See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/300625054

Curriculum Development

Chapter · February 2010

DOI: 10.5790/hongkong/9789888028016.003.0003

CITATIONS READS
0 1,816

2 authors, including:

Bob Adamson
University of Nottingham Ningbo China
95 PUBLICATIONS   1,864 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

On-line resources for postgraduate students View project

Curriculum studies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bob Adamson on 25 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Pre-publication version of Morris, P. & Adamson, B. (2010). Curriculum, schooling and
society in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5790/hongkong/9789888028016.003.0003
Personal use only. Please do not share.

Chapter 3

Curriculum Development

INTRODUCTION

In the previous chapter, we saw how policies relating to the curriculum can emerge from a

variety of social, political, economic and educational forces and influences at the global,

national and local levels. In the past two decades or so, schools in Hong Kong have faced

a change in their role and in the aims they pursue. The periods of international economic

uncertainty, such as the Asian financial crisis and the global banking crisis that started in

2008, plus the local political impact of the return to Chinese sovereignty, has brought about

a radical reappraisal of the aims of schooling. The future of pupils as workers and citizens

in modern Hong Kong is very different from the prospects of those educated twenty years

ago.

The process which leads to the formulation of a curriculum reform is often messy—for

instance, comprehensive curriculum reform could be addressing a wide range of different

economic, political and social goals—as is the case with the current reforms being

undertaken in Hong Kong, which means that it is a challenge for curriculum developers to

find coherent solutions. They have to make a bridge between the often ambitious and
diverse policy goals and the realities of schooling in Hong Kong, and produce a curriculum

reform that schools can actually understand, appreciate and implement.

One of the early curriculum scholars, Ralph Tyler (1949), argued that the first and most

basic question that curriculum developers should ask is: “What educational purposes do

we seek to attain?” This may seem fairly obvious nowadays but it was a radical idea at that

time. People had assumed that the purpose of education was self-evident: it was to teach

pupils the subjects they studied at school. But Tyler asked, “Why do we expect pupils to

study those subjects?” and “What experiences should pupils have in classrooms?” The

intentions of a curriculum can be expressed as aims, goals and outcomes. Each of these try

to identify what we expect pupils to obtain from participating in the curriculum at different

levels of detail or specificity (Figure 3.1).

[INSERT FIGURE 3.1 HERE]

We would expect that a well-designed curriculum would achieve the goals of the related

policy and, at the same time, be of benefit to pupils. We would also expect that the aims

stated in curriculum documents would specify what the benefits are for the pupils and/or

society. Eisner (1994, 134) summarizes the nature of aims when he states that they are: “. . .

general statements that proclaim to the world the values that some group holds for an

educational programme . . . These statements form a kind of educational manifesto”. The

implication of this is that different groups in society will compete to promote those aims

which reflect their own value systems. Educational aims therefore are statements of what
ought to be achieved through a curriculum, and they are directly derived from what is

viewed as most worthwhile for the pupils by those who promote them, unless, as Schubert

(1997) notes, the promoters are acting out of evil intent or blatant self interest.

THE SOURCES OF AIMS

Educational aims and the other curriculum components designed to achieve those aims

reflect a set of images, orientations, conceptions, characterizations or value systems which

involve beliefs and assumptions about the learner, knowledge, schooling and society. They

are therefore strongly influenced by views that people hold on the nature of knowledge

(epistemology), good and evil (ethics), and what is valuable (axiology). Different

stakeholders often have different epistemological, ethical and axiological viewpoints or

images. As Schiro (2008, 1–2) notes, each viewpoint

. . . embodies distinct beliefs about the type of knowledge that should be taught in

schools, the inherent nature of children, what school learning consist of, how teachers

should instruct children, and how children should be assessed. Each vision has its

own values system, its own purposes of education, its own meaning for words (for

example, does knowledge consist of understandings, skills, meanings, or values?),

its own heroes whose beliefs it repeats, and its own villains whose beliefs it rails

against.

There are five main images that influence our views on what schools are expected to

achieve. These are shown in Figure 3.2.

