Topic 1A.2 Teaching - Making - A - Difference, - 4th - Edition - (PG - 204 - 235)

SUMMARY
At the end of a long school day, teacher discussions sometimes focus on how taxing it is to cater for all
students and develop more socially just outcomes and inclusive schools. From newly commenced and
experienced teachers alike, so often the immediate response is the return to the search for the ‘magic
bullet’. Comments such as ‘I don’t have the knowledge to work with this or that group of students’, ‘they
shouldn’t be here, there is a special school down the road’, ‘they need to learn more English’ and the
like are unfortunately too common. Supporting student diversity requires teachers to act ethically and
within the legal mandates of our nation and states. Above all, it means that you will continue to focus
on the development of your knowledge of curriculum, assessment and pedagogy, the building blocks of
high-quality, high-equity education. A key question for your ongoing self-assessment of your teaching
is: Do my efforts lead to learning in ‘conversation’ with others — students, families, support staff? Or is
my teaching ‘double speak’, that is deficit talk as an isolated professional where misdirection and blame
alienate students and teachers and undermine meaningful collaborations between professionals?
KEY TERMS
competitive academic curriculum A way of organising knowledge in the school curriculum that sees
students streamed into ability levels and subjects with status.
cooperative learning An approach to learning with origins in developmental psychology that
emphasises teacher involvement in setting goals, determining activities and evaluating student
achievements.
deficit discourses Language that reinforces the idea that its subjects are lacking in some respect.
deficit positioning Discourses, or talk by professionals, that define students, families and communities
as lacking in some respect and without agency.
exclusion A multidimensional process of progressive social rupture, detaching groups and individuals
from social relations and institutions, and preventing them from full participation in society.
hegemony The dominance or leadership of one group over others.
inclusion The child’s right to participate and the school’s duty to accept the child by restructuring
school culture, policy and practices.
inquiry learning Learning based around students’ questions; it incorporates a range of philosophical,
curricular and pedagogical approaches to teaching.
othering The practice of comparing oneself to others and at the same time distancing oneself
from them. The social and/or psychological ways in which one group excludes or marginalises
another group.
problem-based learning An approach to learning in which students work collaboratively to solve
challenging, open-ended, practical problems and reflect on their learning experiences.
psychology The science of the mind or of mental states and processes; the science of human behaviour.
school culture The sum of the values, cultures, safety practices and organisational structures within a
Copyright © 2018. Wiley. All rights reserved.
school that inform the policy and function of the school.

service learning A course-based educational experience in which students participate in an organised
activity that meets identified community needs, followed by reflection to gain further understanding of
course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility.
special education Services and practices in schools commonly associated with the provision and
coordination of support and individualised learning programs.
throughlines The overarching goals, big ideas or concepts of curriculum design that describe the most
important understandings that students will develop over time. Throughlines provide the ‘big picture’
for students to make generalisations between what is learned in school and beyond.
186 PART 2 Understanding learning and learners
Churchill, R. (2018). Teaching : Making a difference, 4th edition. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from acu on 2020-02-15 20:53:55.
FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE
5.1 LO1
What are your professional responsibilities to your students in terms of educational equity?
5.2 LO2
What are the dominating values and assumptions that have shaped Indigenous education in
Australia?
5.3 LO4
For the stage of schooling you expect to teach, describe three actions for designing a high-quality,
high-equity curriculum.
5.4 LO5
As a teacher, what steps could you take to build a positive learning environment that ensures all
students feel they are an active and contributing member of the classroom?
5.5 LO5
How will you design curriculum to improve your teaching and ensure you meet the needs of all
learners?
WEBSITES
1 Australian global educators place particular emphasis on developing relationships with our neigh-
bours in the Asia–Pacific and Indian Ocean regions. The Global Education website provides a con-
cise, practical and philosophical guide to including a global perspective across the curriculum. There
is also advice for teachers and school leadership teams on how to implement a global education
framework at a school level. The resources section is rich in pedagogical examples for taking into
the classroom: www.globaleducation.edu.au
2 The Alannah and Madeline Foundation was set up in memory of Alannah and Madeline Mikac,
aged six and three, who were tragically killed with their mother and 32 others at Port Arthur,
Tasmania, on 28 April 1996. The Foundation was launched in 1997 and has been operating for
almost 20 years. The key objectives of the foundation are to care for children who have experienced
or witnessed serious violence; reduce the incidence of bullying, cyber-bullying and other cyber risks;
and advocate for the safety and wellbeing of children. The website features eSmart Schools, which
is a cultural-change framework that guides the introduction of policies, practices and whole-school
change processes to support the creation of a cyber-safe or ‘eSmart’ environment: www.amf.org.au
3 The Raising Children Network is an Australian parenting website that provides evidence-based and
validated content, which is translated into everyday language and a range of languages to help par-
ents and carers make decisions that work for them in their individual family circumstances. The
website is invaluable for developing a wholistic understanding of childhood from newborns to teens,
and includes sections on autism and disability: http://raisingchildren.net.au
4 The Cultural Infusion website supports the work of Cultural Fusion, a not-for-profit, charitable
organisation, to build cultural harmony and well-being through contributing to a society that val-
ues intercultural understanding and artistic expression as a means of promoting social cohesion.
There are a range of digital resources, including ‘Sound Infusion’, a royalty-free collection of sound
clips from hundreds of the world’s instruments and musical traditions. There are also some tools
to help students put those sounds together to make their own unique, cross-cultural compositions:
https://culturalinfusion.org.au
CHAPTER 5 Learner diversity, pedagogy and educational equity 187
REFERENCES
Alexander, R (ed.) 2010, Children, their world, their education, Final report and recommendations of the Cambridge Primary
Review, Routledge, London and New York.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2016, ‘Schools’, cat. no. 4221.0, www.abs.gov.au.
—— 2015, cat. no. 4221.0, www.abs.gov.au.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority 2012, ‘Cross curriculum priorities’,
www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/cross_curriculum_priorities.html.
—— 2009b, ‘MySchool’, www.myschool.edu.au, viewed 15 March 2010.
Australian Government 2018, Closing the gap: Prime Minister’s report 2018,
http://closingthegap.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/ctg-report-2018.pdf?a=1.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) 2017, ‘Australian professional standards for teachers’,
www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2014, ‘Towards a performance measurement framework for equity in higher
education’, cat. no. IHW 129, Canberra.
Banks, J, Cochran-Smith, M, Moll, L, Richert, A, Zeichner, K, LePage, P, Darling-Hammond, L, Duffy, H & McDonald, M
2005, in L Darling-Hammond & J Bransford (eds) 2005, Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should
learn and be able to do, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Barratt, R 1998, ‘Shaping middle schooling in Australia: a report of the National Middle Schooling Project’, Australian
Curriculum Studies Association, Canberra.
Beane, J 2006, A middle years curriculum: From rhetoric to reality, Hawker Brownlow Education, Heatherton, Victoria.
Bennett, B & Rolheiser, C 2001, Beyond Monet, Bookation, Toronto.
Bernstein, B 1971, Class, codes and control: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language, Routledge & Kegan, London.
Biesta, G, Cole, D & Naughton, C 2018, Art, artists and pedagogy, Routledge, London, New York.
Blythe, T & Associates 1998, The teaching for understanding guide, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Boomer, G 1992, ‘Negotiating the curriculum’, in G Boomer, N Lester, C Onore & J Cook (eds), Negotiating the curriculum:
Educating for the 21st century, Falmer, London, pp. 4–14.
Booth, T & Ainscow, M 2011, Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools, 3rd edn, Centre for Studies
on Inclusive Education, Bristol.
Bowman, K (ed.) 2004, Equity in vocational education and training: Research readings, Australian National Training Authority,
Adelaide.
Brennan-Kemmis, R & Smith, E 2006, ‘Equity and diversity considerations: different contexts, different learners (research in
vocational education and training)’, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, www.icvet.tafensw.edu.au, viewed 5 September
2009.
Britzman, D 2003, Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach, State University of New York Press, Albany.
Cherryholmes, C 2002, in W Doll & N Gough (eds), Curriculum visions, Peter Lang, New York, pp. 116–26.
Clough, P 2000, ‘Tales from the edge: narratives at the borders of inclusive ideology’ in Moore M (ed.) Insider perspectives on
inclusion — Raining voices, raising issues, Phillip Armstrong Publications, Sheffield.
—— 1988, ‘Bridging “mainstream” and “special education”: a curriculum problem’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol. 20,
no. 4, pp. 327–38.
Coalition of Essential Schools 1994–2017, www.essentialschools.org, viewed 15 September 2009.
—— 2006a, ‘Understanding year 9 students: a theoretical perspective’, paper no. 8, Part A, Department of Education and
Training, Melbourne.
—— 2006b. ‘Understanding year 9 students: implications for policy and practice’, paper no. 8, Part B, Department of Education
and Training, Melbourne.
Commonwealth of Australia 2017, Closing the gap — Prime Minister’s report 2017,
http://closingthegap.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/ctg-report-2017.pdf, viewed 3 November 2017.
Connell, RW 1985, Teachers’ work, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

