & Resources With what are they learning?
Grouping With whom are they learning?
Location Where are they learning?
Time When are they learning?
Assessment How far has learning progressed?

The 'rationale' (referring to overall principles or central mission of the plan) serves as
major orientation point, and the nine other components are ideally linked to that rationale
and preferably also consistent with each other. For each of the components many sub-
questions are possible. Not only on substantive issues (see the next section), but, for
example, also on 'organizational' aspects as:
ƒ Grouping:
- How are students allocated to various learning trajectories?
- Are students learning individually, in small groups, or whole-class?
ƒ Location:
- Are students learning in class, in the library, at home, or elsewhere?
- What are the social/physical characteristics of the learning environment?
5 Curriculum perspectives: An introduction

ƒ Time:
- How much time is available for various subject matter domains?
- How much time can be spent on specific learning tasks?

The relevance of these components varies across the previously mentioned curriculum
levels (macro, meso, micro, nano) and representations. A few examples may illustrate this.
ƒ Curriculum documents at the macro-level will usually focus on the first three
components (rationale, aims & objectives, content; often in rather broad terms),
sometimes accompanied by an outline of time allocations for various subject matter
domains.
ƒ When one takes the operational curriculum in schools and classrooms in mind, all ten
components have to be coherently addressed to expect successful implementation and
continuation.
ƒ The components of learning activities, teacher role, and materials & resources are at the
core of the micro-curriculum.
ƒ The component of assessment deserves separate attention at all levels and
representations since careful alignment between assessment and the rest of the
curriculum appears to be critical for successful curriculum change.

Our preferential visualization of the ten components is to arrange them as a spider web
(Figure 1), not only illustrating its many interconnections, but also underlining its
vulnerability. Thus, although the emphasis of curriculum design on specific components
may vary over time, eventually some kind of alignment has to occur to maintain coherence.
A striking example is the trend toward integration of ICT in the curriculum, with usually
initial attention to changes in materials and resources. Many implementation studies have
exemplified the need for a more comprehensive approach and systematic attention to the
other components before one can expect robust changes.
The spider web also illustrates a familiar expression: every chain is as strong as its
weakest link. That seems another very appropriate metaphor for a curriculum, pointing to
the complexity of efforts to improve the curriculum in a balanced, consistent and
sustainable manner.
Jan van den Akker 6

ent
sm
Time

ses
As
ion
ocat
L

Rationale
Grouping Con
te nt
M
Teacher ro

at
er
ia
ls
&
Re
so
le

rc u
s e

Figure 1. Curricular spider web

1.5 PERSPECTIVES ON SUBSTANTIVE CHOICES

A classic approach to the eternal curriculum question of what to include in the curriculum
(or even more difficult as well as urgent: what to exclude from it) is to search for a balance
between three major sources or orientations for selection and priority setting:
ƒ Knowledge: what is the academic and cultural heritage that seems essential for learning
and future development?
ƒ Society: which problems and issues seem relevant for inclusion from the perspective of
societal trends and needs?
ƒ Learner: which elements seem of vital importance for learning from the personal and
educational needs and interests of the learners themselves?
7 Curriculum perspectives: An introduction

Answers to these questions usually constitute the rationale of a curriculum. Inevitably,

choices have to be made, usually involving compromises between the various orientations
(and their respective proponents and pressure groups). Oftentimes, efforts fail to arrive at
generally acceptable, clear and practical solutions. The result of adding up all kinds of
wishes is that curricula tend to get overloaded and fragmented. Implementation of such
incoherent curricula eventually tends to lead to student frustrations, failure, and dropout.
How to create a better curriculum balance? Easy answers are not available, but a few
alternatives seem to have some promise. First, in view of the multitude of (academic)
knowledge claims, it sometimes helps to reduce the big number of separate subject domains
to a more limited number of broader learning areas, combined with sharper priorities in
aims for learning (focusing on basic concepts and skills).
Second, referring to the avalanche of societal claims, more interaction between learning
inside and outside the school may reduce the burden. However, the most effective response
is probably to be more selective in reacting to all sorts of societal problems. As Cuban
(1992) phrased it clearly: schools should not feel obliged to scratch the back of society
every time society has an itch.
And third, about the learners' perspective: worldwide, many interesting efforts are
ongoing to make learning more challenging and intrinsically motivating by moving from
traditional, teacher- and textbook-dominated instruction towards more meaningful, activity-
based and autonomous learning approaches.