[INSERT Figure 3.2 Images of Schooling ABOUT HERE]

Social and Economic Efficiency: This image stresses the role of schools for preparing

future citizens who are economically productive. Aims derived from this view stress

society’s needs. Examples of such aims are: “to play a positive role in the community”, “to

become socially-aware adults” and “to equip pupils with appropriate skills for

employment”. They focus on the need for schools to produce pupils who are able to get

jobs and fit into society. This type of aim suggests that the curriculum should be planned

so that it meets the practical needs of society. A specific example is the argument that

because Hong Kong is heavily involved in providing services in the global economy,

schools should ensure that pupils can communicate in English, which is the language of

international trade.

The major problem with this viewpoint is to decide which knowledge and skills will be

most useful in an unknown future. It can also mean that individuals are only valued in terms

of their contribution to the economy or to society.

Child-centred: This image focuses on the needs and growth of individual children. It was

put forward partly as a reaction to the authoritarian nature of some education systems. It

stresses aims which primarily relate to the needs of the individual child. Examples from

Learning to Learn (Curriculum Development Council 2001, 10) are: “the development of

students’ own interests and potential” and “We should understand their needs, learning
styles, interests and abilities”. It promotes exploration, investigation and pupils’ choice as

key elements which set pupils on the path to meaningful learning. The work of educational

psychologists has provided a number of important insights to how pupils develop and learn

which form a basis for designing a curriculum (see Chapter 6).

The main problem with this individualistic view of education lies in the assumption that

pupils want to learn something and that if they do, they will learn something worthwhile.

Academic Rationalism: This focuses on the need to either enlighten students with the

concepts and information which can be derived from the established academic disciplines

(such as physics, history and mathematics), or to use the disciplines as a vehicle for

promoting pupils’ critical thinking and problem-solving capacities. It stresses aims which

focus on the development of pupils’ intellect and rationality, and the transmission of

knowledge from one generation to the next. For example: “pupils should be equipped with

the knowledge, skills and attitudes. . . “ and “the aims of this course are to provide pupils

with the basic knowledge and skills necessary to understand better the world in which they

live”. Many philosophers have tried to identify the essential structure of human knowledge

in an attempt to provide the basis for curriculum planning.

The central issue which has to be solved is to decide which knowledge is most worthwhile.

Social Reconstructionism: This is a stronger version of the social efficiency perspective. It

looks to schools to improve society in the future. Writing in 1932, at the time of the Great
Depression in the USA, one of the scholars associated with this perspective, George S.

Counts, argued that teachers could play a powerful role in fashioning the social attitudes,

ideals and behaviours of their pupils and that schools should try to transform, and not just

study, society. The curriculum derived from this perspective focuses on developing

knowledge, skills and attitudes which would help to create a world where people care about

each other, the environment and the distribution of wealth. Tolerance, the acceptance of

diversity and peace would also be encouraged. Social injustices, the abuse of power and

inequality would be central issues in the curriculum.

The main problem with this viewpoint is the assumption that schools can change society.

It is also unclear whose vision of a future society is “correct”.

Orthodoxy/Ideological Transfer: This viewpoint, associated with the work of scholars such

as Pierre Bourdieu and Basil Bernstein, sees the primary role of schools as to reflect and

pass onto children the existing values and beliefs of a society and its culture. The

government usually takes the lead in deciding what pupils should learn and when new

nations have emerged, the school curriculum has often been used to play a very strong role

in trying to create a sense of national identity and patriotism. To some degree, all school

curricula focus on teaching pupils about aspects of their own society, including its culture,

the nation’s history and geography, and its language. The extreme form of this view

involves schools being used to induct the young into the beliefs of a given religion (e.g.,

Catholicism or Islam) or of a political ideology (e.g., Nazism or Communism). The goal is

to shape the views of the young so that they match those of the prevailing orthodoxy.
Orthodoxies, by definition, believe in fixed answers to relevant questions and the task of

schools is to ensure that pupils know those answers. Pupils are not encouraged to consider

alternatives.

The problem with this viewpoint is that if the curriculum promotes an orthodoxy

uncritically then this assumes that the status quo does not require change or improvement.

The primary aim is to shape the view of children so that they match the prevailing or

orthodox views in society. As Eisner (1992) explains, orthodoxies are not essentially about

doubts, but about certainties. Indeed, to become orthodox is to become a true believer.

