Whatever Happened to the Curriculum Field? |
|
|
An invited, keynote session for Division B Wed, Apr 13 - 8:15am - 9:45am Hilton Montreal Bonaventure / Le Salon Verriere With Michael Apple, Barry Franklin, Beverly Gordon, Janet L. Miller, and Reba Page |
|
|
SPEECH: Curriculum and the Cimbasso By Craig Kridel, University of South Carolina When Barry first contacted me about this session, I was delighted to take part. I assumed the question, “Whatever happened to the curriculum field?”, was merely rhetorical and I could actually talk about my current interest, the cimbasso and its unacknowledged role in early 19 th century symphonic literature. But as I thought further, I concluded that this instrument has little connection to the field of curriculum even though I have attended other conference presentations of similar relevance. I realized I couldn't even use the cimbasso as a metaphor—any association was questionable at best. So - - - I won't be talking about the cimbasso. (1) One's interests does not a field make. ***** My opening comments, albeit odd, are not meant to be sarcastic. I am quite grateful for having been part of a very exciting time in the field of education, the mid 1970s through mid 1990s, when curriculum studies, and specifically curriculum theory, enjoyed a remarkable period of intellectual adventure. Its leaders represented an avant-garde in educational studies where “middle-range theorizing”—exploratory theory coupled with thoughtful, reflective practice—took form in many ways, as conventional curriculum development as well as more expansive notions of educational programming. It was a wonderful period as interests helped to determine research agendas and assisted in reconceiving a field. It is still an exciting time to be in curriculum studies. But the curriculum field cannot be constituted primarily from interests as the trend seems to have been in recent years. Interests are ever expanding, ever changing and, at times, self-indulgent. It's from a larger conception of needs that situates a field as has traditionally occurred in curriculum, and I use that term, needs, in a professional sense where normative expectations establish a “mutually defining interrelationship, a ‘transaction' between a group and their surroundings.” Needs, while also constantly changing, are balanced among three dimensions: the individual, social, and subject matter. This is to say that curriculum studies becomes defined by this equilibrium: individual needs—those arising from the individual members' wishes; social needs or practices stemming from expectations as defined by a societal perspective; and subject matter needs correlated to an internal configuration of knowledge. Curriculum Studies is staggering right now because there is little balance among these three dimensions. The emphasis is primarily upon individual needs—translated into a astonishing array of personal interests. For example: Curriculum studies offers the individual great flexibility in research methodology, rather substantial diversity for whatever ideological perspective one adopts (unless you admire Ralph Tyler), encouragement of personal narrative, and opportunities for self-expression as novelist, thespian, musician, or dancer (all modes well represented at curriculum conferences). And . . . this really is wonderful . Those who are familiar with my work know that I have reveled in this freedom. But what is missing is attention to curriculum's historic social needs as well as its subject matter/academic focus. If we designate the field of curriculum extant by 1937, the year Hollis Caswell established the first department at Teachers College, curriculum fulfilled a very important social need—developing/providing a distinctive interdisciplinary perspective for the field of education. Curriculum professors addressed issues that cut across the traditional fields of educational administration, tests & measurement, evaluation, instruction, foundations, and the separate subjects. This is even more evident from the work of the Progressive Education Association's Curriculum Associates during this same period who were engaged in school experimentation that blended theory and practice and served to bridge communities among elementary, middle, secondary, and post-secondary school educators. Curriculum people posed important questions for the various constituencies and discussed issues that would not have necessarily arisen during conversations among these separate communities. Textbooks composed for the field represent this integrative role: look not at Caswell & Campbell's 1935 synoptic but, instead, their collection of readings that was released in 1937. (2) There you find this wide assortment of topics spreading across the entire field of education. Curriculum studies at that time, as well as through 1980s, fulfilled those social needs of integrating professional knowledge among the subfields of education and providing some continuity among the levels of schooling. This interdisciplinary role is less prevalent and certainly more difficult with today's cultural fragmentation. But also, many curriculum scholars explore farther afield in more divergent, exotic lands. Further, there are other integrative subfields of education today also fulfilling such expectations. Here at AERA we have seen the formation of Division G, Social Context of Education, and of course, Division L, Educational