Philosophical & Psychological Foundations of Curriculum

PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS:
Based upon fundamental beliefs that arise from one's philosophy of Education, curricular
decisions involve consideration of several topics and issues. Precisely for this reason, we consider
philosophy one of the major foundation areas in curriculum. In this section, we shall explore
several different philosophies of education that influence curricular decisions.

Philosophy and Curriculum

Studying philosophy helps us deal with our own personal systems of beliefs and values, i.e., the
way we perceive the world around us and how we define what is important to us. As philosophical
issues have always influenced society and institutions of learning, a study of the philosophy of
education in terms of Curriculum development is essential.
In essence, a philosophy of education influences, and to a large extent determines, our educational
decisions and alternatives. Those who are responsible for curricular decisions, therefore, should
be clear about what they believe. If we are unclear or confused about our own beliefs, then our
curricular plans are bound to be unclear and confusing. One important step in developing a
personal philosophy of education is to understand the various alternatives that others have
developed over the years. Here we shall look into the following four major philosophical positions
that have, hitherto, influenced curriculum development.
1. Idealism
2. Realism
3. Pragmatism
4. Existentialism

i. Idealism
The doctrine of idealism suggests that matter is an illusion and that reality is that which
exists mentally. It emphasizes moral and spiritual reality as the chief explanation of the
world and considers moral values absolute, timeless and universal.
If we apply this view to education what would be the implications for the role of teachers and
curriculum in education?
Obviously, teachers would act as role models of enduring values. And the school must be
highly structured and ought to advocate only those ideas that demonstrate enduring values.
The materials used for instructions, therefore, would centre on broad ideas particularly
those contained in great works of literature and/or scriptures. Since it is based on broad
ideas and concepts, idealism is not in line with the beliefs of those who equate learning with
acquisition of specific facts from various Proponents of realism view the world in terms of
objects and matter. They believe that human behavior is rational when it conforms to the
laws of nature and is governed by social laws. Applied to education, those ideas begin toeal a
second possible philosophy of education.
ii. Realism
What kind of philosophy will that be? 'Realists' consider Education a matter of reality rather
than speculation. Application, the paramount responsibility of the teacher, then, is to impart
to learners the knowledge about the world they live in. What scholars of various disciplines
have discovered about the world constitutes this knowledge. However, like the idealists, the
realists too stress that education should reflect permanent and enduring values that have
been handed down through generations, but only to the extent that they do not interfere
with the study of particular disciplines. Clearly, unlike the idealists who consider classics
 ideal subject matter for studies, the realists view the subject expert as the source and
authority for determining the curriculum.
iii. Pragmatism
In contrast to the traditional philosophies, i.e., idealism and realism, Pragmatism gives
importance to change, processes and relativity, as it suggests that the value of an idea lies in
its actual consequences. The actual consequences are related to those aims that focus on
practical aspects in teaching and learning (Nash, 1995).
According to pragmatists, learning occurs as the person engages in transacting with the
environment. Basic to this interaction is the nature of change. In this sense, whatever values
and ideas are upheld currently would be considered tentative since further social
development must refine or change them. For instance, at a particular period of time it was
generally believed that the earth was flat which was subsequently disproved through
scientific research.
To consider, therefore, what is changeless (idealism) and inherited the perceived universe
(rea1ism) and to discard social and/or perceptual change is detrimental to the overall
development and growth of children. You can now visualize how pragmatism would have
influenced the framing of curriculum.
Curriculum, according to the pragmatists, should be so planned that it teaches the learner
how to think critically rather than what to think. Teaching should, therefore, be more
exploratory in nature than explanatory. And, learning takes place in an active way as learners
solve problems which help them widen the horizons of their knowledge and reconstruct
their experiences in consonance with the changing world. What then might be the role of the
teacher? The role is not simply to disseminate information but to construct situations that
involve both direct experience with the world of the learner and opportunities to understand
these experiences.
Having seen three basic philosophical positions that have influenced curriculum
development, let us now look at the fourth one.
iv. Existentialism
This doctrine emphasizes that there are no values outside human beings, and thus, suggests
that human beings should have the freedom to make choices and then be responsible for the
consequences of those choices.
According to this philosophy, learners should be put into a number of choice-making
situations, i.e., learners should be given freedom to choose what to study. It emphasizes that
education must centre on the perceptions and feelings of the individual in order to facilitate
understanding of personal reactions or responses to life situations. Of primary concern in
this process is the individual. Since life is based upon personal meanings, the nature of
education, the existentialists would argue, should be largely determined by the learner.
Individual learners should not be forced into pre-determined programmes of study.
Whatever the learner feels he/she must learn should be respected and facilitated by the
system. An existentialist curriculum, therefore, would consist of experiences and subjects
that lend themselves to philosophical dialogue and acts of making choices, stressing self-
expressive activities and media that illustrate emotions and insights. The teacher, then, takes
on a non-directive role. The tender is viewed as a partner in the process of learning. As a
professional, the teacher serves as a resource facilitating the individual's search for personal
meaning rather than imposing some predetermined values or interests on learners.
Existentialism has gained greater popularity in recent years. Today, many educationists talk
about focusing on the individual, promoting diversity in the curriculum and emphasizing the
personal needs and interests of learners. Here, perhaps, we can recall the philosophy that
 underlies the open distance education system. Learner-autonomy, which the existentialists
seem to suggest, has been and remains the prime characteristic feature of the distance mode
of teaching-learning. Because of the explosion in knowledge and tremendous growth in
information technology, the curriculum of the past seems to be obsolete.