—— 1982, Making the difference: Schools, families and social division, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
Council of Australian Governments 2017, ‘Closing the gap: the next phase: public discussion paper’,
https://closingthegaprefresh.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/resources/ctg-next-phase-discussion-paper.pdf?a=1.
Deleuze, G & Felix, G 1987, A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (trans. Brian Massumi), University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Dulfer, N, Polesel, J & Rice, S 2012, ‘The experience of education: the impacts of high stakes testing on school students and
their families’, An Educator’s Perspective, Whitlam Institute, University of Western Sydney, Sydney.
Dunn, J & Stinson, M 2012, ‘Dramatic play and drama in the early years: reimagining the approach’, in S Wright (ed),
Children, meaning-making and the arts, Pearson, Frenchs Forest, NSW, pp 115–34.
Ewing R 2010, The arts and Australian education: Realising potential, Australian Council for Educational Research,
Camberwell, Victoria.
Florian, L 2014, ‘What counts as evidence of inclusive practice?’, European Journal of Special Needs Education, vol. 29, no. 3,
pp. 286–94, DOI:10.1080/08856257.2014.933551.
Florian, L & Spratt, J 2013, ‘Enacting inclusion: a framework for interrogating inclusive practice’, European Journal of Special
Needs Education, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 119–35, DOI:10.1080/6257.2013.778111.
Friesen, S & Scott, D 2013, Inquiry-based learning: A review of the research literature, paper prepared for the Alberta Ministry
of Education, retrieved from http://galileo.org/focus-on-inquiry-lit-review.pdf.
Gadsden, V 2008, ‘The arts and education: Knowledge generation, pedagogy and the discourse of learning’, Review of Research
in Education, vol. 32, pp. 29–61.
Godinho, S 2007, ‘A re-visioning of curriculum integration for the 21st century: creating spaces for conversation and dialogue’,
Curriculum Perspectives, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 61–5.
Godinho, S & Shrimpton, B 2008, ‘Interdisciplinary curriculum: a sustainable future or an unattainable vision in a changing
educational climate?’, AARE refereed conference paper, 30 November – 4 December, Brisbane.
Godinho, S, Woolley, M, Webb J & Winkel, K 2015, ‘Sharing place, learning together: Mutual capacity and partnership
building’, UNESCO Observatory Multi-Disciplinary Journal in the Arts, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 2–27.
Golding, C 2002, Connecting concepts: Thinking activities for students, ACER, Melbourne.
Goldstein, T 2016, ‘Border crossing in the classroom through performed ethnography’, Perspectives on Urban Education, vol.
13, no. 1, pp. 4–19, www.urbanedjournal.org/sites/default/files/pdf_archive/02_20160522_PUE_Goldstein.pdf.
Groundwater-Smith, S, Cusworth, R & Dobbins, R 1998, Teaching: Challenges and dilemmas, Harcourt Brace & Company, Sydney.
Halse, C 2017, ‘Responsibility for racism in the everyday talk of secondary students’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics
of Education, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 2–15.
Hobba, L, Moss, J & Bridge, D 1999, Welcoming schools, video, UNESCO, Paris.
Hogarth, M 2017, ‘Is policy on Indigenous education deliberately being stalled?’, The Conversation,
https://theconversation.com/is-policy-on-indigenous-education-deliberately-being-stalled-76855.
International Baccalaureate Organisation 2007, Making the PYP happen, IBO, Switzerland.
Kamler, B & Comber, B 2004, ‘The new English teacher: redesigning pedagogies’ [online], English in Australia, iss. 139,
February, pp. 131–42.
Keddie, A 2012, Educating for diversity and social justice, Routledge, London and New York.
Luke, A, Weir, K & Woods, A 2008, ‘Development of a set of principles to guide a P–12 syllabus framework: a report to the
Queensland Studies Authority’, Queensland Studies Authority, Brisbane, Queensland.
Mayer, D, Dixon, M, Kline, J, Kostogriz, A, Moss, J, Rowan, L, Walker-Gibbs, B & White, S 2017, Studying the effectiveness
of teacher education: Early career teachers in diverse settings, Springer Nature, Singapore.
Moss, J 2011, ‘Researching pedagogical and curriculum renewal in Australia – a visual and intertextual approach’, International
Journal of Inclusive Education, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 285–30.
—— 2002, ‘Inclusive schooling: representation and textual practice’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, vol. 6, no. 3,
pp. 231–49.
Moss, J & Harvie, K 2015, ‘Cross curriculum design: Inclusive pedagogy across the curriculum’, International Perspectives in
Inclusive Education, vol. 7, pp. 259–79.
Pigdon, K & Woolley, M (eds) 1992, The big picture: Integrating children’s learning, Eleanor Curtain Publishing, Armadale,
Victoria.
Prosser, B 2008, ‘Unfinished but not yet exhausted: a review of Australian middle schooling’, Australian Journal of Education,
vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 151–67.
Rahman, K 2013, ‘Belonging and learning to belong in school: the implications of the hidden curriculum for indigenous
students’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 660–72, DOI:
10.1080/01596306.2013.728362.
Reconciliation Australia 2016, ‘The state of reconciliation in Australia: our history, our story, our future’, foreword by Patrick
Dodson, Reconcilliation Australia, www.reconciliation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/The-State-of-Reconciliation-
report_FULL_WR.pdf.
Service Learning Australia 2010, www.service-learning.com.au.

Shaw, C, Haddou, JB & Mountain, W 2017, ‘Infographic: Are we making progress on Indigenous education?’, The
Conversation, https://theconversation.com/infographic-are-we-making-progress-on-indigenous-education-78253.
Singh, P 2015, ‘Pedagogic governance: theorising with/after Bernstein’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, pp. 1–20.
Skrtic, T 1995, ‘The crisis in professional knowledge’, in E Meyen & T Skrtic (eds), Special education and student disability,
an introduction, traditional, emerging, and alternative perspectives, 4th edn, Love Publishing, Colorado.
—— 1991, ‘The special education paradox: equity as the way to excellence’, Harvard Educational Review, vol. 61, no. 2,
pp. 148–206.
Slee, R 2011, The irregular school: Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education, Routledge, London.
Smith, T & McEwin, K 2011, The legacy of middle school leaders: In their own words, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC.
CHAPTER 5 Learner diversity, pedagogy and educational equity 189
Stinson, M & O’Connor, P 2008, ‘Teaching drama to students with special needs: designs and methods’, in S Wright, L Cohen
& K Poon (eds), Special education: Perspectives and practices, Prentice Hall, Pearson, Singapore.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 2017, ‘A guide for ensuring equity and inclusion
in education’, Paris 07 SP, France.
Whitburn, B 2014, ‘The indelible ink of the special stamp: an insider’s research essay on imprints and erasures’, Disability &
Society, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 624–37.
Young, IM 1994, ‘Communication and the other: beyond deliberative democracy’, in M Wilson & A Yeatman (eds), Justice &
identity: Antipodean practices, Allen and Unwin, Wellington.
Yunkaporta, T 2009, ‘Aboriginal pedagogies at the cultural interface’, PhD thesis, James Cook University. Retrieved from
http://eprints.jcu.edu. au/10974/2/02whole.pdf.
Yunkaporta, T & Kirby, M 2011, ‘Yarning up Indigenous pedagogies: a dialogue about eight Aboriginal ways of learning’, in
N Purdie, G Milgate & H Bell (eds), Two way teaching and learning: Towards culturally reflective and relevant education,
ACER Press, Camberwell, Victoria, pp. 205–13.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Photo: © mastersky / Shutterstock.com
Photo: © Commonwealth of Australia, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Closing the
gap — Prime Minister’s report 2017. Used under a CC BY 3.0 Australia licence; see https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en.
Photo: © bikeriderlondon / Shutterstock.com
Photo: © Rawpixel.com / Shutterstock.com
Photo: © Rawpixel.com / Shutterstock.com
Photo: © Elise Derwin / Newspix
Figure 5.1: Reproduced under a CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-sa/3.0/igo/. © UNESCO 2017, ‘Figure 1. Dimensions of the policy review framework’, A guide
for ensuring inclusion and equity in education, p. 16.
Figure 5.2: © Tyson Yunkaporta
Figure 5.4: © Reconciliation Australia 2016, State of Reconciliation in Australia Report, February.
Figure 5.6: Content descriptions/curriculum extracts © Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Report-
ing Authority ACARA 2010 to present, unless otherwise indicated. This material was downloaded
from the Australian Curriculum website www.australiancurriculum.edu.au, accessed December 2017
and was not modified. The material is licensed under CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0. Version updates are tracked on the ‘Curriculum version history’ page www
.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Home/CurriculumHistory of the Australian Curriculum website.
Figure 5.7: Content descriptions/curriculum extracts © Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Report-
ing Authority ACARA 2010 to present, unless otherwise indicated. This material was downloaded
from the Australian Curriculum website www.australiancurriculum.edu.au, accessed December 2017
and was not modified. The material is licensed under CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0. Version updates are tracked on the ‘Curriculum version history’ page www
.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Home/CurriculumHistory of the Australian Curriculum website.
Figure 5.11: © Shaw, C, Haddou, JB & Mountain W 2017, ‘Infographic: are we making progress
on Indigenous education?’, The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/infographic-are-we-making
-progress-on-indigenous-education-78253.
Table 5.2: © Taylor & Francis Group

Text: © Booth, T & Ainscow, M 2011, Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in
schools, 3rd edn, Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education, Bristol.
Text: © 2011 Education Services Australia Limited as the legal entity for the COAG Education Council
Education Council. Wiley Australia Pty Ltd has reproduced extracts of the Australian Institute for
Teaching and School Leadership’s Australian Professional Standards for Teachers in this publication
with permission from the copyright owner.
Text: © Hogarth, M 2017, ‘Is policy on Indigenous education deliberately being stalled?’, The Conversa-
tion, https://theconversation.com/is-policy-on-indigenous-education-deliberately-being-stalled-76855.
PART 3
PREPARATION,
PRACTICE AND
PROCESS
6 The curriculum 192
7 Planning for practice: connecting pedagogy, assessment and curriculum 218

8 Pedagogy: the agency that connects teaching with learning 260
9 Organising the learning environment 302

10 Teaching with information and communication technologies 333
11 Interactive student engagement and management 363

12 Assessment and what matters: feedback, reporting and fairness 417
CHAPTER 6
The curriculum
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

6.1 articulate several popular understandings of the term ‘curriculum’, and describe the advantages and
limitations of each
6.2 explain the significance of understanding curriculum as a social and cultural construction
6.3 differentiate between several different models of curriculum
6.4 describe why attending to the hidden curriculum matters
6.5 advocate for understanding teachers as curriculum workers
6.6 explain the importance of understanding curriculum as praxis.
OPENING CASE
‘Curriculum’ can mean many things

As the students shifted their desks back to a
whole-class formation there was lots of chatter.
The activity their lecturer Aparna had just asked
them to do had engrossed them and generated
animated responses, and their enthusiasm was
evident in this transition time. Bella’s group began
to share what they understood as ‘the curricu-
lum’ — what it is that teachers are mandated to
teach so that students can reach certain stan-
dards. It is often elaborated on in syllabus docu-
ments from various subject areas.
Ted explained that his group had considered
‘curriculum’ rather than ‘the curriculum’, and that
they thought curriculum was everything that was taught in a classroom. Although some of those lessons
might be intended, others could be unintended but nonetheless still taught. Oscar piped up to explain that
his group thought curriculum was everything that was learned, rather than merely taught in the classroom.
This opened up a lively discussion about the possible gap between what is taught and what is learned,
why that gap might exist, and how you could try to close it. And Mei noted that her group thought that the
curriculum could exist outside of classrooms as well as within them.
This activity had accomplished exactly what Aparna had hoped it would — unearthing the myriad def-
initions of curriculum that seem to exist. This was a really productive start to the next few classes, in
which they would collectively explore curriculum in more depth to see if they could reach some shared
understandings about how to conceptualise and work with it.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
QUESTIONS
1. Prior to reading this case, how would you have defined curriculum?
2. Has that definition shifted or changed at all as a result of reading the case? In what ways?
3. What definition(s) of curriculum do you find most useful in your studies and professional experience
placements? Why are they useful?
Introduction
This chapter will engage you with various definitions and manifestations of ‘the curriculum’ and will
encourage you to consider the advantages and limitations of each definition. It considers both the collo-
quial definitions of curriculum and those that are most useful to teachers and students. In addition, it will
explore several concepts that arise as a result of thinking deeply about curriculum — such as curriculum
as a cultural construction, the hidden curriculum and teachers as curriculum workers — and anticipate
how these might impact upon the practice of teachers focused on student learning. This chapter advocates
for conceptualising curriculum as praxis, rather than as a static body of information about a subject area.
In what follows, you will be encouraged to consider a range of understandings about and manifestations
of curriculum, in and outside of classrooms.
CHAPTER 6 The curriculum 193
The curriculum
Exploring Curriculum Teachers as

Models of The hidden Curriculum as
the notion of as cultural curriculum
curriculum curriculum praxis
curriculum construction workers
Differentiating Whose Integrated Hidden Teachers as Curriculum

curriculum knowledge curriculum curriculum critical exceeds the
from syllabus is of most Inquiry-based as implicit and consumers textbook
documents worth? curriculum unintended and creators of Curriculum
A pedagogical Who sees curriculum as a shared
Arts-based
view of themselves curriculum understanding
curriculum within the
Emergent
Curriculum as curriculum?
curriculum
lived
Outcomes-
experience
focused
Pondering curriculum
the Australian
Curriculum
6.1 Exploring the notion of curriculum