Policy. Historic social needs, this specific role that the field of curriculum once fulfilled, seems no longer as important or even necessary (although Michael Apple has just stated other social needs of great importance). In terms of subject matter needs, the situation is even more complex. What should a curriculum person know, and what do other educators expect us to know? I'm not even broaching the subject of whether there is a canon in curriculum studies, fortunately for us—we know that's absurd. Yet, is there some loose assortment of core knowledge in the broadest sense—issues, questions, modes of inquiry? There is in other fields: tests & measurement, in instructional design, in educational administration. There was at one time in the field of general curriculum. And I don't mean “back in the good old days”—there never were any good old days. But there was a contested sense of core knowledge. Are there now expectations/needs arising from the traditional configuration of curriculum's subject matter? What am I getting at?? Is there, I dare say, expertise in curriculum studies? . . . . That is not a rhetorical question! Is there expertise in curriculum? No. Is expertise important? Yes, I think it is as long as expertise serves to invite rather than to exclude. Expertise defines and distinguishes but also brings people together to reflect, to reconsider, in somewhat more thoughtful ways and raises the level of discourse beyond continuing to introduce new ideas and interests. Sit with a group of Schubert or Berlioz musicologists. Franz Schubert, not Bill. Their discourse begins with analysis. The boundaries of their knowledge may be too well defined. But when they begin talking, they're ten steps ahead, and its exciting to try to catch up. (3) When curriculum studies continues to be defined primarily by individual needs, our discussions will too often remain hovering around mere comprehension. I'm uncertain how one goes about ascertaining expertise other than knowing that the quest begins with gathering information that inevitably leads to difficult if not volatile discussions of general education/specialized studies. Since I've talked to many professors about this topic, I sent out a questionnaire to participants in Division B's Graduate Student seminar, from its first year 1996 through 2004. I posed some specific and open ended questions pertaining to curriculum in relation to cultural studies, foundations of education, instruction, and asked about conceptions of the field. I didn't know what to expect, and wondered whether any generalities would emerge from the, I daresay, data . With a response rate of only 25%, I can say little (actually, nothing, statistically speaking) not that I would have made any grand pronouncements. In terms of what I received, there were few patterns but many thoughtful, sophisticated statements. I will mention that we have some marvelous, knowledgeable, kind people entering the field of curriculum studies. And what the questionnaire told me was that these individuals should be part of the conversation in a significant, structured way. So, over the course of the next few years, I will be working with the AAACS [American Association for the Advance of Curriculum Studies] and I hope with Division B to gather more information and to provide a public venue to discuss core knowledge and curriculum studies. ***** Whatever happened to the curriculum field? What should happen in curriculum? By all means the intellectual searching, the academic exploration into—far away lands as well as the other divisions of AERA—should continue. But I ask that we also attend to social needs: to recognize that there are societal expectations and that we do have responsibilities to others—entities, institutions, ideas. We chose to be in an applied social science—namely, education. Also, this amorphous conception of subject matter needs requires us to at least wonder about some semblance of expertise but, of course, to redefine this as commonplaces that integrates rather than excludes. If curriculum studies is to continue with vitality and significance, some attention must be redirected to synthesis, breadth, and commonality balanced with today's quests and explorations of individual interests. Fields of study evolve; take, for example, geography. Find a geographer who can still name the mountain ranges (I'm told a few can). And fields of study wither, as seen in home economics. The cultural fragmentation of modern day society is most difficult for a field that historically has served to integrate. But now is the time to correlate diversity with commonality and to forge a welcoming distinctiveness in curriculum studies.
|
|
|
Notes: 1 Craig Kridel, “Bass Horns and Russian Bassoons,” International Tuba & Euphonium Association Journal , Vol. 30, No. 4, Summer 2003, pp. 73-75. 2 Hollis L. Caswell and Doak S. Campbell, Curriculum Development (New York: American Book Company, 1935); Hollis Caswell and Doak Campbell, Readings in Curriculum Development (New York: American Book Company, 1937). 3 In some areas, expertise is much too rigid but still inviting: for symphony trombonists, it's the lick in Sibelius' 2 nd . “If you can tongue it, you get to sit at the table.” If not, there's a place waiting while you practice. |
|
|
Copyright 2000. Board of Trustees, the University
of South Carolina. Last modified Thursday, December 28, 2000 |
|