Each of these images is generally associated with different views of the nature and purposes

of each of the curriculum components. It is important to recognize these associations as

they allow us to better understand the rationale behind many reforms and the basis for

conflicts over curriculum issues. Table 3.1 analyzes the nature of the various curriculum

components which are associated with each of the five conceptions.

There have been numerous other attempts to describe these images or conceptions. For

example, Skilbeck (1976) identifies three ideologies: progressivism, reconstructionism and

classical humanism. McNeil (1981) identifies four conceptions which he terms academic

rationalism, humanism, social reconstructionism and the technological. The technological

image involves an approach to schooling and the curriculum which stresses the need to

find an efficient way to achieve a predetermined goal. Examples of such technologies are

programmed instruction (a feature of many early online or computer-based learning

packages) and mastery learning. However, as this focuses on the means rather than on the

purposes of schooling, it is unlike the five we have analyzed, and is not a complete

conception. Print (1988) adds a fifth conception to McNeil’s list, the eclectic conception,

which basically involves a combination of two or more of the other conceptions.

Eisner (1992) identifies six ideologies, which are: rational humanism, progressivism,

critical theory, reconceptualism, religious and political orthodoxy and cognitive pluralism.

The last of Eisner’s ideologies is not clearly associated with the four conceptions described

above. Cognitive pluralism has its roots in the idea that knowledge takes many different

forms and different types of knowledge involve different ways of thinking. It is also argued

that intelligence is not a single phenomenon but that there are multiple types of intelligence.

For example, Gardner (1999) argues that an individual has a set of intelligences which are

independent of each other. He identifies these as linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical,

physical, spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalist. The implications for the

curriculum are that it should be designed to develop a wide range of competencies and

attitudes, and that a range of methods for bringing about learning need to be used.

Schiro (2008) identifies four ideologies: Scholar Academic, which corresponds to the

academic rationalism/classical humanism/rational humanism ideologies; Social Efficiency,

which is concerned with educating pupils to live in society; Learner Centred, which is

similar to progressivist ideologies; and Social Reconstruction, which is concerned with

empowering pupils to become agents of social change.

Yeung (2009) analyzed the values underpinning the following four major educational

reforms in Hong Kong: the comprehensive Learning to Learn curriculum reform in 2001;

the New Senior Secondary Curriculum first discussed in 2005; the External School Review

and School Self-Evaluation introduced in 2005 and 2008; and the “fine-tuning” of the

Medium of Instruction policy in 2009. She found that the main arguments used to support

these policies were most strongly based on values related to social efficiency and the

development of pupils’ cognitive processes. In contrast, social reconstructionism did not

seem to be a significant influence on these policies.

While the identification of conceptions or beliefs about the curriculum help clarify the

diverse views of the purposes of schooling, it is important to recognize three points.

First, different groups in society stress different but worthwhile aims associated with the

different images. For example, employers and politicians will often stress the importance

of social and economic efficiency; school principals and teachers will often focus on

academic rationalism; and parents will often stress child-centred aims. At any point in time

the curriculum is made up of a compromise between the images of schooling held by

different groups in a society and by the images embedded in the curriculum by previous

generations. In effect, the intended curriculum is therefore an ongoing attempt by the

government to manage the dilemmas which arise from the different views held in society

of the main purposes of schooling. The emphasis on aims also varies according to the level

of schooling. Primary schooling and kindergarten tend to focus more on the child-

centred/personal development type of aim. Secondary schooling focuses more on the

academic type of aim. Technical and vocational schools focus on the aim of preparing

pupils for employment.

[INSERT Table 3.1 HERE]

Second, none of the five images or ideologies provides a complete basis for devising a

curriculum. A complete curriculum plan will try to take into account society’s current and

future needs, the pupils’ needs, the transmission of the society’s culture and values, and the

need to transmit worthwhile knowledge. In reality all types of schools are trying to teach

pupils knowledge, to improve society, to help pupils develop as individuals and to prepare

them for life as adults in society.

