Theories of Curriculum
The main objective of this chapter of the book is to produce a history curriculum, emphasizing the main points of emergence, institutionalization, and key chains or theories which cover the curriculum as a central theme.
Initially, the author asserts that the existence of theories of curriculum is related to the research, with studies, expertise and professional fields that deal with the subject, however, is not this moment that arises the idea of curriculum, therefore, if this refers to before the finalization of the curriculum as a field of education, or already existed in practice teachers who treated the subject curriculum, sometimes without mentioning the word. Silva finds “the teaching magna” of Comenius, as a good example of history of story concerns the the organization and method.
Additionally, the author asserts, this short introduction, which in general educational theories are also theories of curriculum, but at the same time, these theories do not always speak strictly on the subject.
The term curriculum and its corresponding meaning began to be used in major European countries recently, much to American influence, and its origin is, according to the author, “the conditions associated with the institutionalization of mass education that has enabled the field of curriculum studies in the United States as a field expert. “(p. 22) The work that marks this season is to Bobbitt, entitled” The curriculum “, situated in time and space ideal for its spread, since that time the United States sought to shape the forms of mass education in accordance with your views. It is therefore important to answer some crucial questions as: What are the goals of school education? What to teach? What sources of knowledge? What should be the focus of education?
The answers to these questions and others could point the way of education, curriculum and therefore American, and by such U.S. influence in the world, the fate of education from various countries and their respective curricula, since the choice content, organization of contents and order of content and purpose of each content, method, and the organization define the interest of those who produced it, so on the idea that there is an intentionality in the production of curriculum.
We can see the connection between curriculum and intentionality through the answers to these questions by Bobbitt, highlighted by Silva, and reveal the following introductory points: [I] A conservative design education [II] A comparison of the school with the plant [ III] A major influence on the work of Taylor, who launched six years before his major work, analyzing productivity in the factory, and the segmentation of production and an accelerator of production and generating profits [IV] Within this idea of school-Taylorist the word Bobbitt was key to efficiency.
This arsenal of ideas spread throughout the world, and was consecrated with a dominant strand of curriculum and education of the century.
Analyzing Bobbitt, Silva meets other important factors that define the design of educational curriculum and this author. Thus, Silva stressed that the curriculum Bobbitt is somewhat mechanical, beyond the idea of curriculum development is very present, including the American literature curriculum on until 80, so the curriculum becomes a technical issue, ie anything other than the American vision on the economy.
Bobbitt’s ideas are consolidated in the book by Ralph Tyler in 1949, scoring once the influence of the United States and other countries, including Brazil, mainly because it is the end of World War II, and U.S. leadership in the capitalist world after 1945, manifested in economic, political, military and ideological.
Silva called the design of curriculum Bobbitt and Tyler as technocratic, comparing the model curriculum of Dewey tried by the author of progressive because the initial questions answered differently by focusing on qualitative aspects and the training of citizens.
These visions of curricula are criticized only in the decade 70-80, ie, there is a field of these theories for almost the entire twentieth century. Silva said so:
“The more traditional models of curriculum, both technical as the progressive psychological basis, in turn, would definitely be challenged only in the United States, from the 70s with the movement called for reconceptualizing the curriculum.”
(SILVA p. 27)
The author makes an important signal about the criticism of the vision of education and curriculum, showing, as stated earlier, that this criticism emerges strongly in the 70s, but has a very strong foundation in the previous decade, mainly because of various social movements , decolonization movements, movements against wars, among others, who, above all, question the existing order and promote intensive discussions, including on the education model. So from that decade, the educational structure is in check and be reformulated to some extent by various scholars from the 70s.
We in the United States reconceptualization movement in England the new sociology of education in France a lever on education studies generated from the discussions of Pierre Bourdieu, Louis Althusser, among others, the rise in Brazil Paulo Freire, ie there is an attempt to educational revolution virtually ubiquitous, from a critique of the existing model and looking for new ways.
Silva noted that the critical theories were emerging theories of questioning, seeking radical changes, and still had a huge distrust of existing models. These new theories were mainly aimed to develop concepts that allow us to understand what makes the curriculum, making them understand that this movement was not something homogeneous, with variations of general theories and specific curriculum.
In the midst of this transformation is a work that is revolutionary and the overriding of Louis Althusser, which proposes a discussion on ideology, relating especially the state and education. Thus, the author points out that there are mechanisms in the field, and these are varied, promoting a scheme between the ruling class-ideology – ideological apparatus – society (dominated class).
Within this scheme, the school is one of the mechanisms and apparatus of the state domain, having a curriculum in transmission of ideology, or a manifestation of ideology, because what is expressed in the curriculum is the vision or what one thinks of education, obviously the view of the state, in view of the school curriculum. Thus, school processes and maintains the structure of capitalism, transmitting the worldview of the ruling classes through the material.
