The contribution of theory

King and Brownell (1966) argue that theory contributes to planning curriculum in four main ways:

1. It promotes the systematic ordering of information, thereby providing a framework for

distinguishing between cause and effect, or between the important and the trivial.
2. It assist understanding by promoting the clear statement of assumptions.
3. It demand clear criteria for determining significance.
4. It allows for further generalization.

These benefit of theory can be recognized in each of the foundation studies of education the
philosophy of education, the psychology of education and sociology of education. Curricula rely
heavily on those three disciplines, which is a prime reason for their inclusion in teacher training
courses.

The usual claim for bringing these discipline into curriculum development in the help they give
teachers in specifying objectives and planning learning experiences. Philosophy, psychology and
sociology provide knowledge which aids the teacher in determining objectives, specifically in three
main areas:

1. The growth, needs, interests and readiness of students (psychology)

2. The social conditions already experienced or likely to be experienced (sociology); and
3. The nature of knowledge and teaching (philosophy).

Any final statement of objectives should be consistent with the accepted educational principles of
these three disciplines. But the disciplines contribute more to curriculum planning than simply
providing a basis for statement of objectives. The disciplines inform the development of curriculum
at all stages of planning.

These disciplines are not clear-cut bodies of knowledge. For instance, there is no clear boundary
between sociology and social psychology and no definite border between sociology and social
anthropology. But, despite the close relationship of these disciplines, they each have a different
orientation which justifies separate treatment in this chapter.

It is important that all three disciplines provide a basis for curriculum. The use of one or two only is
an insufficient base. King and Brownell (1966) warn not only of the dangers of an over-reliance on
the foundation studies, but also of the distorsion which may result from an excessive emphasis on
ane of the disciplines.

Although aware of the oversimplified nature of his diagram, Lawton (1978) illustrated his
interpretation of the function of the three disciplines in curriculum planning as show in exhibit 4-1.
Several points can be made to clarify the steps illustrated.

1. All teachers have opinions about the nature of knowledge and about what is worthwhile,
however elementary these opinion may be (box 1)
2. Teachers considerthese opinions in relation to he nature of society (box 2)
3. Consideration of the realationship between the philosophical and sociological factors
enables teachers to make a selection for the curriculum. (box 3)
4. This selection is then modified in the light of information from psychology. (box 4)
5. The curriculum is thus developed in a process informed by the three disciplines (box 5)
The contribution of each discipline will now be considered in turn. Additional information can be
found in Smith and Lovat (1990), who provide a usevful examination of the evolution of schools of
thought within psychology, and their implications fo curriculum.

The Contribution of Phylosophy

Hirst (1968, 39) defines the function of phylosophy as being concerned with clarification of concepts
and propositions in which our experience and activities are inteligible. It is concerned, then, with
the meaning of term. Peters (1966) describes a similar purpose for phylosophy: it is concerned with
answering the question what do you mean? and how do you know? Phenix (1964) makes a
distinction between philosophy and the other disciplines by climing that whereas other express
meaning of various kinds, the function of philosophy is the interpretation of meaning, or the
meaning of meaning.

Both Peters (1966) and Pring (1978) believe that there are three main philosophical concerns in
education: epistemology, ethics and philosophy of mind.

The nature of knowledge (epistemology) The very concept of education implies knowlede and
understanding, and philosophy helps to clarify what these term mean. For instance, it is generally
understood that knowledge comparises more than fact. It also includes knowing how to do things.
Such a distinction between knowing that and knowing how is a lead- in to an area of philosophical
debate about the relationship between practical and theoritical knowledge . Exhibit 4-2 lists
questions which are typically the concern of philosophers in this area.

Exhibit 4-2 some concerns of epistemology

What is the difference between knowledge and belief?

What is the different betwween knowing thwt and knowing how?
Are there different kind of knowing that ?
Are there any distinction forms of knowledge?
Are school subject related to the form of knowledge?
What is an educated person?
What is the difference between education and training?

The value of knowledge (ethics) Question of value underlie the concept of education. For example,
some would hold the view that if one person is more educated than another, this implies that he or
she is more worthwhile. The most basic questions involve the issue of whether any knowledge is
whorthwhile and and whether some forms of knowledge are more valuable than other. The latter
issue has been the subject of most of the philosophical debate in the area of ethics.

The nature of mental qualities (philisophy of mind) Whereas epistemology is concerned with what is
menat by education. It is also necessary to understans the similarities an differences between the
processes involved in thinking, training, learning by experience, imitation,believing, wanting, etc.
One major area of investigation is the study of the difference between the logical and
physichological aspects of learning. The work of the psycologists Piaget and bruner is particularly
relevant to this.