The following statements show that schooling in Hong Kong pursues a range of aims:

Our overarching principle is to help students Learn to Learn, which involves

developing their independent learning capabilities leading to whole-person

development and lifelong learning. It is hoped that these will result in an overall

improvement in the quality of education. Broadly speaking, the means for bringing

this about will include:

➩the development of generic skills (e.g., critical thinking, creativity,

communication, etc.) in the context of Key Learning Areas and other

relevant contexts

➩ the use of different methods of learning and teaching to achieve learning

 targets

➩ the development of students’ own interests and potential

➩ the widening of students’ learning space for whole-person development

All students can learn, and in order to do so they are entitled to

➩ learning opportunities through one curriculum framework

➩ a broad and balanced curriculum in basic education

➩ a broad and balanced curriculum in senior secondary education but with

greater choice

A learner-focused approach should be adopted. We should understand their needs,

learning styles, interests and abilities, in order to decide on appropriate learning,

teaching and assessment strategies.

...

We should adopt practices that will achieve a balance between:

➩ different purposes

➩ conflicting interests and views

✧ the academic, personal, economic and social goals of the curriculum

✧ diversified learning and teaching strategies

✧ diversified assessment modes for an informed learning process and/or

for selection purposes.

(Curriculum Development Council 2001, 10, 11)

The most obvious feature of these examples is that there is not one aim of schooling. They

are also very broad and long-term, and they are not expressed in terms of specific or easily

measured behaviours. They do not say what exactly should be taught or how it should be

taught. They are statements of values which reflect what a society expects from its schools.

Third, the associations shown in Table 3.1 are based on logical inferences rather than on

an analysis of teachers’ beliefs and actions. It is possible to argue that a range of different

pedagogies or assessment techniques could be logically associated with a pedagogy that

involved group interaction on the grounds that this was an effective way of enhancing

academic learning. Furthermore, studies of teachers’ attitudes to education (Morris, 1988)

have shown that while teachers support curricular intentions which are child- and society-

centred, they primarily use teaching methods which are associated with academic

rationalism. We will examine the reasons for this in more detail in Chapter 5.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPERS

A person or group involved in developing a curriculum will, just as employers and parents

do, hold implicit views about the aims of schooling and the appropriate features of the

curriculum. These views will influence their approach to the task of curriculum

development. But the existence of different views suggests that it is important for

developers to be sensitive to and aware of other conceptions and the different

considerations which need to be taken into account. Three major considerations are usually
identified. They are:

 studies of learning and learners which are provided by psychology,

 studies of a society and its cultures which are the concern of sociology and

anthropology;

 studies of the nature and value of knowledge which are the concern of philosophy.

Some conceptions focus on one of these areas, for example academic rationalism relies

heavily on philosophical studies. However as Figure 3.3 shows, curriculum developers

need to develop a conception which recognizes each of the three considerations.

[INSERT Figure 3.3 Considerations in curriculum development HERE]

PLANNING BY OUTCOMES

Curriculum developers can approach their task in different ways. One common way, based

on Tyler’s key questions that we explored in Chapter 1, is to develop a curriculum plan

according to the desired outcomes, based on a linear model that involves four stages (Figure

3.4).

[INSERT FIGURE 3.4 ABOUT HERE]

Goals are specific statements of our intentions. Descriptions of goals which can reflect the

images of education’s role outlined above are:

 academic goals—concerned with pupils’ intellectual ability

 vocational goals—concerned with preparing pupils for the world of work

 social goals—focusing on developing pupils’ moral and civic character

 personal goals—concerned with developing self awareness, physical growth and

creativity

 cultural goals—concerned with ensuring pupils understand their cultural heritage

and/or religion

In Hong Kong, the curriculum framework for primary and secondary schools (Figure 3.5)

has three components: Key Learning Areas (KLAs), generic skills and values and attitudes.

The goals are expressed as learning targets, which are set for students to:

 acquire the basic knowledge/concepts needed for an adult world in the eight KLAs

 develop the generic skills necessary for independent and lifelong learning through the

KLAs, General Studies for Primary School and other meaningful contexts

 nurture positive values and attitudes for whole-person development

[INSERT Figure 3.5 HERE]

Outcomes are usually specific and more concrete statements of the learning which is

expected as a result of studying a curriculum. They can be distinguished according to the

type of learning that is expected of pupils. The classic distinction between types of learning

is based on Bloom’s (1956) Taxonomy. This distinguishes between the cognitive

(concerned with thinking), the affective (concerned with feelings) and the psychomotor

(concerned with physical action) outcomes of learning. In curriculum plans in Hong Kong

these outcomes are called elements of learning, and three are identified: knowledge, skills
and attitudes.