LEARNING OBJECTIVE 6.1 Articulate several popular understandings of the term ‘curriculum’, and describe
the advantages and limitations of each.
The term ‘curriculum’ is derived from the Latin word currere, which means to run a set route or course.
That is an interesting connection to ponder. What relationship do you see between ‘to run a set route’
and what you understand curriculum to be?
As the opening case with Aparna attests, curriculum is a term with many meanings, but because it is
frequently used in schooling contexts, it often gets used without being clearly defined or clarified, so it
is often up to the listener or reader to discern exactly how it is being used. It is a term you know, but it
can be hard to utter a definition on the spot.
What are some of the ways that you’ve heard the term curriculum used? You may have heard of syl-
labus documents referred to as the curriculum; or you may have read for class that a curriculum is some-
thing much broader and encompassing. This chapter aims to help you make sense of these differing
definitions.
Think about the difference between ‘the curriculum’ and ‘curriculum’: What different meanings are
conveyed by those terms? ‘The’ perhaps makes it sound as if there is a particular, correct meaning that
the term has and that you can unambiguously point to it. Curriculum unqualified by a ‘the’ could imply
something much more open, less pinned down by a specific definition.
You could also think about the translation ‘to run a set course’ and imagine that curriculum is a mapping
of the course to be followed — in this case by learners. That makes good sense, and probably also rings
true to your experiences. In order for them to run the correct route, you have to provide the map to the
students, right?
194 PART 3 Preparation, practice and process
But does this commonsense definition of curriculum capture the full picture of curriculum? For all that
it might have to commend it — a carefully planned, pre-ordained path — what might some drawbacks
or limitations of this view of curriculum be?
To help answer these questions, you can turn to the research literature. Shirley Grundy (1987, 1998)
writes about two common understandings of curriculum — as an object and as an action. As an object
the curriculum is thought of as a thing to be taught, learned, facilitated or transferred — ‘the curriculum’
in the previous distinction. You can literally put your hands upon it and carry it around in your briefcase
or backpack. It is manifested in policy directives and mandates, state and territory syllabus documents,
and teachers’ own programming and planning. It is decided upon by some for teaching to many others.
Learners, teachers and context all form part of the curriculum.
As an action, it is a broader process of enacting what is mandated or planned, in light of all of the
contingencies of practice — ‘curriculum’ in the previous distinction. That is, the learners matter, the
teacher matters, the context matters. None of these things sit outside of the curriculum — they are, in
fact, the curriculum. This view reminds us that it is not just what is intended that forms the curriculum,
but what eventuates — through the teaching, student engagement, meaningful connections to students’
lives and relationship building that are inherent parts of the learning process.
Differentiating curriculum from syllabus documents

The term ‘curriculum’ is such a common one that people use it and assume that everyone knows what
they are talking about. You are left to your own devices to try to discern a definition. Teacher education
students are often confronted by multiple meanings of the term. On practicum, for instance, you hear
the syllabus documents for each learning area referred to as the curriculum, or as curriculum documents.
And when a question about curriculum is raised supervising teachers often turn to the syllabus documents
for the answer. When your faculty liaison reviews your lesson plans they note that you need to get your
curriculum expectations from the syllabus documents. These common experiences all reinforce a single
(and as we will learn, narrow) view of curriculum.
Grundy usefully translates the ideas of curriculum as a product and as an action into terms closer
to the acts of schooling — the syllabus view of curriculum and the pedagogical view of curriculum.
Teacher education students are often taught (explicitly and implicitly by example and the actions of their
supervising teacher) a syllabus view of curriculum. This view holds that ‘the basic component of the
curriculum, the syllabus, is designed elsewhere by expert curriculum designers and developers, and given
to those for whom it is intended, for their use’ (Grundy 1998, p. 29). This is not to suggest that these
syllabus documents are not thoughtfully crafted to capture the ‘big ideas’ of a given subject area or
discipline, but only that as mass-produced and somewhat de-contextualised documents, they may not
capture all that any given teacher or student, in any given place or time, might feel is worthy, important
or necessary content. It is never the syllabus document or curriculum framework alone that determines
what is taught to students, how they are engaged (or not) and what they eventually learn.
A pedagogical view of curriculum

Grundy’s pedagogical view of curriculum sees curriculum ‘not as a thing but as a dynamic process which
engages all participants, especially teachers and students, in its active construction through their work’
(1998, p. 33). What other factors, beyond the planned mapping of the subject area, might be at play in
this conception of curriculum? What else, besides policy decisions, curriculum mandates and teachers’
careful planning, matters or makes a difference in the learning/teaching nexus?
Drawing on the important work of curriculum theorist Joseph Schwab (1969), Grundy articulates four
elements that are part of this dynamic view of curriculum:
1. teachers
2. students
3. subject matter
4. milieu.
Schwab referred to these as the four commonplaces of schooling. Before we explore the significance
of each of these areas, think for a moment about what each of these components means to you and imagine
how each could contribute to a more vibrant understanding of curriculum.
Grundy contends that ‘we are unable to understand the nature of the curriculum unless we recognise
that it is a consequence of the dynamic interaction of all four commonplaces’ (1998, p. 30). These com-
monplaces prove useful in thinking about curriculum because they help us to recognise and acknowledge
that it is not only the subject matter that counts. Even the most thoughtfully planned lessons still depend
on the quality of the teaching, the engagement (or not) of the learners, and the context in which the
learning and teaching occurs.
Thus, as you would be aware from years of being a student yourself, what is intended as the curriculum
is not always what is learned, because of the interactions of these other components. It is not enough,
then, for policy makers and curriculum developers to have particular intentions that they embed within
the subject matter and to feel that those intentions will be achieved. This is too simplistic a view of what
constitutes curriculum. To think more about the received or enacted curriculum, let us look at each of
these components in more detail.

Including ‘the teacher’ makes sense because, no matter what is intended and planned, the teacher has to
(help) bring it to life — and the way that this happens will depend upon any individual teacher’s past expe-
riences, values, attitudes and knowledge. The same lesson does not look the same or play out in the same
way when different teachers teach it — an affirmation of the aforementioned qualities of teachers. Such a
view of the teacher and their work moves us beyond metaphors such as teacher as mediator or facilitator
of learning. Grundy notes, ‘As well as actively planning and providing the circumstances for engage-
ment by the students with the subject matter in a particular learning environment, the teacher must also
become a researcher of that interactive process’ (1998, p. 33). Thus, the teacher plays a role in decision
making, evaluating, quality control, critical reflection (which will be explored further in chapter 13),
judgement and action.
In relation to the students, Grundy cautions, ‘you cannot actually have a curriculum without the active
participation of the students’ (1998, p. 31). This illustrates the difference between what is intended, and
what eventually gets enacted and received, or learned. Student agency and engagement must be factored
into any view of curriculum, for their active participation in the teaching and learning will bring the con-
cept/idea/content/subject matter to life — or not. Thus, it is in the partnership between a teacher and their
students that the curriculum is negotiated, accepted, expanded, contested, reformulated and co-developed.
What is being taught, or the subject matter, obviously factors in to this view of curriculum, for even
in the ‘curriculum as object’ view, subject matter is foundational. But, as discussed earlier, in relation
to the curriculum as syllabus view, the content of the curriculum is not universal, obvious or historically
enduring. Teachers need to exercise professional judgement, thinking about the learners, the learners’
prior knowledge, the context and appropriate pedagogies in order to make sound decisions about the
subject matter.
Finally, the fourth commonplace is the milieu, or the salient features of the context that will support
or hinder learning, and how those features are taken into account. For instance, decisions about what to
teach and how to teach it are very much influenced by the fact that a classroom may have little in the
way of supplies or resources. It does not necessarily mean that certain things will not get taught, but it
could well influence how they are taught and why they are taught. Likewise, various social and cultural
contexts from which the teacher and students come could also have direct bearing in what is taught, why
it is taught and how it is taught. Thus, the context, or milieu, is of great importance in a pedagogical view
of curriculum, for it insists that teachers take account of things that in more traditional or limited views
of curriculum might be seen as outside the realm of concern for them.
Thus, the interaction of these elements might be conceptualised in a pedagogical view of curriculum
as shown in figure 6.1.
FIGURE 6.1 The pedagogical view of the curriculum
Subject matter
Curriculum = Teacher Students
Milieu
Source: Based on Grundy (1998).
Notice how the double-headed arrows in figure 6.1 signal a dynamism and reflexivity between the var-
ious commonplaces. Instead of unidirectional arrows that would imply some direct or causal relationship,
these arrows signal an interconnectedness and interdependency between the commonplaces.
Curriculum as lived experience

Veteran teacher Rita Tenorio (2004) insists:
Curriculum is everything that happens. It’s not just books and lesson plans. It’s relationships, attitudes,
feelings, interactions. If kids feel safe, if they feel inspired, if they feel motivated, they’re going to learn
important and positive things. But if those elements are not there, if they feel disrespected or neglected
in school, they’re learning from that too. But they’re not necessarily learning the curriculum you think
you’re teaching them.
Tenorio’s beliefs not only capture the pedagogical view of curriculum, but also draw our attention to the
importance of that key feature of learning — no matter what topic or concept students are studying, learn-
ers need to feel safe, to feel inspired and to feel motivated. These aspects of learning, which exceed a lone
focus on academic achievement and include striving for equity and positive social outcomes, are embod-
ied in the Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA 2008). Such conditions exceed any particular subject area
or topic. They are foundational to creating generative environments where learning — of anything — can
take place.
Likewise, Hendrick and Weissman (2007) describe everything that happens to a learner in the course
of a day as the curriculum. Again, such a definition reminds us that it is not just about what is planned
and intended, but about all that transpires, and the meanings, feelings and understanding that those events
generate. Lots of lessons get taught that were not necessarily intended (this will be explored in more detail
below in relation to the hidden curriculum); they also occur as the result of the unintended curriculum.
Lessons get learned each day, in positive ways — unexpected teachable moments and spontaneous oppor-
tunities to veer off in a new direction — and less positive ways — mishaps, accidents, things not going
to plan, and the silencing or marginalising of certain students.
But it is also important to take a critical view of such an assertion. ‘Curriculum is everything’ could
also be so ungainly or overwhelming as to stop teachers or pre-service teachers in their tracks. So it is
important to remember that while there are myriad factors that contribute to ‘the curriculum’ as it is lived
and learned in (and outside of) classrooms, it is very useful to consider this ‘everything’ in categories or
components so that we can be thoughtful about each one, rather than inundated by the notion that ‘it is
everything’. The challenge is to find the right balance between appreciating and sustaining the totality of
holistic learning experiences for learners, in manageable ways that teachers find intelligible and ‘do-able’.
As Pinar et al. (1995) purport, curriculum is a field of study that is characterised by a multitude of
discourses. It is these multiple discourses, and the multiplicity of voices within each discourse, that render
the field of curriculum theorising as so robust. Your notion of curriculum should be equally robust, and
that is what the pedagogical view of curriculum has to offer. It goes beyond the ‘what’ question (What will
I teach?) and insists teachers take a more holistic and integrated view of the various factors or elements
that bear on what gets taught and, perhaps more importantly, what gets learned.
WHAT CAN I TAKE INTO THE CLASSROOM?
Think about the class that you are reading this text for. What view(s) of curriculum do you see discussed
and enacted? That is, how do your lecturer and fellow students talk about curriculum? How is the term
‘curriculum’ used with you as students, if at all? What do you and your peers understand the curriculum
to be?
What sorts of evidence would you look for or listen for in order to be able to answer the questions
above?
Pondering the Australian Curriculum