1.6 DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES

To sketch curriculum development as a problematic domain is actually an understatement.

From a socio-political stance, it seems often more appropriate to describe it as a war zone,
full of conflicts and battlefields between stakeholders with different values and interests.
Problems manifest themselves in the (sometimes spectacular and persistent) gaps between
the intended curriculum (as expressed in policy rhetoric), the implemented curriculum (real
life in school and classroom practices), and the attained curriculum (as manifested in
learner experiences and outcomes). See, for example, van den Akker (1998) about such
gaps in the science curriculum. A typical consequence of those tensions is that various
frustrated groups of participants blame each other for the failure of reform or improvement
activities. Although such blaming games often seem rather unproductive, there are some
serious critical remarks to be made on many curriculum development approaches
worldwide. First of all, many curriculum reform efforts are characterized by overly big
innovation ambitions (especially of politicians) within unrealistically short timelines and
Jan van den Akker 8

with very limited investment in people, especially teachers. Second, oftentimes there is a
lack of coherence between the intended curriculum changes with other system components
(especially teacher education and assessment/examination programs). And last but not least,
timely and authentic involvement of all relevant stakeholders is often neglected.

From a strategic point of view, the literature has offered us many (technical-professional)
models and strategies for curriculum development. Three prominent approaches are Tyler's
rational-linear approach, Walker's deliberative approach, and Eisner's artistic approach. As it
does not fit with the purpose of this chapter to explain those models in particular, the reader
is referred to educative texts as from Marsh and Willis (2003).
Obviously, the context and nature of the curriculum development task at hand will
determine to a large extent what kind of strategy is indicated. It is noteworthy that we are
beginning to see more blended approaches that integrate various trends and characteristics
of recent design and development approaches in the field of education and training (for an
overview and a series of examples: see van den Akker, Branch, Gustafson, Nieveen &
Plomp, 1999). Some key characteristics:
ƒ Pragmatism: Recognition that there is not a single perspective, overarching rationale or
higher authority that can resolve all dilemmas for curriculum choices to be made. The
practical context and its users are in the forefront of curriculum design and enactment.
ƒ Prototyping: Evolutionary prototyping of curricular products and their subsequent
representations in practice is viewed as more productive than quasi-rational and linear
development approaches. Gradual, iterative approximation of curricular dreams into
realities may prevent paralysis and frustrations. Formative evaluation of tentative,
subsequent curriculum versions is essential to such curriculum improvement approaches.
ƒ Communication: A communicative-relational style is desirable in order to arrive at the
inevitable compromises between stakeholders with various roles and interests and to
create external consistency between all parties involved.
ƒ Professional development: In order to improve chances on successful implementation,
there is a trend towards more integration of curriculum change and professional learning
and development of all individuals and organizations involved.
A promising approach that incorporates some of these characteristics, and adds the
element of knowledge growth to it, is development(al) research (van den Akker, 1999,
2002). Such research can strengthen the knowledge base in the form of design principles
that offer heuristic advice to curriculum development teams, when (more than in common
development practices) deliberate attention is paid to theoretical embedding of design
issues and empirical evidence is offered about the practicality and effectiveness of the
curricular interventions in real user settings.
9 Curriculum perspectives: An introduction

However, there are several persistent dilemmas for curriculum development that can not
easily be resolved, let alone through generic strategies. For example: how to combine
aspirations for large-scale curriculum change and system accountability with the need for
local variations and ownership? The tension between these conflicting wishes can be
somewhat reduced when one avoids the all too common 'one size fits all' approach. More
adaptive and flexible strategies will avoid detailed elaboration and over-specification of
central curriculum frameworks. In-stead, they offer substantial options and flexibility to
schools, teachers, and learners. Although struggles about priorities in aims and content will
remain inevitable, the principle of 'less is more' should be pursued. However, what is
incorporated in a core curriculum should be clearly reflected in examination and assessment
approaches.
The 'enactment' perspective (teachers and learners together create their own curriculum
realities) is increasingly replacing the 'fidelity' perspective on implementation (teachers
faithfully follow curricular prescriptions from external sources). That trend puts even more
emphasis on teachers as key people in curriculum change. Both individual as well as team
learning is essential (Fullan, 2001). Teachers need to get out of their customary isolation.
Collaborative design and piloting of curricular alternatives can be very productive,
especially when experiences are exchanged and reflected upon in a structured curriculum
discourse. Interaction with external facilitators can contribute to careful explorations of the
'zone of proximal development' of teachers and their schools. Cross-fertilization between
curriculum, teacher, and school development is a conditio sine qua non for effective and
sustainable curriculum improvement. The increasingly popular mission statements of
schools to become attractive and inspiring environments for students and teachers can only
be realized when such integrated scenarios are practised.