Knowledge: This broadly corresponds to the cognitive domain and refers to a pupil’s ability

to engage in a range of thinking abilities. Bloom classified cognitive objectives into six

categories: knowledge (recall), comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and

evaluation, and claimed that each of these involves a higher degree of complexity than the

one preceding it, although this view has been challenged by scholars such as Paul (1993),

who believe that this hierarchy is an oversimplification.

Skills: The original definition of a skill is the ability to perform a manual or physical task

such as catching a ball or drawing a picture, and this definition corresponds with Bloom’s

psychomotor domain. This conception of skills meant that they were seen as something

that was developed through practice that could be provided in training programmes.

However, the term is now used in education circles very loosely to the point where it can

include virtually everything, and all educational purposes are reduced to some form of

skills. For example, curriculum documents now refer to “Critical and Creative Thinking

Skills”, “Emotional Skills” and “Generic Skills”. In the UK, the department responsible

for higher education was called “The Department for Universities and Skills”. This use of

terminology is a reflection of the increasing influence on educational policy of a view of

education as a tool for developing human capital which corresponds to the

Social/Economic Efficiency conception we discussed in Chapter 2. The main problem

which arises from this is that if education is redefined as a set of skills, it suggests that all

of education can be reduced to a set of pre-specified competencies which pupils can be

trained to acquire.

Attitudes: This is a way of thinking about something and is the same as the affective domain.

It could refer to a pupil’s attitude to self, family, friends or society in general. Honesty,

patience, co-operation and tolerance are examples of values which schools try to encourage

and these are classified as attitudes. This classification unfortunately implies that morality

is merely a question of attitude and does not have a logical basis. If morality is a function

of a person’s attitude then we cannot argue that any type of behaviour is unacceptable or

immoral. The affective outcomes of schooling are very important and are stressed in

statements of intention. But they are more difficult to describe and measure than

knowledge-based objectives. Recognizing affective goals can remind us that schooling is

not only concerned with what pupils know, but also with how they think and act.

Behavioural Outcomes: Outcomes can also be stated at different levels of specificity. The

most specific are called behavioural outcomes. These state exactly what behaviour the

pupil will be able to display. For example: “at the end of this unit, the pupils will be able

to subtract two digit numbers” or “be able to spell the following words correctly”. Some

authors argue that effective statements of behavioural outcomes should satisfy the A B C

D rule — the Audience, who will display the outcome; the Behaviour, which will be

displayed (the task); the Context of the behaviour (what materials will be used); and the

Degree of completion (the criteria for successful performance). For example: At the end of

this lesson the pupils (A) will be able to draw an aeroplane (B) on a stiff card (C) and cut

it out carefully (D).

Expressive Outcomes: Not all of what goes on in school can be reduced to a statement of

specific planned outcomes. Teachers sometimes encourage pupils to develop ideas or

materials which cannot be pre-specified because an original response or different response

is/are sought. This is especially true for aesthetic or creative subjects such as music or

artistic skills. Expressive outcomes are open-ended statements about the consequences of

curriculum activities. They do not specify a single outcome of learning but encourage a

diversity of responses. Examples of expressive outcomes are “pupils will develop an

interest in art” and “to visit a temple and discuss what was interesting”.

Instructional Outcomes: These are fairly specific but they do not focus on setting out what

pupils will be able to do as a result of following a course of study. They focus on identifying

the sort of tasks, activities or experience which the pupils are expected to carry out or be

involved in. For example, in preparation for a school trip, the teacher could specify an

instructional outcome in the following terms: “the pupils will work in groups to make a list

of the questions that they will answer when they visit Mai Po Wetland Park”.

Analyzing and identifying curriculum aims, goals and outcomes can be a useful exercise

as it requires us to consider carefully what our intentions are. It also encourages us to

consider how different components of the curriculum contribute to achieving the aims and

outcomes. Clearly, different subjects contribute more to achieving some goals than others.