Having built the case for a pedagogical view of curriculum, we will turn now to the Australian Curriculum.
In 1989, the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA)
released the Hobart Declaration on Schooling, which articulated ten national goals for schooling and
provided a framework for cooperation between schools. The release of this declaration marked ‘a
major advance in developing a national collaborative approach to schooling in Australia’ (MCEETYA
1989). This agreement between ministers was then replaced a decade later by the Adelaide Declara-
tion on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century (1999). This document maintained a
focus on national education goals, and noted that, ‘[t]he achievement of the national goals for school-
ing will assist young people to contribute to Australia’s social, cultural and economic development
in local and global contexts’ (1999, p. 2). And again, almost ten years later in December 2008, the release
of the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians continued the focus on a col-
laborative national effort to ensure high-quality schooling for all Australian students. It also had a strong
focus on global issues and concerns linking Australia to the rest of the world.
The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) is the independent author-
ity responsible for the development of national standards to improve student learning outcomes, as well
as a national assessment program and a national data collection and knowledge mobilisation program
that supports all Australian students to engage in learning for the twenty-first century. Its establishment is
the result of many years of national cooperation and collaboration around issues related to education and
schooling. ACARA’s work is carried out in collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders, from schools
and state and territory education authorities and governments, to professional and community groups and
the general public. Schools in the various states and territories are responsible for implementation of the
Australian Curriculum, with each state and territory developing its own implementation plans and support
programs for teachers. Some Australian Curriculum documents have already been out for consultation and
are finalised, while others are still being developed. Understandably, it’s a multi-year process to develop,
consult on and publish curricula across all year levels and subject areas, so this work is ongoing.
A couple of years before the release of the Adelaide Declaration, the Curriculum Standing Committee
of the National Education Professional Association (CSCNEPA) released a working paper entitled ‘Devel-
oping a twenty-first century school curriculum for all Australian students’ (2007). This paper explored
‘the debate around the most productive national approaches to curriculum work in Australia’ (p. 3) and
identified three types of national approaches to curriculum. The first involved a national sharing of ideas,
resources, frameworks, and professional development opportunities; the second involved national collab-
oration in these efforts; and the third ‘could result in a single, formal, official curriculum at the national
level’ (2007, p. 5). While much of what the CSCNEPA was recommending put the emphasis on the sec-
ond approach to curriculum nationally, the debate subsequently shifted and, as described above, we have
moved to a state of play where the third approach has been taken up.
However, this result was not necessarily inevitable. Building upon the CSCNEPA working paper,
Australian Curriculum Coalition (ACC), a forum of presidents, executive officers and executive directors
of national education organisations, wrote to the federal Minister. In their submission, entitled Common
view on the Australian Curriculum (2010), they voiced support for the broad project of formulating a
national curriculum while suggesting changes to the process of curriculum development, noting the lack
of a well-developed conceptual framework guiding this work and highlighting issues related to assess-
ment, reporting and implementation that could be, in their view, improved. Here just two issues of the
many that they raised in the paper to the Minister are mentioned to illustrate the challenges faced in devel-
oping, implementing and accounting for a national curriculum. The ACC (2010) expressed concern about
whether a national curriculum was a core curriculum, ‘around which jurisdictions and schools might add
further content of local relevance’ (p. 5) or if it constituted the whole curriculum, ‘everything expected
to be taught’ (p. 5). In addition, they noted work that they felt needed to be done related to equity. The
ACC (p. 6) cautioned:
The principle that all students have an entitlement to the same challenging curriculum content is an impor-
tant one. It is essential, however, that curriculum development is informed by an understanding of how
this principle can work in practice, and in different contexts. The curriculum should aim to support ‘high
quality, high equity’ for all young Australians.
So what are proponents of a single, national curriculum saying in support of such an approach? In ‘The
shape of the Australian Curriculum Version 3.0’ ACARA (2011, p. 7) writes in favour of this project:
The commitment to develop a national curriculum reflects a willingness to work together, across geograph-
ical and school-sector boundaries, to provide a worldclass education for all young Australians. Working
nationally makes it possible to harness collective expertise and effort in the pursuit of this common goal.
It also offers the potential of economies of scale and substantial reduction in the duplication of time, effort
and resources.
Further, the ACC (2010, p. 3) noted, ‘We believe this ambitious initiative can lead to a curriculum that
reflects who we are, our visions for the future and our best attempts to predict and plan for what young
people will need to be active and successful participants in Australian and global political, economic,
social and cultural life’.
The current curriculum, which is up to versions 7.5 and 8.3, allows schools time to transition to the new
version of the Australian Curriculum. The eight learning areas are all articulated and approved, and states
and territories have produced syllabus documents that reflect the agreed-upon content and achievement
standards. They have fashioned their own documents that take these national standards and contextualise
them locally.
One salient feature of the national curriculum framework is its attention to the proper place of
Indigenous Australian content in the national curriculum. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
histories and cultures are identified as one of the three cross-curriculum priorities in the national
curriculum (www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/cross-curriculum-priorities/aboriginal-
and-torres-strait-islander-histories-and-cultures). This is in part to help close the gap in learning outcomes
between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and others, but also to ensure that all students
‘engage in reconciliation, respect and recognition of the world’s oldest continuous living cultures’
(AITSL n.d.). These issues are also addressed in relation to student diversity and supporting all learners
(www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/student-diversity). As a collective whole, all Australian
Curriculum learning areas are expected to contribute to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Histories and Cultures cross-curriculum priority, and to bring this content to life through the curriculum
and pedagogies used across the learning areas.
So the debate about a national curriculum has been a robust and enduring one, and the moves towards
creating and implementing one have been closely watched and both praised and critiqued by a variety
of stakeholder groups. In light of what you’ve read and discussed in this section, what advice would
you give someone who was concerned about the effects that a national curriculum could have on issues
related to capitalising on specific contexts? They see this effort as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach that runs
the risk of glossing over important contextual factors offered up by particular, specific places through-
out the country, as something that risks homogenising diversity and difference. What further questions
would you ask this person to better understand their point of view? How would you respond to such
concerns?
WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR ME?
AITSL has two standards that relate specifically to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander content in the
curriculum — Standards 1.4 and 2.4. Read about them here: www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards. Why do
you think these specific standards are included? What more would you need to learn and know in order to
be able to effectively implement these standards fully and as intended? What personal and/or professional
learning plans could you put in place to ensure you learn and know these things? Take a look at the two
Illustration of Practice scenarios next to Standard 2.4 to assist your thinking about these issues.
Get online and read Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (2008). Focus on
Goal 1: Australian schooling promotes equity and excellence, for instance, and write down some ways
you could structure your classroom and enact your curriculum to help meet this goal. Even though the
areas under this goal are quite broad and seem more aimed at society and schools, think about how one
classroom (yours!) can work towards addressing and even redressing them.
6.2 Curriculum as cultural construction
LEARNING OBJECTIVE 6.2 Explain the significance of understanding curriculum as a social and
cultural construction.
It is important to extend the discussion above to explicitly examine what is meant by acknowledgement
of the curriculum as a construction, or more specifically, that it is a social and cultural construction.
Such a notion is meant to work against a naturalised conception of curriculum that sees it as universal,
unchanging or obvious. Quite to the contrary, what a curriculum could and should entail is almost always
a matter of great debate. Far from being obvious or straightforward, curriculum needs to be delineated
and debated upon, and as such it is indeed a construction of the social and cultural contexts from which
it arises.
Grundy writes that the curriculum, ‘is constructed at a certain time and for certain purposes, although
common cultural traditions often minimise differences between, for example, the Australian states and
between New Zealand and Australia’ (1998, p. 28). This can mean that at any historical moment ‘the
needs of the society and of the economy for a skilled citizenry are to be paramount in determin-
ing the curriculum’ (p. 28). When cast with this clarity, it is easy to see how curriculum is always
political.
Another way to think about this is that the curriculum is covered with the fingerprints of those who
develop it, and eventually of those who enact it and interact with it. That is, because those who develop
the curriculum bring their own values, attitudes, interests and priorities to bear upon it (even if they say
they are acting in the interest of others, it is their interpretation of others’ interests!), you can detect signs
of those values, attitudes, interests and priorities when you examine the curriculum. And this is why any
construction of curriculum is political — because it is covered with the cultural fingerprints of those who
constructed it. Even if they purport to be aiming for a ‘neutral’ curriculum (if ever one could exist), it is
value-laden because desiring ‘neutrality’ is a value in itself.
Whose knowledge is of most worth?

Michael Apple (1979/1990) asks about whose knowledge is of most worth and who benefits from that
knowledge. If teachers ask those questions of the school curriculum, what will they find? Take, for
instance, the idea that schooling is and should be committed to democratic ideals (see, for example, Apple
& Beane 2007). How is that evident in the curriculum — beyond explicit teaching about democracy and
the democratic process? From your earliest years you were probably taught about sharing, turn-taking,
consensus decision making, listening to all opinions and the like. Whose values are espoused in such
lessons? Whose knowledge is demonstrated as of most worth through such lessons? The point is not to
suggest that these lessons were inappropriate (though some people might), but rather to simply illustrate
that what is learned has been chosen by people who have particular values and want to transmit those
values and even inculcate them in others.
Thinking about another example, was your own early education infused with the histories and perspec-
tives of Indigenous Australians? Whether it was or was not, what lessons did that teach you about whose
knowledge is of most worth? How does that position you now to meaningfully include such content into
your own teaching? What work do you still need to do in order to confidently and authentically include
these histories and perspectives?
Who sees themselves within the curriculum?