REFERENCES

Cuban, L. (1992). Curriculum stability and change. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of

research on curriculum (pp. 216-247). New York: Macmillan.
Eash, M. (1991). Curriculum components. In A. Lewy (Ed.), The international
encyclopedia of curriculum (pp. 71-73). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Goodlad, J. & Associates (1979). Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goodlad, J. (1994). Curriculum as a field of study. In T. Husén, & T. Postlethwaite (Eds.),
The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 1262-1276). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Jan van den Akker 10

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Jackson, P. (Ed.) (1992a). Handbook of research on curriculum. New York: Macmillan.
Jackson, P. (Ed.) (1992b). Conceptions of curriculum and curriculum specialists. In P.
Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 3-40). New York: Macmillan.
Klein, F. (1991). The politics of curriculum decision making: Issues in centralizing the
curriculum. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Marsh, C., & Willis, P. (2003). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues (third
edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/PrenticeHall.
Pinar, W. (Ed.). (2003). International handbook of curriculum research. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pinar, W., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. (1995). Understanding curriculum.
An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses.
New York: Peter Lang.
Schubert, W., Lopez Schubert, A., Thomas, T., & Carroll, W. (2002). Curriculum books:
The first hundred years. New York: Peter Lang
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt,
Brace & World.
van den Akker, J. (1998). The science curriculum: Between ideals and outcomes. In B.
Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.) International handbook of science education (pp. 421-447).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. van den
Akker et al. (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 1-14).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
van den Akker, J. (2002). The potential of development research for improving the relation
between curriculum research and development. In M. Rosenmund, A. Fries, & W.
Heller (Eds.), Comparing curriculum making processes (pp. 37-53). Bern: Peter Lang.
van den Akker, J., Branch, R., Gustafson, K., Nieveen, N. & Plomp, T. (Eds.) (1999). Design
approaches and tools in education and training. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Walker, D. (1980). Fundamentals of curriculum. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Walker, D. (2003). Fundamentals of curriculum: Passion and professionalism. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2 CONTRASTING TRADITIONS:
THE ENGLISH EXPERIENCE OF CURRICULUM
CHANGE 1960–20001

BOB MOON

The Open University – Milton Keynes

United Kingdom

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The school curriculum has been the focus of educational and political debate in England2
for many decades. The reformist years of the 1970s, the sense of retrenchment, even
disappointment, in the 1970s, and the period of government intervention in the 1980s and
1990s, have given a particular flavour and emotion to the forms these debates have taken. It
is a fascinating period, vividly illustrating the complex interplay of social, political and
economic forces and movements that shape contemporary ideas about schooling and the
forms and processes through which curriculum can be understood. In this chapter I want to
suggest that over this period two interrelated but distinct approaches to curriculum reform
have evolved. The first, I suggest, grew out of the Nuffield tradition and has evolved into
that broad church of social constructivist thinking that has been so influential in the
curricular domains of science, mathematics and technology. This tradition I see as focussed
on pupil learning. The second approach, I suggest, has origins in the work of the Humanities
Curriculum Project (HCP) and has evolved into the equally wide ranging concerns for
action research and reflective practice in curriculum development. This tradition I see as
focussed on teacher development. The need to find ways of providing a more grounded
articulation between these strands of thought and action, whilst acknowledging a wider and
legitimate public interest, represents, as I set out in the conclusion, a major challenge for
curriculum specialists.