A teacher of Chinese is trying to develop pupils’ understanding but she is also trying to

develop pupils’ linguistic attitudes and social skills. A teacher of science may also try to
help pupils to learn to communicate, but would probably be more concerned with

behavioural outcomes related to scientific processes.

The use of outcomes, especially behavioural outcomes, has had an important influence on

many attempts at curriculum planning. They are seen by some as providing a rational,

systematic and scientific basis for curriculum planning and so a large number of books

have been written and courses designed to help teachers break their lessons down into very

detailed outcomes. However, a major problem is that the identification of behavioural

outcomes and other similar types of learning outcomes can mean that we only try to achieve

what is planned and measurable. It assumes that worthwhile learning can only occur if it

can be expressed in terms of some measurable pupil behaviour. As a result, the curriculum

is reduced to separate and easily measured blocks of knowledge.

Of course, not all that goes on in schools is predictable or product-oriented. Good teachers

often depart from their plans to pursue a worthwhile but unplanned goal. Similarly, a focus

on cognitive outcomes can mean that we ignore or downgrade the pursuit of affective

outcomes or other key features of education (internalized processes, thoughts and values)

that are not reducible to observable states and cannot be measured by reference to

behaviours.

Another criticism of this approach has arisen from the use of outcomes as a form of

accountability. In some countries, pupils’ achievements in attaining outcomes were

recorded and published as “league tables” that identified the success rate of individual
teachers. These tables were used as the basis for rewarding or punishing teachers (e.g., see

Steiner-Khamsi and Stolpe 2006).

ALTERNATIVE MODELS FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

We will now examine alternative models that do not start only with the goals and intended

outcomes. These models were developed partly because of criticisms of the objective

approach. They take into consideration the practical realities of schools, in an attempt to

ensure that the curriculum that results from the process is suitable for implementation,

given the contextual strengths and weaknesses that help or hinder the work of teachers.

One feature of these models is the involvement of teachers in curriculum development,

which is consistent with moves towards school-based curriculum planning in Hong Kong.

Planning with Reference to Classroom Process: This approach is associated with the work

of Bruner (1966) and Stenhouse (1975). Bruner argued that the knowledge and procedures

that we try to teach pupils are not fixed and certain, but problematic and shifting.

Consequently, schooling generally, and curriculum planning in particular, should focus on

the process of inquiry rather than on the outcomes of learning. Central to this process is the

identification of key concepts (such as causation in history) and procedures (such as

experimentation in science) which are fundamental within different forms of knowledge.

Thus, the content of a curriculum should be selected because it could be used to exemplify

these key concepts and procedures.

This approach to planning has influenced the development of inquiry-learning, task-based

learning (although the Hong Kong version is closely aligned with pre-specified outcomes,

or targets), project work and problem-based learning in schools, and is viewed as

particularly useful in developing certain generic skills. The new curriculum reform in Hong

Kong has identified ten generic skills: collaboration, communication, creativity, critical

thinking, using information technology, scientific and technological skills, numeracy,

problem solving, self-management and study skills. These skills are valued at a time when

pupils’ futures are unpredictable and they will need to cope with the challenges of change

and innovation.

Wiggins and McTighe (2005) propose a model of curriculum development that combines

classroom processes with desired outcomes. To do so, they advocate turning the desired

outcomes into questions that can be the subject of pupils’ discussions and investigations.

This process, they claim, will help pupils to develop the skills of explaining, interpreting,

application and empathy, and endow them with a sense of perspective and self-knowledge.