There has been increasing attention to the representation of many once-excluded groups within the cur-
riculum. The reasons for these exclusions were perhaps a feature of certain times and the prevailing mores,
or social customs, at those times. The effects of such exclusions, however, were alarming and profound.
Such a curriculum, crafted by particular people with particular blind spots, interests and tolerances, was
undoubtedly partial. Explicating this notion of a curriculum of partiality, Kevin Kumashiro (2002, p. 58)
writes:
Some stories reinforce dominant frameworks for thinking about and acting in the world, others challenge
them, and still others do both . . . The inclusion of more and different voices will not tell us a ‘truer’ story,
but a different one, one with different political implications (Scott 1993). When we desire to include the
same voices, or to include different voices in ways that differences have traditionally been added on, we
are desiring (subconsciously or not) to continue using the same stories to make sense of the world.
The issue of multiple voices in the curriculum, or a lack of them, is illustrated wherever you look.
Lingard et al. (2003) write about citizenship commonly being understood as a goal of schooling. But
who are viewed as citizens, or future citizens? One way to answer the question is to look at who is
represented in curriculum materials, who gets mentioned in the texts and about whom the curriculum
is silent. Silence about groups of people or particular issues is still instructive — it teaches us who and
what are not worth mentioning and not worth learning about. Do we have a clear sense, for instance,
that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and perspectives are included in the curriculum? What
evidence do we have to support or refute this assertion? How would ‘seeing’ Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples in the curriculum benefit us all? What are the costs of absence of and silence around
certain histories and cultures? Who pays those costs? This might help explain why AITSL has standards
that aim to redress the silence and absence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from the
curriculum.
We see the fingerprints of the curriculum creators when we now recognise Indigenous knowledge
systems as subjugated knowledge (Semali & Kincheloe 1999), underrepresented or completely missing
from the curriculum. What does the exclusion of this material tell us about the crafters of our curriculum?
Grundy reminds us that, ‘this understanding that the curriculum is a construction in which all participants
in the educational enterprise are actively involved is, therefore, centrally important to our understanding
of the meaning of curriculum and the work of teaching’ (Grundy 1998, p. 36).
Think back to your experiences in early childhood, primary and secondary education. What did you
learn about Aboriginal history and perspectives? What did you learn about the role of women in the early
history of the country? What did you learn about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people? What
did you learn about disabilities and people with them? Age and different generations? Body shape and
size?
Why do you think this was the case? Whatever you learned about these issues and groups of people,
you did because the people who constructed your curriculum, and the people who enacted it in and outside
of classrooms, made decisions that saw that content included or excluded. You’ll be in a position to make
those decisions as well!
Some students, teachers and parents express concern about using lesson plans and other curriculum
materials that are donated to schools by lobby groups and private industries, or available for free on
their websites. The materials purport to focus on such laudable topics as active living, healthy eating and
personal hygiene. But those critical of such curriculum materials feel the fingerprints (and often agendas)
of the groups that created and are distributing them cover the materials.
Find an example of such donated/freely available curriculum materials and review them for yourself. Are
the fingerprints of their creators evident? If so, in what ways? Are any implicit messages or values evident
in the materials? How might you critically engage students with these issues? Revisit these questions
when you’ve read the section in this chapter on hidden curriculum.
Find a picture book or story book that you have seen being read in a classroom to children. Examine
the book to try to determine what you can say about the values, attitudes, interests and priorities of its
author(s).
If you saw the book being used with the class, how was it used? Was it simply read for the children to
take in? Was it challenged? Did the teacher move beyond the views or values represented in it? Realise that
teachers can make decisions to use materials in ways perhaps not intended by their authors/creators —
in subversive ways! So a picture book may be silent about issues related to Aboriginal history, but the
teacher could have chosen this text to raise that specific point, using the text as an object of critique to
fashion a very different curriculum than you might have expected only having read the book.
Thus, recognising the cultural ‘fingerprints’ that cover a curriculum can enable a teacher to make
informed and critical decisions about what to teach, what to teach with, and how to teach it.
6.3 Models of curriculum

LEARNING OBJECTIVE 6.3 Differentiate between several different models of curriculum.
In this section of the chapter several different models for the construction and enactment of curriculum
will be examined. As noted earlier, there are many different discourses within the curriculum field, so
the five mentioned here are indicative of the variation that exists within the field. They are also likely
to be familiar to those working in schools, either because they are already in place or because schools
are considering adopting some of these models. As you read through them, think about whether each is
prevalent in the early childhood, primary, middle and/or secondary levels. What are the similarities across
those schooling levels and what are the differences?
Hendrick and Weissman (2007, p. 5) argue that a curriculum should help learners develop compe-
tence — ‘the wonderful feeling of assurance, exemplified by the statements “I can do it”, “I am able”,
“I know how” and “I am an effective person”’. Think about what each of these models has to offer in terms
of helping to develop competence, particularly those aspects that are different from top-down, centrally
mandated models of curriculum development and delivery.
Integrated curriculum
Pondering an integrated curriculum is different depending on which level of schooling you are think-
ing about. Integrated curriculum in many ways is the de facto curriculum in early childhood settings
where a distinction between disciplines or subject areas is not so salient. What is important is craft-
ing robust and engaging learning experiences for children. Thus, good models of integrated curriculum
can often be found in early childhood settings that enact Montessori or Reggio Emilia principles, for
instance.
Moving into formal schooling, subject matter distinctions start to become more apparent, and the imper-
ative for integration becomes greater. By the time secondary school begins, where there are not only sub-
ject matter departments but also teachers who have undergone teacher education in a specific subject area
(as opposed to being a generalist like early childhood and primary teachers), the need for integration is
perhaps the greatest.
Wilson and Jan (2007, p. 11) describe integrated curriculum as ‘the structured organization of teaching
and learning experiences in which significant content, across and within learning areas, is selected to
develop and extend students’ understanding of the world’. This organisation of the curriculum allows
students to develop understandings of the world that foreground connections and relationships between
ideas, concepts and phenomena.
Good models of integrated curriculum can often be found in early childhood settings.
Affirming the personal and social consequences of curriculum, Beane (1997) describes integration
as a curriculum design concerned with enhancing the possibilities for personal and social integration
through the organisation of curriculum, based on significant problems and issues that transcend subject-
area boundaries. Susan Drake et al. (1992) discuss a process of breaking down boundaries in order to
craft powerful learning contexts for students. They describe how integrated curriculum might be thought
of on a continuum from multidisciplinary experiences to interdisciplinary experiences through to trans-
disciplinary experiences.
Multidisciplinary approaches involve a range of subject areas being brought to bear on a particular
big question or theme. Each subject area is seen as separate and maintains its own integrity, but it is
stitched together with the other areas in the exploration of an issue of problem. For instance, students
might investigate the question, ‘Is the stream behind the school healthy?’ from the perspectives of several
subject areas.
Interdisciplinary approaches involve finding overlapping skills and knowledge between subject areas,
even though the subject areas remain discrete. As Drake et al. (1992, p. 4) note, ‘common essential
learnings were the foci that connected subject areas’, and so the subject areas were drawn into even closer
contact than with the multidisciplinary approaches. An example of a question that could be explored using
an interdisciplinary approach is, ‘How can we assist in helping to stop the vandalism that is occurring at
school?’
Letting the common skills, knowledge and strategies drive the formation of curriculum can lead to
a transdisciplinary experience, because the divisions between subject areas are abandoned in favour of
focusing on essential learnings and not worrying about labelling particular things as science, geography,
art and so on. A transdisciplinary approach lends itself to investigating questions such as, ‘How can we
work as a class to assist the homeless people we see in the neighbourhood around the school?’ Drake et al.
(1992) write about how, as they moved through these stages in their own work, they moved from being
subject experts to becoming ‘connection experts’ (p. 5) as they allowed their own curriculum development
to be driven by the big questions, or essential learnings, rather than some worry about preserving subject
area distinctions. But this is also the reason that this model of curriculum may be more difficult to enact
in a secondary school than in a primary school.
What is gained by integrating the curriculum? Such a holistic view to tackling a problem or answering
a question (rather than a more atomistic view as reflected in the separate subject areas) has coherences
with students’ lives that the bounded subject areas may not always have. Out of school, if you had a
problem to solve, the disciplinary areas you needed to draw upon were probably not decided upon prior
to attempting a solution — you probably just went about trying to solve it! Integrated curriculum offers
that same coherence of learning experience — you draw upon the knowledge and skills that are useful to
you at that moment to problem solve or clarify what you are investigating.
Inquiry-based curriculum
In its broadest sense, inquiry might be understood as a stance towards learning and knowledge production.
Wilson and Jan (2007, p. 10) write, ‘Inquiry learning involves students forming their own questions about
a topic and having time to explore the answers. Students are both problem posers and problem solvers
within inquiry learning’. As such, teachers work to help students develop their question-asking prowess,
and to foster conversations that focus on asking ‘good’ questions.
Because inquiry-based curriculum starts with student-generated questions, there is a focus in this
model on developing effective questions and the higher order thinking skills that accompany developing
and answering such questions (Wilks 2005a). Good questioning stimulates learning because it helps to
extend thinking skills beyond simple recall and it serves to create links between students’ prior knowledge
and new learnings. Questions articulated and used along the way might not only be aimed at answering
the original question, but might also be metacognitive, focusing the students on their own learning as
they work to answer their own question. For instance, asking students ‘What have you learned?’, ‘What
interferes with your learning?’ or ‘How have your ideas changed?’ engages them with learning about
their own learning and not just the topic of inquiry at hand.
Although many similar formulations exist, Wilson and Jan (2007) write about six phases as part of a
curriculum structured around inquiry. These phases and the corresponding abilities are (Wilson & Jan
2007, p. 12):
1. tuning in: identify what it is they want to know and do
2. finding out: locate the appropriate sources of information
3. sorting out: gather, sort and organise the information
4. going further: present the information in appropriate ways
5. reflection: reflect on what they have learned and the inquiry process
6. action: think about ways of applying their newly gained information to other situations.
What inquiry-based curriculum affords, then, is a starting point for investigation, reflection and action
that emanates from the students (or the students in collaboration with their teachers) asking questions that
matter to them and their contexts, and working towards, if not arriving at, answers and solutions.
Arts-based curriculum
This model of curriculum purports that the arts, far beyond just being a subject or content area, are an
epistemological stance, or way of knowing about and seeing the world. As such, an arts-based approach
to curriculum situates the arts and artistic ways of knowing as the foundation for the rest of the curricu-
lum. This can be seen as different from an integrated curriculum approach, which does not necessarily
privilege any one curriculum area, because in an arts-based approach the creative, visual and perform-
ing arts, broadly conceived, are the starting point to craft a curriculum that then weaves in other subject
areas. So there certainly is some integration of subject areas, but this is all done under the ‘umbrella’ of
the arts.
Ernest Boyer (1995, p. 18) wrote about the arts being one of the eight ‘core commonalities’ that he
articulated as ‘universal experiences that make us human, experiences shared by all cultures on the planet’.
He goes on to note (p. 20):
For our most moving experiences, we turn to the arts to express feelings and ideas that words cannot
convey . . . To be truly educated means being sensitively responsive to the universal language of art.
Such an approach to curriculum seeks to remedy the lower status of the arts in the school curriculum
by arguing that the arts are fundamental, and through them, many other subject areas can be accessed for
learning. Susan Wilks writes that the views that such a stance to the arts seek to dismiss include that the
arts are of lesser cognitive significance than other subjects, that they are cognitively undemanding, that
they are talent based and not transferable to the world of work, and that they are just a matter of personal
taste (2005b, p. 66). Instead, what an arts-based curriculum does is bring to the fore the ways of viewing
the world that the arts afford — dialogue, reflection, metaphor and imagination — as a tool for making
meaning and understanding. The arts are an ideal vehicle for students to make connections between their
own lives and the lives and experiences of others — whether they are from another place and time, or
living now just across town. Teachers act to facilitate the making of these connections and help students
to discover a range of ways to view the world and demonstrate or enact their understandings.
Because ‘learning does not occur in self-contained episodes, but results from a montage of information
gathered from family and friends, experiences and discussions’ (Wilks 2005b, p. 73), the arts are an ideal
foundation from which to provide the multiple, dialogic opportunities necessary for learning to occur.
Emergent curriculum
Think back to the start of this chapter when it was revealed that the term curriculum comes from the
Latin word currere, meaning to run a known course. Think about how ‘running a known course’ relates
to the notion of something as emerging. Are these ideas coherent, or do you see some differences between
them?
The term emergent curriculum embodies a bit of a paradox — where the course of the curriculum
is not all known from the outset. As Carol Anne Wien (2008, p. 5) writes about such a curriculum, ‘It is
emergent — that is, its trajectory develops as a consequence of the logic of the problem, the particular
connections that develop as participants bring their own genuine responses to the topic and collaboratively
create the course to follow out of these multiple connections’.
There is a tradition of constructivist approaches to emergent curriculum (Jones & Nimmo 1994; Katz
& Chard 2000), and now Reggio Emilia approaches from Italy, which have been playing an increas-
ingly prominent role in early childhood settings, inflect our understandings of emergent curriculum (Wien
2008). Such a curricular configuration is becoming more utilised in primary schools as well, but has been
much less adopted in secondary schools.
This is not the only model for which this has been the case in this chapter. What is it about secondary
schooling that might explain why some models are not as readily adopted in secondary settings?
Because ‘emergent curriculum wakes up schools and brings teachers, children, and administrators
together in collaborative creative processes of learning’ (Wien 2008, p. 5), it can be very powerfully
marshalled to start from students’ lives, experiences and questions. Like an inquiry-based approach, it
often starts with a question or an ‘I wonder why . . . ’ statement.
In addition, as Wien (2008) points out, adopting an emergent approach to curriculum is also about
taking a particular stance towards children and their learning. It involves taking them seriously as the
originators of questions worth answering, and then valuing those questions by making time to explore
them.
What is gained by taking an emergent approach to curriculum? New possibilities for a variety of par-
ticipatory structures can be forged by letting children’s questioning drive the direction of learning. Col-
laboration can take place between the students and the teacher as well as among the students. A teacher’s
attention is often freed to engage in deeper and more thorough forms of pedagogical and curricular doc-
umentation of the students’ learning because their own attention does not have to focus on delivering
the lesson or even on having all of the answers. Instead, they can focus on the learning and strategise
about how to help or intervene if the learning has stalled. So, although imbued with a certain degree of
uncertainty as the curriculum moves forward, such a way of approaching curriculum honours children
and their thinking in ways that other approaches fail to do.
Outcomes-focused curriculum
As the name of this approach to curriculum design and development implies, outcomes-focused cur-
riculum discourse starts by articulating desired outcomes and then maps backwards to create a learning
pathway to achieve those outcomes. As Aldridge and Fraser (2008, p. 2) describe it, ‘Outcomes-focused
education is an approach to planning, delivering and assessing in which one first determines the required
results, then identifies the skills and knowledge required to achieve those results’. By outcomes we mean
‘clear learning results that we want students to demonstrate at the end of significant learning experi-
ences’ (Spady 1994, p. 2). The process of backward mapping from outcomes to teaching sequences is
a significant one that works to ensure alignment between the teaching and learning activities and where
the students are headed in their learning. Although all approaches to curriculum have the end in mind
to some extent, in the sense that the creation and enactment of curriculum is ultimately about attaining
certain learning objectives, this approach foregrounds the outcomes as the purpose for even having a
curriculum. So in this discourse, while the journey may be interesting, its main purpose is to get to the
destination. This is a shift in thinking from more traditional inputs-focused models of education that are
concerned with the number of hours of instruction students receive, what curriculum materials are used
or the teaching style of the teacher. Thus, outcomes-focused education organises everything around what
is essential for all students to know and be able to do successfully at the end of their learning experiences.
Learning is in turn defined as what students can demonstrate that they know.
As Harden (2007, p. 666) notes, outcomes-based education has two main requirements: ‘the first
is to make the learning outcomes explicit and the second is the use of the specified outcomes as a
basis for decisions about the curriculum’. While there are differences between outcomes-based educa-
tion and outcomes-focused education (Aldridge & Fraser 2008; Spady 1994), for the purposes of this
chapter, Harden’s two points above hold true. That is, while there are some characterisations of outcomes-
based education that set it apart from outcomes-focused education, here they are more closely related.
Outcomes-focused education means that the curriculum model is guided by, even driven by, the outcomes
intended. This is different from other ways of structuring or envisioning curriculum because ‘it requires
a shift away from a system in which teachers often taught from a syllabus irrespective of a student’s
readiness to learn at that level, to describing the outcomes expected of all students’ (Aldridge & Fraser
2008, p. 3).
Outcomes are clear statements about what students will be able to do at the conclusion of a sequence
of lessons or a unit, rather than simply what they should know. They are not values, attitudes or beliefs.
Instead, they are the results of learning that teachers want students to demonstrate at the end of significant
learning experiences and are concretely measurable. As such, outcomes are learner performances that
reflect their competence at particular enactments of the content. All lessons start with the end in mind —
the outcomes that will need to be attained.
Other language that is used to describe this discourse of curriculum is about learners achieving compe-
tencies to demonstrate that they have learned particular information and skills. You can see how the
language ‘demonstrate competencies’ coheres with the notion that this view of curriculum results in
actions and performances of what has been learned.
Proponents of this view of curriculum development and enactment point out that such an approach
honours and accounts for the fact that different learners learn and achieve at different paces. Those
who master content more quickly can demonstrate those outcomes and move on to learn more. Those
progressing more slowly can still be afforded the time and experiences to increase their understanding,
and ability to demonstrate that understanding, without being pushed through lessons at a uniform pace
with the rest of the class. Understood in this way, outcomes-focused views of curriculum can afford oppor-
tunities for differentiated instruction when the curriculum is enacted and learned. As Spady (1994, p. 5)
notes, ‘WHAT and WHETHER students learn successfully is more important than WHEN and HOW
they learn it’.
Thinking about each of the models above, what assumptions or tenets underpin each model? For
instance, an emergent model of curriculum is predicated on a particular view of children as competent
and capable citizens. Do the other curriculum models conceptualise children in this way? Are all of the
models congruent with one another, or are there models at odds with one another given their underpinning
assumptions/tenets?
6.4 The hidden curriculum