In addressing this issue I am not seeking to give a wide ranging account of political
politics during this time. There is now a rich vein of literature in this field (Chitty, 1988;
11
J. van den Akker et al. (eds.), Curriculum Landscapes and Trends, 11–27.
© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bob Moon 12

Moon, 1989, 1990; Moon & Murphy, 1999; Quick, 1988; Whitty, 1989). I have sought to
identify a number of phases through which the study and practice of curriculum has evolved
to present a narrative that underpins the thesis presented. Overall I am suggesting that,
despite the centralist and legislative interventions in the control of the curriculum, the
developmental traditions of Nuffield and HCP still represent an important basis for
curriculum action. And I suggest that the emergence of new forms of teaching and learning,
particularly those linked to new interactive technologies, is opening up a new phase of
curriculum regeneration.

2.2 PROJECT DECADE

It is very easy today to look back with a degree of nostalgia to the 1960s and early 1970s
phase of curriculum development. There are some good reasons for doing so. In England,
comfortable as we are with the term curriculum, it had, prior to that, little significance.
Subjects, and for the primary school methods, yes, but curriculum, no. The curriculum
developers of the period created an excitement around the concept, a predisposition towards
change and development that has helped redefine the role of the teacher and the purposes of
the school in relation to curriculum. Lawrence Stenhouse's maxim there 'can be no
curriculum development without teacher development' (Stenhouse, 1980) has become part
of the accepted wisdom of the day.

A great deal has been written about the project decade. The attempt to apply an R&D
American-inspired model of curriculum renewal (almost wholly through materials
development) we can now acknowledge as theoretically and methodologically flawed. In
England the Schools Council invested millions of pounds in projects that, at the time, and
today, appear to have little impact and take up (Broadfoot, 1980; Steadman et al., 1980).
This evaluation, however, does little to acknowledge the impact on ideas within that period
and the way these influenced subsequent thinking amongst curriculum developers. The
evaluation is also faulty in pointing to USA-style R&D as the prime mover in this first
institutionalized phase of curriculum development. The quest to modernize and reform the
school curriculum was also strong in Europe, directed particularly by reforming academics
within the University community. The energy of Jean Dieudonne's plea to the famous
Royaumont Conference of 1959, 'Euclid Must Go', set a tone, and responded to a mood that
would echo worldwide through the coming decade (Moon, 1986).
13 Contrasting traditions

The advent of the 'curriculum developer' role in this period went with the grain of
democratization that was sweeping the English school system. Despite fierce national and
local controversies, secondary schools were being made comprehensive in intake. Primary
schools were being unleashed from the shackles of an invidious selection of examination
systems for eleven-year-olds and, although for many at the time it was difficult to observe,
there was an economic buoyancy that encouraged reform, change and modernization. We,
perhaps, underestimate these intellectual moods, clusters of influences that incorporate the
wider social political perspectives, the French term mentalités. These represent a set of
ideas, specific to a certain time and place, which impose their own patterns on assumptions
and expectations. In looking at events, therefore, we need, as Marc Bloch (1954) suggested,
to think that historical facts are, in essence, psychological facts with their antecedents in
other psychological facts. I believe the opening up of a gulf between the mentalités of
curriculum specialists and the wider public to be one of the major concerns we have to
address today.

In this first period of development, however, the public purse happily funded a plethora
of projects. And the curriculum texts of the period were able to suggest that:

it is becoming manifest that the projects for curriculum renewal which have
been introduced during the last five years … are not passing phenomena but
indicate what will become the accepted pattern for building a new
curriculum.
(Kerr, 1968, pp. 33-44)

Many, as indicated, have sunk without trace, but two lines of development came to be
established. Each has had an important influence on curriculum policy studies. The limited
analyses between the two, however, in terms of the formulation of theory or establishing
research agendas, has been one of the omissions in the period being considered.

The first, chronologically, was the reform of science teaching, instigated through the
Nuffield Foundation and latterly the Schools Council (Banks, 1968). This introduced
modernized curriculum content through investigational, practical methods. It was important
because, perhaps implicitly, it recognized the crucial relationship between curriculum and
learning, curriculum and pedagogy, a major issue to which I will return. The Nuffield
developers were firmly rooted in and legitimized by subject traditions and subject
associations and, within their sphere of influence, established an important foundation for
the future.