Pierre Bourdieu and Passeron develop critical to the educational model based on the concept of reproduction, away from the Marxist analysis of Althusser. Analyzing the work of these two authors Silva says: “In this analysis, the culture does not depend on the economy: culture operates as an economy, as evidenced, for example, using the concept of cultural capital.” (P.34 SILVA) Logo is the reproduction of the dominant culture that expands the domain, the cultural capital for this, the curriculum is geared toward the interests of the ruling class, and somehow there is a naturalization of that area and this world view, as if something as established and immutable.
Silva points out that the diversion is made of the theory of these two scholars, noting that they did not propose an education educaçãma the diversion that makes the theory of these two scholars, noting that they understand what the No curro of the dominated, but rather a greater possibility success in education for those dominated by the capitalist system, that is, offer the same given the children of the ruling class for the children’s class dominated, from education and the proposed curriculum.
Continuing the overview of the changes in educational theories, Silva reconceptualists discusses the movement in the United States, setting as a major landmark 1973 conference on curriculum, and leadership as William Pinar.
The reconceptualists were within the changes promoted by the movement of criticism of the United States, where fit various approaches, however, this movement suffered more influence of phenomenological approaches, autobiographical and hermeneutics.
The phenomenological approach to curriculum is considered the most radical of all, it represents a genuine break with the traditional pedagogy, recognizing very little traditional curriculum. The emphasis of this perspective is in the world lived the experience, and opportunity for teachers and students to examine, so renewed, the meanings of everyday life, often, as I said, taken as something given and natural.
Max Manem performs a kind of hermeneutic-phenomenological, combining the strategies of the phenomenological description with hermeneutic interpretative strategies.
The approach combines autobiography with a phenomenological orientation, it being clear in the work of W. Pinar, when the author refers to the etymology of the word curriculum, to give another reference, giving the impression of movement, something unfinished in the action of “walking the runway” (meaning of curriculum), and expanding the concept of curriculum, beyond the limits of school.
The neo-Marxist critique to traditional theories of curriculum and the ideological role of the curriculum is identified in the work of Michael Apple, which somehow is an author dedicated to the study of the curriculum, promoting a more specific than general.
The author uses the idea of hegemony to show the force field, and the relationship of power existing in society, and the social field a contested field, and strong and permanent act of convincing the ruling class, through ideology, transforming the economic domination and cultural hegemony. Thus, the curriculum can never be regarded as something neutral and decontextualized, and the selection that the curriculum was a process that reflects the interests of dominant classes.
Henry Giroux is another important figure in the U.S. that produces a theory about the curriculum. The author focuses on his recent books on the issue of popular culture, and its manifestation in film, music, and on television, making its analysis more cultural than education.
According to Silva, Giroux:
1. ‘Do you think you can channel the potential of resistance shown by students and teachers to develop teaching and curriculum that have a clear political content and that is critical of beliefs and social arrangements dominant. At least at this stage, Giroux understands the curriculum primarily through the concepts of emancipation and liberation. “It, making his void, and its manifestations which produces a teorizaçsendo selection in the action of the everyday life, often (p. 55)
Within this perspective of curriculum release three concepts are fundamental, Silva points out: the public sphere, intellectual transformer, voice.
Continuing on the idea of freedom we have in the Brazilian author Paulo Freire a refreshing perspective of education, therefore, with effects and influences from the perspective of curriculum. The author departs from the question of what is known, and his theory part since 1967 with the book “Education as practice of freedom,” and in 1970 in “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.”
This latest book by the way is reviewed by Silva for their originality, being different from all other perspectives have already analyzed. First, starting with an analysis much more philosophical than sociological, and political economy, analyzing the dynamics of the process of domination, watching and revolutionizing the education of an underdeveloped country, using humanistic concepts such as love, hope, humility, a diagnosis education and a proposal for how it should be, or Paulo Freire is an author different from the others. Paulo Freire starts that Silva has called a post-colonial perspective on the curriculum.
From the 80′s dominance of the immense literature of Paulo Freire was questioned by the so-called “historical-critical pedagogy” or “critical pedagogy and social content,” developed by Dermeval Saviani.
Saviani separates the education policy, restricting this relationship when the subordinate classes of ownership of the knowledge to generate a political struggle. Furthermore, the author criticizes the universal knowledge, which are considered as patrimony of humanity, and Freire’s pedagogy of liberation pedagogies and liberals are more worried about when the method of acquiring knowledge than with the actual acquisition of knowledge.
Finally, we have from a launch of a book in 1971, criticism of the curriculum in England, through the movement known as NSE, new sociology of education. This movement had as its main features: A tradition of empirical research on the results produced by unequal educational system, lack of questioning of the nature of school knowledge and the role of curriculum in the production and assertion of inequality, and an implicit critique of some points of analytical educational philosophy.
Another general characteristic of this movement was the concern of a certain coherence between curriculum and assessment, including on the work of Basil Bernstein, from 1975. The NSE had much prestige to the 80s, when their structure changed a little by blowing other trends in the sociology of education, increasing the number of fields of study.