LEARNING OBJECTIVE 6.4 Describe why attending to the hidden curriculum matters.
Earlier in this chapter, we discussed the gap that can exist between what is intended and what is actually
enacted or learned. As a corollary to that discussion, it is necessary to engage with the concept of the
hidden curriculum. The hidden curriculum can be either intended or unintended. Jane Roland Martin
(1983) has written that the hidden curriculum consists of ‘some of the outcomes or by-products of schools
or of non-school settings, particularly those states which are learned but not openly intended’. The concept
usually has a negative connotation, inferring that inequalities are reproduced or at least unchallenged —
and work against the democratic intentions of schooling. As such, Giroux and Penna (1983) noted that
the hidden curriculum can also refer to the transmission of norms, values and beliefs conveyed in both the
formal educational content and the social interactions within these schools. This idea of the formal edu-
cational content, or subject matter, and the relationships that surround the learning of that subject matter,
is evocative of the pedagogical view of curriculum. However, in the case of the hidden curriculum, the
consequences are often unintended and unseen, and can have deleterious effects. The concept can also
accommodate a notion of inculcation of particular norms, mores or values. Martin (1983) has elaborated
examples of things that can be contained within and taught through the hidden curriculum: the social
structures of the classroom; tracking systems; the teacher’s exercise of authority; rules governing the
relationship between teachers and students; the teacher’s use of language; architecture; and disciplinary
measures.
Hidden curriculum as implicit and unintended

The hidden curriculum often teaches about things that do not appear to be the explicit focus of the teaching
and learning taking place at the time. For instance, though the lesson might be science, the lessons being
taught via the hidden curriculum could be about the types of boys and girls that are good in science and
whether those identities are acceptable in the wider social milieu, or context, of the school. Science class
probably would not ever teach students that excelling in science makes you a nerd, but somehow that
lesson is often learned. Of course it can also get challenged, but that it exists to be challenged means that
it was learned in the first instance.
The hidden curriculum, then, can teach ‘lessons’ not explicitly taught in or outside of the classroom.
It may address questions such as ‘What kind of a boy/girl is popular?’, ‘What kind of a girl/boy does
well in school?’, ‘Who does the teacher validate by spending time with?’, and ‘Whose lives, families or
cultures are mentioned in learning materials, or about whose lives are there silences?’ For example, in her
classic work about gender socialisation inside and outside of primary school classrooms, Barrie Thorne
(1993) examined and analysed how the hidden curriculum conveyed messages about what being a proper
‘boy’ and being a proper ‘girl’ meant to the students. These were not explicit, intentional lessons taught
to the children, but rather a series of messages, or norms for behaviour and self-presentation, that were
conveyed both in the classroom and on the playground about acceptable identities and manifestations
of being a boy and being a girl. Students who failed to take up the messages in this curriculum or who
violated its mores were labelled with the all too familiar derisive appellations of ‘tomboys’ and ‘sissies’.
As Thorne (1994, p. 111) notes, ‘The tomboy and the sissy stand at and help define the symbolic margins
of dichotomous and asymmetric gender difference; the label “sissy” suggests that a boy has ventured too
far into the contaminating “feminine”’. Children who ignored the lessons of the hidden curriculum often
did so at their own peril. You would not find these lessons in any teacher’s lessons plans or programming,
but these things were nonetheless learned as a part of these children’s schooling experience.
If you are not knowledgeable about or confident in your abilities to teach about Indigenous content, what
messages will form part of the hidden curriculum in your classroom? What messages get taught by the
complete absence of this content? What messages get taught if the content feels supplemental, or if it’s
not well taught? Are these the lessons you want your students to be learning?
Find some of the lesson plans that you created and used on your last practicum. With the concept of
hidden curriculum in mind, review the plans for both what is there and what is absent, or the silences.
What might have been part of the hidden curriculum in the classroom when you were teaching these
lessons?
To help you answer these questions, think about who these plans included/excluded, mentioned/failed
to mention and engaged/failed to engage. What lessons might also have been taught, however
inadvertent, through these lessons?
6.5 Teachers as curriculum workers

LEARNING OBJECTIVE 6.5 Advocate for understanding teachers as curriculum workers.
One of the functions of schooling, and therefore of curriculum, is to assist in cultural reproduction —
the maintenance and propagation of the beliefs, values and attitudes of a particular culture or of sub-
groups within a culture. If these beliefs and values are equitable and just, or even just agreeable, then
the phenomenon of cultural reproduction can remain unchallenged or be praised. But if they are seen to
be discriminatory, unjust or hurtful, there is an outcry for schools and teachers to intervene in these
injustices by becoming agents for change — or what Judyth Sachs (2003) refers to as members of
‘the activist teaching profession’.