Planning with Reference to “Needs” and the “Context”: This approach builds upon a focus

on pupils’ needs as a basis for curriculum planning. For example, Taba’s (1962) model has

the diagnosis of needs as the first step. This would involve identifying the needs and

priorities within a school or within an education system. The steps in this model have been

set out by Oliva (2001) as follows:

(1) Producing experimental materials

(a) Diagnosis of needs

(b) Formulation of objective based on pupils’ needs

 (c) Selection of content based on the objectives

(d) Organization of content

(e) Selection of learning experiences

(f) Organization of learning activities

(g) Deciding what to evaluate and how to do so

(h) Checking for balance and sequence

(2) Testing experimental materials

(3) Revising and consolidating

(4) Developing an overall framework

(5) Installing and disseminating the new materials

Skilbeck (1976) extends the notion of needs analysis, by using a situational analysis. Here

the teachers must consider the context in which they are working (e.g., the culture of the

school, resources available, examination requirements), as well as the needs of key groups

(pupils, teachers, parents) involved. His model involves five steps, namely: (i) situational

analysis, (ii) goal formulation, (iii) programme building, (iv) interpretation and

implementation, and (v) monitoring, feedback, assessment and reconstruction. Skilbeck

argues that these five steps do not have to be conceived as a linear progression, but rather

as an “organic whole”.

The central feature of these two models is that they start with an analysis of pupils’ needs

and/or the situation in which the reforms will be implemented. Oliva (2001) proposes a

cyclical model that merges a needs analysis with a focus on the policy objectives, in order
to ensure that the school-based changes remain in line with the overall direction of the

policy.

Planning with Reference to What Teachers Do: Walker (1971) argues that the objectives

model is not an accurate description of what teachers or curriculum developers actually do Commented [A1]: is?

when they plan curricula. He analyzed several curriculum projects and identified what he

termed a “natural” model that has three stages (Figure 3.6).

[INSERT FIGURE 3.6 HERE]

The first stage is termed platform and involves a mixture of ideas, preferences, beliefs,

values and opinions about some or all aspects of the curriculum. They are not necessarily

clearly stated or logical. They would include people’s conceptions or images of schooling

which we analyzed earlier in this chapter. This platform forms the basis on which decisions

on the curriculum will be made.

The deliberation stage involves a wide range of complex interactions which allow people

to begin to translate the platform into a new curriculum. These interactions would include:

identifying relevant facts, desired outcomes, appropriate considerations, alternative

solutions, costs and benefits of actions, and eventually, the “best” alternative.

The final stage of design involves making detailed decisions on the various curriculum

components and this results in the production of curriculum documents or materials.

CRITICISMS OF ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES

As with most topics we analyze in this book, there is no model of curriculum planning that

is the “best”. The strengths of one model in one context are often its weaknesses in another

context, and vice versa. For example, the sequencing of the Taba model makes it linear and

rational, which is useful in providing clarity to the process, but one of the major criticisms

is that it is inflexible and “hyper-rational”, unable to accommodate the irrationalities of real

life. Similarly, the key features of some of the other approaches we have analyzed are also

the basis for criticism. The major criticisms are:

 They are unsystematic—they do not (in some cases) provide clear or detailed

guidance on the appropriate steps to take, and are confusing to put into practice.

 They are descriptive—this applies especially to Walker’s model. Just because it is

the way that some curriculum planners have approached the task does not mean

that all planners should follow that approach.

 They lack direction—if no reference is made to the desired outcomes of the policy

or the curriculum plan, the planners do not have a clear sense of purpose.

 They require expertise—these approaches require teachers to possess sophisticated

skills in curriculum planning and the time to engage in detailed analysis of the needs

or the context.

The approach which is chosen to plan a curriculum will depend on a variety of factors,

including the macro- and meso-/micro-level political environment, and on the conceptions

or images of schooling that are held by key decision-makers, as certain images tend to
favour certain approaches to planning. The Hong Kong school curriculum, as this chapter

shows, reflects a range of images of schooling and of models of curriculum planning. This

all-inclusiveness and complexity can be seen as a potential weakness. For instance,

Alexander (2008, 149) argues that the curriculum in Hong Kong is a hybrid curriculum

that:

. . . starts with eight Key Learning Areas (KLAs), which despite their names are

essentially realms of knowledge. These are cross-cut by nine generic skills. Then

there is a third dimension of 74 values and attitudes, divided into ‘personal’ and

‘social’ and each of these further subdivided into ‘core’ and ‘sustaining’. But there

are also the four key tasks, five essential learning experiences, and finally seven

learning goals. . .