Philosophers in this area are often critical of assumption made by psychologist about the nature of
mind. For instance, behaviorism is sometimes attacked for only taking account of what can be
observed.
Apart from the three main philosophical concerns just discussed, there ate other, more specific,
concern in which philosophy can also contribute to an understanding of curriculum. Each of these
relates one or more of the three broad area already mentioned.

The nature of aims and objectives Philosophy contributes to curriculum planning by giving insight
into nature of objectives. Various taxonomies have given rises to categories of objctives, the most
familiar being being the distinction betwween the cogitive aand effective areas. But teacher need to
know what is meant by knowing facs or solving problems.

The clarify of term The contributions of philosophy already mentioned suggest that philosophy is
concerned with clarifying terms. Every day teachers use educational language to make judgement
about students and the curriculum. Teachers need to use such language in a self-consciously precise
way in order to avoid theoretical and practical error of judgement.

The priority among objectives When formulating objectives, teachers often find that they have long
list of worthwhile objectives from which a selection has to be made. Sometimes, some objectives are
inconsistent with other, so a smaller number of consistent and more important objectives need to
be selected. This need to screen the heterogeneous collection of objecives to eliminate the
unimportant and contradictory ones is Tylers (1949) first proposal for selection objectives by using
philosophical consideration. For Tyler, the ducational and social phiosophy of the school is the basis
of the screening, but whatever screen is employed, teacher is will be involved in making value
judgements about the worthiness of objectives, and philosophy contributes to clarifying these
judgement.

The interrelatedness of objectives. Philosophy assist in explaining how objectives are often closely
related to each other and why they cannot be considered in isolation. For instance , moral
development is related to intellectual development; social development involves both knowledge
and values; and a knowledge of fact depends on an understanding of the relevant concepts. Hirst
(1968) indicates that some objectives are unattainable if consideration is not given to others which
logically precede them.

The curriculum actives. Althought inquiry into the nature of learning experiences is often the
province of pyschology , philosipher assist by proposing the conditions appropriate to archieving
objectives. This is done either by analysing the learning experiences that are considered to be
essential in order to determine the objectives of teaching or by analysing the objectives to
determine if the suggested learning experiences are appropriate.

The curriculum structure . Philosophy assists teachers in determining the form of curriculum
organisation most appropriate to the school. Certainn subject and topic areas within ubjects, have to
be selected, and philosophy help the curriculum planner to ensure consistency between the selected
parts.

The nature of a good life. For tyler (1949), philosophy should, in its task screening objectives, seek
to define the nature of a good life and good society. Once the values deemed essential to a
satisfying and effectives life have been identified, objectives consistent with these concepts can be
formulted.

The function of school . Tyler sees a further function of philosophy is defining the issue of wheter the
school should be a mirror of society of wheter it should be an agent of social change. The general
philophy of the school affects the selection of educational objectives in this area.
The contribution of psychology

The purpose of psychology is to study human behavior. Taylor (1968, p 79) adds that psychology is
about desribing it, explaining it, predicting it, and of course, discovering more about it. Psychology
and philosophy contribute both information and their own method of inquiry to the examination of
curriculum studies as two fold:

It provides infomation and concepts that insist curriculum planning

It employes method of investigation which can be used generally in education

The list of area in which psychology inform curriculum planning is virtually endless. Two books which
provide a valuable general overview are those of Woolfolk (1990) and Stavin (1988). The following is
a guide to the most frequently acknowledge areas in which psycology contributes tu curriculum
development.

The nature of students. Although philosophy contibutes by probing the nature people, psychology
contributes by examining how students reach in classroom and by giving us a model to which to
relate observations. Taylor (1968, p 80) characteristics student as animate, self-aware, purposive,
cretive and developing, capable of feelings, thoughts and establishing relationship but argues that
has been brought about by psychological investagation. Obviously, the way students are regarded
influences curriculum planning at every stage.

The process of thought. It has been mentioned above that this area of knowledge is a concern of
philosophy, but, as Ing (1978) claims, studies of learning, thinking and percieving imply what it is to
know. It is therefore essential to have some insight into how students select and process
information. The two theorists who have done most illuminate the processes of students thought
are Piaget and Bruner.

The selection of learning experiences. Some writer claims that psychology makes its greaters
contribution in this area. This is because the final selection of learning experiences is presumably
based on a consideration of many other psychological factors. The teacher should already have
considered: theories of learning, theories of cognitive and affective development, the individual
differences of students in ability, maturation and readiness, personality, motivation, group
dynamics, and teaching style and method.

Learning theory. An assumption about the way in which students learn is central to curriculum
planning. There are many different learning theorist, but adherence to a particular learning theory
may help a teacher determine what method to select in curriculum planning and what assessment
procedures to adopt.

Tyler (1949) claims that one of the most important psychological finding for the curriculum maker is
the discovery that most learning involves multiple outcomes .