Paulo Freire (1998) offers one vision of what this might look like and mean. He conceptualises it
in terms of ‘teachers as cultural workers’. As should be clear from earlier, if the pedagogical view of
curriculum is adopted, all of the work that teachers do is cultural, and therefore teachers themselves are
cultural workers. There is nothing neutral, apolitical or acultural about the work of teachers — it is all
embedded in a certain place and time, in certain communities with certain groups of people. And whether
those groups are diverse or relatively homogeneous, the work is cultural work.
Take now a robust pedagogical view of curriculum and you appreciate how obvious it is to see teachers
as curriculum workers, for this view of curriculum encompasses all that is cultural in the work of learning
and teaching. In each of Schwab’s (1969) four commonplaces — teacher, students, subject matter and
milieu — the cultural elements can be seen and curriculum work can be recognised as cultural work and
vice versa.
However, that does not mean this cultural work is obvious or easy. As Freire (1998, p. 71) notes,
‘We have a strong tendency to affirm that which is different from us as inferior. We start from the belief
that our way of being is not only good, but better than that of those who are different than us’. This
admonition is a reminder of how easy it is to treat what is known as ‘normal’ and what is unknown or
unfamiliar as ‘abnormal’ when all that is required is acknowledgement of difference. What implications
does this tendency have for the work of educators? What work might teachers need to do to thwart this
tendency to denigrate what they don’t know or understand?
Think, as well, about implications for your work arising from the idea that ‘Educators need to know
what happens in the world of the children with whom they work’ (Freire 1998, p. 72). How might you
go about learning about children’s worlds? How might this make you a cultural worker? And how might
knowing more about your students, their families and their communities help mitigate against seeing
difference as inferior?
Teachers as critical consumers and creators of curriculum

Try unpacking the phrase above — teachers as critical consumers and creators of curriculum. First, think
about what the word ‘critical’ means to you. As we have discussed earlier in this text, for many the term
has a negative connotation — that being critical means finding fault with, criticising or even denigrating.
We use the term ‘critical’ in a much more expansive way and try to rid it of its wholly negative conno-
tations. Here critical refers to a stance that seeks to identify the strengths or affordances of something,
as well as to unearth its limitations, shortcomings or drawbacks. Therefore, a critical stance is meant to
take an encompassing, unbiased view of something in order to fully assess it.
Second, what does the word ‘consumer’ conjure up in your mind? Again, this word might have a
connotation that is slightly negative — as one who wantonly takes, makes indiscriminate choices, or
even over-indulges. In the context of this chapter, it is meant to signal that there are lots of curricular
materials out there already, thoughtfully crafted and made public for others to read, review and make use
of. Imagining teachers as consumers of this material makes good sense — why re-invent the wheel? As
seen earlier, there are also lots of approaches to structuring and developing curriculum that teachers can
be consumers of (or not).
Third, the word ‘create’. Just as things like the internet have meant that there is more information
than ever before readily available to students and teachers, given the pedagogical stance described above,
there is still a need for teachers to create things that play to the strengths of their students, draw on their
students’ prior knowledge and experiences, fit well within their communities and the communities the
students come from, and resonate with children, adolescents and their families as things worth learning
about. All this is not already ‘out there’, waiting to be found. Teachers still have to do lots of editing,
reworking, piecing together and creating of the curriculum.
Now string all three concepts together to make sense of teachers as critical consumers and creators
of curriculum. Teachers need to bring a critical eye to what already exists that might be useful or need
only minor editing and changing, and to use that same critical stance to make decisions about what
they need to create in order to connect with their students and craft powerful learning environments and
opportunities. When the critical stance is brought to bear on both consuming and creating curriculum,
the result is a tight fit between the curriculum and the learners. In fact, as was evident in some of the
curriculum models discussed earlier, a teacher might even backward map (Wiggins & McTighe 1998)
from their students’ lives in order to critically craft a curriculum. This would certainly embody what being
an agent of change might mean. For example, by engaging students with the Why is my curriculum white?
project (www.nus.org.uk/en/news/why-is-my-curriculum-white), students are given the knowledge to ask
and explore critical questions about the cultural origins of the curriculum and who is (and is not) taken
account of, taught about and therefore valued. Fostering these discussions and explorations is the work
of a critical consumer of curriculum.
If you were to think back to teachers you’ve had, or better yet observe teachers that you’re currently
studying with, what would you look for/listen for in order to identify them as acting like a cultural worker?
What might be characteristics of their actions and/or stance towards teaching and learning that would
allow you to confidently identify them as a cultural worker?
What does it mean to function as a teacher who is an agent of change? What case would you mount to
advocate for this stance? What case would you mount to argue against such a disposition? Which case
do you find most compelling, and why?
6.6 Curriculum as praxis

LEARNING OBJECTIVE 6.6 Explain the importance of understanding curriculum as praxis.
This chapter will conclude by pulling together the various threads that have been examined throughout
into a coherent picture that sees curriculum as praxis, not just as a technical exercise of planning or
accountability. Instead, consistent with the pedagogical view of curriculum advocated for within this
chapter, curriculum itself can be viewed as an agent for change — in children’s lives, in their communities,
in the world. Stephen Kemmis and Tracey Smith (2008, p. 4) define praxis as:
Action that is morally-committed, and oriented and informed by traditions in a field. It is the kind of
action people are engaged in when they think about what their action will mean in the world. Praxis is
what people do when they take into account all the circumstances and exigencies that confront them at a
particular moment and then, taking the broadest view they can of what it is best to do, they act.
Given what was discussed above, do you see connections between that and this notion of praxis as
‘educationally right practice’ (Kemmis & Grootenboer 2008)? Elements both of action and of reflection
are key to these definitions.
Curriculum exceeds the textbook

This seems consistent with what Salas et al. (2004) have in mind when they write about guidelines for
developing curriculum. In a section of their article entitled ‘Move beyond the textbook’ (p. 8) they write:
Many teachers, especially new teachers, fall into the trap of teaching straight out of an assigned textbook
all the time . . . Go ahead and use the book if you need to, but use it critically. Ask yourself and your
students: What are the implicit values being presented by this textbook? Whose voices are being heard?
Whose voices are absent?
Teaching ‘straight from the text’ adopts an object view of curriculum, doesn’t it? It presumes that
what is worth knowing is contained within the text, and the teacher’s job is to help students find it in the
text. But curriculum is not just about learning content. Rather it is constituted in the social and cultural
worlds of those who interact with it — it is inherently a social act (Grundy 1987) and, as such, it is about
relationships between teachers and students, among students, between students and subject matter, and
between students and the contexts in which they live and learn.
An interest in teachers as agents of change or activists certainly presages an interest in curriculum as
an emancipatory (Grundy 1987), as opposed to a merely technical, endeavour. Such a practice-focused
approach envisions that curriculum ‘is constituted through an active process in which planning, acting
and evaluating are all reciprocally related and integrated into the process’ (Grundy 1987, p. 115). The
constitutive elements of praxis are reflection and action; the curriculum itself develops through action and
reflection.
Curriculum as a shared understanding
Lingard et al. (2003, p. 4) write, ‘In order to achieve improved outcomes for all students, it is necessary
to align curriculum, pedagogies and assessment’. They envision this alignment occurring via a shared
understanding of the intended student outcomes that hence shapes what the curriculum could or should
look like. And if such an alignment were guided by a sense of what constitutes ‘educationally right prac-
tice’ (Kemmis & Grootenboer 2008), then it could constitute curriculum as praxis — the active alignment
to maximise learning.
Bringing these ideas back to the classroom, Salas et al. (2004) recommend to (preservice and graduate)
teachers several elements in response to the curriculum question ‘How am I going to do this?’ In addition
to ‘move beyond the textbook’, discussed above, they advocate (pp. 84–92):
r do not underestimate what you bring to teaching
r cut yourself some slack
r do not let yourself get lazy
r build community
r teach everybody
r be consistent
r do not try to go it alone
r assume nothing . . . and keep an open mind
r encourage kids to bring their lives into the classroom
r keep it real
r let students see you as a person
r take care of yourself
r put anti-racism and multiculturalism at the heart of your work.
What do you bring in terms of knowledge and experiences to help you make sense of what each element
on the list means? This list is a wonderful enactment of many of the ideas that have been discussed in
this chapter, and it consolidates those ideas through the lens of praxis. It also beautifully illustrates what
gains are possible in moving beyond a technical conception of curriculum to one of curriculum as praxis.
The list implores teachers to engage deeply in the meaningful work of connecting to students and their
lives, and of capitalising on those connections to engender and enhance learning. For example, imagine
the power of sharing your knowledge about and passion for Indigenous issues in education!
To conclude, curriculum viewed as praxis is ‘those forms of practice that are enacted by those that are
conscious and self-aware that their actions are “morally committed, and oriented and informed by tradi-
tion”’ (Kemmis & Smith 2008, p. 4) — myriad possibilities exist for connecting meaningfully to learners’
lives, for them to ask questions meaningful to their lives, and for them to take action to improve their
lives and the lives of others. If that is not what you think of when you hear the phrase ‘the curriculum’,
think again.
Can you recall ever being in a classroom, or in some other learning context, where the teacher worked as
an agent for change (or as an ‘activist’) and the curriculum embodied a sense of what was just and morally
informed? If you can, what features differentiated that learning context from the many others you’ve been
in — both in terms of what was present in it and what was absent from it? If you can’t, why do you think
that is? Given all of the classrooms and other learning contexts you have been in during your lifetime,
what does that say about the prevalence (and perhaps the perceived worth) of such teachers and such
contexts? What steps can you take to enact such a stance in your own learning context?
INSIGHTS IN EDUCATION
. . . because schools and school knowledge are embedded in and structured by systems of domina-
tion and rule that are organized hierarchically around power relations of race, class, gender, sexuality,
nationality, and other forms of socially determined categorical difference, the curricular knowledge
asserted by groups in power generally supports status quo, hegemonic social relations and epistem-
ologies. This curricular knowledge thus often contradicts and runs counter to the epistemologies and
curricular knowledge advanced by oppressed groups. Put differently, the curriculum of the ruler will in
many ways be oppositional to the curriculum of the ruled.
. . . because of unequal power relations, the curricular perspectives of those in power are made oper-
ational in generally hegemonic and commonsense forms in school knowledge for everyone, regardless
of social location and regardless of whether or not such perspectives are congruent with or contradict
the material and social realities of students and their communities. Put differently, despite progres-
sive curricular gains or curriculum accords made by educators and activists the unequal distribution
of power leads to the unequal distribution of specific curricular knowledge, where those with more
power can exert stronger influence on our commonsense understandings of the world vis-à-vis the
curriculum, even if such commonsense understandings fundamentally operate as distorted concep-
tions of material and social reality.
Engaging deeply with this excerpt from Wayne Au’s (2012, p. 66) book is a wonderful way to end this
chapter because it weaves together so many of the threads that we’ve discussed. Clearly this was written
by an educator who is working as an agent of change and a cultural worker who takes a pedagogical view
of curriculum. The passages refer to the ways that the fingerprints of curriculum creators cover what they
construct — whether in an explicit fashion, or as part of a more hidden curriculum. He calls our attention
to the ways in which schooling, and curriculum, can engage in cultural reproduction, and he perceptibly
illustrates that it’s the dominant culture that’s likely to get uncritically reproduced, to the detriment of many.
Au reminds us that context does indeed matter by suggesting what occurs when context is ignored in
‘one-size-fits-all’ efforts. It can be capitalised upon to shape and refine what it being taught — both in affir-
mative, but also detrimental ways. In the end, contextual information can and should serve as a resource
for shaping the curriculum, allowing us to connect with students, their families and their communities.
SUMMARY
There are many discourses about the concept of ‘the curriculum’. Many technical understandings of cur-
riculum view it as a product, but a more productive view is understanding curriculum as action — what
Grundy calls a pedagogical view of curriculum. In light of this pedagogical view of curriculum, it is
important to consider what is meant by curriculum as a social and cultural construction, and what it
means to consider teachers (and even students) as curriculum workers.
There are numerous diverse models of curriculum. Many are based on the notion of an explicit, intended
curriculum. There is, however, also a hidden curriculum that teaches many lessons. This chapter advocates
a view of curriculum as praxis. There are gains to be achieved by taking such a view and enacting it within
and outside classrooms. This view emanates not only from the inter-implicated nature of the curriculum
across the domains of the teacher, the students, subject matter and the milieu, but also from a notion of
curriculum as action, as process. Finally, the chapter advocates for understanding the need for and role
of Indigenous Australian content within all areas of the curriculum.
KEY TERMS
arts-based curriculum Using the creative, performing and practical arts as a context around and
through which the rest of the school subjects are structured and taught. The arts become the
organising context, or touchstone, through which connections to all of the other subjects are made.
cultural construction Something that was created by people who are located in a particular time and
place, and who bring their own values, attitudes, interests and priorities to bear on its construction
and articulation.
emergent curriculum The course of the curriculum is not fully known from the outset, but rather
negotiated with the participants/students as learning progresses.
four commonplaces of schooling The fundamental aspects of learning and teaching in schooling —
the students, the teacher, the subject matter and the milieu.
hidden curriculum Teaching about things that do not appear to be the explicit or intended focus of the
teaching and learning taking place, and as such form part of the informal, rather than formal,
curriculum.
inquiry-based curriculum A stance towards learning where learners form, and are guided by, their
own questions about issues, problems and phenomena.
integrated curriculum Distinctions between subjects are minimised or eliminated as larger issues and
problems are explored or investigated, blending traditionally distinct subject areas.
praxis Morally informed practice enacted by those who are self-aware and who draw on the mores and
customs of their field.
FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE

6.1 LO1
After reading this chapter, which definition(s) of curriculum resonate most with you? Has your
thinking shifted at all since before you read the chapter? How so?
6.2 LO3
How would you characterise the curriculum model(s) evident in the subject you are reading this
text for? On what bases are you deciding the appropriate models? What evidence exists to support
your decision?
6.3 LO1
What would need to change in order to have early childhood settings or schools become hotbeds
for curriculum experimentation and innovation? What’s currently preventing this from happening?
6.4 LO2, 7
Choose a chapter from this text that you’ve already read. Can you discern any traces of the finger-
prints of the people or culture(s) that developed, organised and/or presented the knowledge? Is there
evidence of the fingerprints of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples/cultures? If so, what are
they? If not, does that mean that there are no such fingerprints, or that you just cannot detect them?
6.5 LO5, 6
Think about a topic you’ve recently read about and/or discussed in one of your subjects this
semester. If you take on the role of critical consumer and creator of curriculum, how could you
teach this topic to children or young people?
6.6 LO2, 4, 5
Viewing teachers (or students) as agents of change implies that things need to change. In relation
to curriculum, what needs to change?
6.7 LO6
Make a list of affordances/advantages and a list of limitations/drawbacks to viewing curriculum as
praxis. Which list is longer, and why do you think that is?
WEBSITES
1 ‘Why is my curriculum white?’ is a project of the National Union of Students in the UK. This
initiative aims to draw attention to the white Western origins of our curricula and to question what
needs to happen to better prepare students for our diverse, globalised world. Be sure to click on the
link for the video embedded in the article: www.nus.org.uk/en/news/why-is-my-curriculum-white
2 ‘Teaching tolerance’ is a US-based site that has a myriad of resources, ideas and provocations for
thinking deeply and differently about the curriculum, especially in relation to diversity, equity and
justice: www.tolerance.org
3 The guide ‘Embedding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives in schools: A guide
for school learning communities’ ‘aims to further equip our school leaders and teachers with
more in-depth knowledge, understanding and skills to teach Indigenous and non-Indigenous stu-
dents with confidence and without prejudice’: http://indigenous.education.qld.gov.au/SiteCollection
Documents/eatsips-docs/eatsips_2011.pdf
4 ‘Rethinking schools’ is the homepage for an organisation that produces a journal by educators for
educators, sells books and has a blog. The website offers thoughtful and thought-provoking ideas
for teachers interested not only in improving education in their own classrooms and schools, but
also in helping shape reform throughout the public school system: www.rethinkingschools.org
REFERENCES
Aldridge, J & Fraser, B 2008, Outcomes-focussed learning environments: Determinants and effects, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam.
Apple, M 1979/1990, Ideology and curriculum, Routledge, New York.
Apple, M & Beane, J (eds) 2007, Democratic schools: Lessons in powerful education, 2nd edn, Heinemann, Portsmouth,
New Hampshire.
Au, W 2012, Critical curriculum studies: Education, consciousness, and the politics of knowing, Routledge, New York.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) 2011, The shape of the Australian Curriculum — Version
3.0, ACARA, Sydney.
Australian Curriculum Coalition 2010, Common view on the Australian Curriculum, ACC, Penrith.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) n.d., www.aitsl.edu.au.
Beane, J 1997, Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education, Teachers College Press, New York.
Boyer, E 1995, ‘The educated person’, in J Beane (ed.), Toward a coherent curriculum, Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Virginia.
Curriculum Standing Committee of the National Education Professional Association 2007, Developing a twenty-first century
school curriculum for all Australian students, CSCNEPA, Carlton, VIC.
Drake, SM, Bebbington, J, Laksman, S, Mackie, P, Maynes, N & Wayne, L 1992, Developing an integrated curriculum using the
story model, OISE Press, Toronto.
Freire, P 1998, Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare to teach, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Giroux, H & Penna, A 1983, ‘Social education in the classroom: the dynamics of the hidden curriculum’, in H Giroux & D Purpel
(eds), The hidden curriculum and moral education: Deception or discovery?, McCutchan Publishing, Berkeley, California.
Grundy, S 1998, ‘The curriculum and teaching’, in E Hatton (ed.), Understanding teaching, 2nd edn, Harcourt Brace, Sydney.
—— 1987, Curriculum: Product or praxis?, Falmer Press, London.
Harden, RM 2007, ‘Outcome based education: the ostrich, the peacock and the beaver’, Medical Teacher, vol. 29, no. 7,
pp. 666–71.
Hendrick, J & Weissman, P 2007, Total learning: Developmental curriculum for the young child, 7th edn, Pearson, Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey.
Jones, E & Nimmo, J 1994, Emergent curriculum, National Association for the Education of Young Children, Washington, DC.
Katz, L & Chard, S 2000, Engaging children’s minds: The project approach, 2nd edn, Ablex, Stamford, Connecticut.
Kemmis, S & Grootenboer, P 2008, ‘Situating praxis in practice: practice architectures and the cultural, social and material
conditions for practice’, in S Kemmis & TJ Smith (eds), Enabling praxis: Challenges for education, Sense Publishers,
Rotterdam.
Kemmis, S & Smith, TJ (eds) 2008, Enabling praxis: Challenges for education, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam.
Kumashiro, K 2002, Troubling education: Queer activism and antioppressive pedagogy, Routledge Falmer, London.
Lingard, B, Hayes, D, Mills, M & Christie, P 2003, Leading learning, Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK.
Martin, JR 1983, ‘What should we do with a hidden curriculum when we find one?’, in H Giroux & D Purpel (eds), The hidden
curriculum and moral education: Deception or discovery?, McCutchan Publishing Corporation, Berkeley, California.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) 2008, Melbourne declaration on
educational goals for young Australians, MCEETYA, Melbourne.
—— 1999, Adelaide Declaration on national goals for schooling in the twenty-first century, MCEETYA, Melbourne.
—— 1989, Hobart declaration on schooling, MCEETYA, Melbourne.
National Union of Students 2015, Why is my curriculum white?, www.nus.org.uk/en/news/why-is-my-curriculum-white.
Pinar, W, Reynolds, WM, Slattery, P & Taubman, PM 1995, Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical
and contemporary curriculum discourses, Peter Lang, New York.
Sachs, J 2003, The activist teaching profession, Open University Press, Maidenhead, United Kingdom.
Salas, KD, Tenorio, R, Walters, S & Weiss, D 2004, ‘How am I going to do this?: guidelines for developing curriculum’, in
KD Salas, R Tenorio, S Walters & D Weiss (eds), The new teacher book: Finding purpose, balance and hope during your first
years in the classroom, Rethinking Schools, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Schwab, J 1969, College curricula and student protest, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Semali, L & Kincheloe, J (eds) 1999, What is indigenous knowledge? Voices from the academy, Falmer Press, London.
Spady, WG 1994, Outcome-based education: Critical issues and answers, American Association of School Administrators,
Arlington, VA.
Tenorio, R 2004, ‘Curriculum is everything that happens: an interview with Rita Tenorio’, in KD Salas, R Tenorio, S Walters &
D Weiss (eds), The new teacher book: Finding purpose, balance and hope during your first years in the classroom, Rethinking
Schools, Milwaukee.
Thorne, B 1993, Gender play: Girls and boys in school, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Wien, CA (ed.) 2008, Emergent curriculum in the primary classroom: Integrating the Reggio Emilia approach in schools,
Teachers College Press, New York.
Wiggins, G & McTighe, J 1998, Understanding by design, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria,
Vancouver.
Wilks, S (ed.) 2005a, Designing a thinking curriculum, ACER Press, Camberwell, VIC.
—— 2005b, ‘The visual arts as a thinking tool’, in S Wilks (ed.), Designing a thinking curriculum, ACER Press, Camberwell,
VIC.
Wilson, J & Jan, LW 2007, Focus on inquiry: A practical approach to integrated curriculum planning, Curriculum Corporation,
Carlton South, Victoria.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Photo: © Monkey Business Images / Shutterstock.com
Photo: © Robert Kneschke / Shutterstock.com
Photo: © michaeljung / Shutterstock.com
Photo: © Olesya Feketa / Shutterstock.com

Topic 1A.2 Teaching - Making - A - Difference, - 4th - Edition - (PG - 204 - 235)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic 1A.2 Teaching - Making - A - Difference, - 4th - Edition - (PG - 204 - 235)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUMMARY

school that inform the policy and function of the school.

186 PART 2 Understanding learning and learners

CHAPTER 5 Learner diversity, pedagogy and educational equity 187

Connell, RW 1985, Teachers’ work, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

188 PART 2 Understanding learning and learners

Service Learning Australia 2010, www.service-learning.com.au.

CHAPTER 5 Learner diversity, pedagogy and educational equity 189

Table 5.2: © Taylor & Francis Group

190 PART 2 Understanding learning and learners

7 Planning for practice: connecting pedagogy, assessment and curriculum 218

9 Organising the learning environment 302

11 Interactive student engagement and management 363

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

‘Curriculum’ can mean many things

CHAPTER 6 The curriculum 193

Exploring Curriculum Teachers as

Differentiating Whose Integrated Hidden Teachers as Curriculum

6.1 Exploring the notion of curriculum

194 PART 3 Preparation, practice and process

Learners, teachers and context all form part of the curriculum.

Differentiating curriculum from syllabus documents

CHAPTER 6 The curriculum 195

A pedagogical view of curriculum

these components in more detail.

196 PART 3 Preparation, practice and process

FIGURE 6.1 The pedagogical view of the curriculum

Curriculum = Teacher Students

Source: Based on Grundy (1998).

Curriculum as lived experience

CHAPTER 6 The curriculum 197

WHAT CAN I TAKE INTO THE CLASSROOM?

Pondering the Australian Curriculum

198 PART 3 Preparation, practice and process

quality, high equity’ for all young Australians.

CHAPTER 6 The curriculum 199

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR ME?

WHAT CAN I TAKE INTO THE CLASSROOM?

200 PART 3 Preparation, practice and process

Whose knowledge is of most worth?

Who sees themselves within the curriculum?

CHAPTER 6 The curriculum 201

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR ME?

202 PART 3 Preparation, practice and process

6.3 Models of curriculum

CHAPTER 6 The curriculum 203

204 PART 3 Preparation, practice and process

CHAPTER 6 The curriculum 205

206 PART 3 Preparation, practice and process

CHAPTER 6 The curriculum 207

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR ME?

6.4 The hidden curriculum

Hidden curriculum as implicit and unintended

208 PART 3 Preparation, practice and process

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR ME?

WHAT CAN I TAKE INTO THE CLASSROOM?

6.5 Teachers as curriculum workers

‘the activist teaching profession’.

CHAPTER 6 The curriculum 209

Teachers as critical consumers and creators of curriculum

210 PART 3 Preparation, practice and process

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR ME?

6.6 Curriculum as praxis