I have to say that this is one of the more complex of the hybrid specifications that I

have seen, because although it starts as the familiar two-dimensional grid (key

learning areas—or subjects—and generic skills) it actually has six dimensions. This

degree of complexity raises the stakes when it comes to implementation, and makes

it possible that some elements, in some schools, will be delivered more as rhetoric

than practice, for it is hard to pursue so many objectives simultaneously.

QUESTIONS
1. Select an example of curriculum planning in your school. Which of the approaches

described in this chapter best describes how those decisions were made?

2. A former chief inspector of schools in the UK (Christopher Woodhead) described his

view of education in the following terms “. . . the school is an institution in which

children are initiated by teachers, who are authorities in their subjects, into a body of

knowledge which has no immediate connection to their lives or necessary relevance to

the problems of society” (Education Guardian, 12 May 2009). Which image of

schooling is this based on?

3. Which of the five images or conceptions of the purposes of schooling described in

this chapter are most emphasized in your school and which one is least emphasized?

4. (a) Refer to Table 3.1. What do you think are the intentions, content, teaching/learning

methods and assessment techniques associated with the subject you teach?

(b) What knowledge, skills and attitudes are pupils expected to learn from the subject

you teach?

5. Use the table below to analyze the link between KLAs and generic skills. If you

believe a KLA can make a contribution to a generic skill, enter 3 for strong, 2 for

medium and 1 for weak contribution.

(a) Are there any skills which are not covered or poorly covered?

(b) Which skills are covered strongly?

 (c) What should be done to improve the coverage of some skills?

(d) Does your subject contribute to covering all of the skills?

School
Chinese

Language
English

Maths

Science

Technology

Physical Ed

Arts Ed

PSHE
subjects

Generic
Skills

Collaboration

Communication

Creativity

Critical Thinking

Information
Technology
Scientific and
technological
Numeracy

Problem solving

Self-management

Study skills

FURTHER READING

More detailed analyses of the nature of curricular intentions are provided by Levin (2008)

and by Welner and Oakes (2008). Eraut (1991) provides a detailed analysis of the nature

of education outcomes.

Schiro (2008) provides a detailed overview of curriculum ideologies.

Oliva (2001) presents an overview and a critique of various models of curriculum

development.

A description of the intentions of schooling in Hong Kong is provided in Learning to Learn

(Curriculum Development Council 2001). These are analyzed in Kennedy (2005) and

Kennedy and Lee (2008).

The EDB website contains information and ideas about school-based curriculum

development: http://www.edb.gov.hk/.
 AIMS Idealistic, long term, difficult to measure

GOALS

OUTCOMES Specific, short term, usually measurable

Figure 3.1 Aims, goals, and outcomes of a curriculum

 CHILD-CENTRED SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
EFFICIENCY

CURRICULAR
AIMS
ORTHODOXY / IDEOLOGICAL ACADEMIC RATIONALISM
ACADEMIC
TRANSFER

SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTIONISM

Figure 3.2 Images of education

Philosophy: Sociology: Psychology:
The nature of The nature of a society The nature of pupils,
knowledge and its culture(s) their development and
how they learn

Curriculum developers

Conceptions of
curriculum

Curriculum

(Source: Lawton, 1983)

Figure 3.3 Considerations in curriculum development

 Key Learning Areas
C E M ST P A P
H N A CE
E H
H R S
C Y
II G T IC
H
Y
S
T H
N
N L H EH SI S E
N
E
E I NN I
S O C
S
S S CO
L C
A Ed
E O L
E H EL A
G
O
Y
L
Ed
G
C O L Y N
L A B O R A T I O Ed
C O M M U N I C A T I O N
m L A B O R A T I O N
C R E A T I V I T Y

C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G

I N F O R M A T I O N T E C H N O L O G
Y
N U M E R A C Y

P R O B L E M S O L V I N G

S E L F–M A N A G E M E N T

S T U D Y

Source: CDC (2001)

Figure 3.4 Curriculum framework for primary and secondary schools

 CURRICULUM DESIGN
(making decisions about the various process components)

DELIBERATIONS
(applying them to practical situations, arguing about, accepting,
refusing, changing, adapting)

PLATFORM

beliefs theories conceptions points of aims,

view objectives

Figure 3.5 Walker’s model of the curriculum process (adapted from Walker, 1972)

View publication stats