To plug the gap between the needs of the learner, the society and the curriculum content,
rethinking in the area of curriculum development appears to be unavoidable. What might have
been relevant in a particular situation need not necessarily always be so. In essence, social
changes demand changes in the existing pattern of education. The inherent potentiality of the
system of distance education enables it to accommodate and cater to these changes. It should be
clear from the above discussion that by and large, in operational terms, both pragmatism and
existentialism find ample expression in open distance education.

Each of the four major philosophies just described begins with a particular view of human nature
and of values and truths, and then proceeds to suggest what such a view implies for curriculum
development. Before we conclude our discussion on the philosophical foundations of curriculum,
we should make note of a few educational philosophies in order to reinforce what has been said so
far.

Educational philosophies:
Although aspects of educational philosophy can be derived from the roots of idealism, realism,
pragmatism and existentialism, a common approach is to provide a pattern of educational
philosophies which derives from the major schools of philosophy some of which have been
touched upon above. Here, we shall be looking into the following four educational philosophies for
their implications in the area of curriculum development.
i) Perennialism
ii) Progressivism
iii) Essentialism, and
iv) Reconstructionism
Let us discuss each one of these in this very order.
i) Perennialism
It advocates the permanency of knowledge that has stood the test of time and values that
have moral and spiritual bases. The underlying idea is that education is constant, absolute
and universal. Obviously, "perennialism" in education is born of "idealism" in general
philosophy.
The curriculum of the perennialist is subject-centered. It draws heavily on defined disciplines
or logically organised bodies of content, but it emphasizes teaching leaming of languages,
literature, sciences and arts. The teacher is viewed as an authority in a particular discipline
and teaching is considered an art of imparting inforrnation knowledge and stimulating
discussion. In such a scheme of things, students are regarded immature as they lack the
judgement required to determine what should be studied, and also that their interests
demand little attention as far as curriculum development is concerned.

There is usually only one common curriculum for all students with little room for elective
subjects. According to this point of view putting some students through an academic
curriculum and others through a vocational curriculum is to deny the latter genuine equality
of educational opportunity. Such views appeal to those educators who stress intellectual
 meritocracy. Their emphasis is on testing students, enforcing tougher academic
standards/programmes, and on identifying and encouraging talented students.
ii) Progressivism
This emerged as a protest against perennialist thinking in education. It was considered a
contemporary reformist movement in educational, social and political affairs during the
1920's and 30's. According to progressivist thought, the skills and tools of learning include
problem solving methods and scientific inquiry. In addition, learning experiences should
include cooperative behavior and self- discipline, both of which are important for democratic
living. The curriculum, thus, was interdisciplinary in nature and the teacher was seen as a
guide for students in their problem-solving and scientific projects.
Although the progressive movement in education encompassed many different theories and
practices, it was united in its opposition to the following traditional attributes and practices:
the authoritarian teacher; excessive dependence on textbook methods; memorization of
factual data and learning by excessive drilling; static aims and materials that reject the notion
of a changing world; and attempts to isolate education from individual experiences and social
reality.
Although the major thrust of progressive education waned in the 1950's with the advent of
"essentialism", the philosophy has left its imprint on education and educational practices of
today. Contemporary progressivism is expressed in several movements including those for a
socially relevant curriculum, i.e., a match between subjects taught and student needs which is
one of the theoretical bases of distance education.
iii) iii) Essentialism
This philosophy, rooted partly in idealism and partly in realism, evolved mainly as a critique
of progressive thought in education. Yet, the proponents of essentialism do not totally reject
progressive methods as they do believe that education should prepare the learner to adjust
to a changing society. Thus, in essentialism learning should consist in mastering the subject
matter that reflects currently available knowledge in various disciplines. Teachers play a
highly directive role by disseminating information to students. According to this viewpoint,
the main arms of the institution (be it a school or a college) get sidetracked, when, at the
expense of cognitive needs, it attempts to pay greater attention to the social and
psychological problems of students.
In recent years, the essentialist position has been stated vociferously by critics who claim
that educational standards softened during the 1960s and early 1970s. The most notable
achievements of the essentialists have been the widespread implementation of competency
based programmes, the establishment of grade-level achievement standards, and the
movement to reemphasize academic subjects in schools/colleges. In many ways, the ideas of
essentialism lie behind attacks on the quality of education by the media and by local pressure
groups, which includes, to a good extent, attaches on distance education.
iv) iv) Reconstructionism
It views education as a means of reconstructing society. The reconstructionists believe that
as school/college is attended by virtually all youth, it must be used as a means to shape the
attitudes and values of each generation. As a result, when the youth become adults they will
share certain common values, and thus the society will have reshaped itself.
As for the curriculum, it must promote new social, economic and political education. The
subject matter is to be used as a vehicle for studying social problems which must serve as the
focus of the curriculum. The following gives you a view of the reconstructionist programme
of education: critical examination of the cultural heritage of a society as well as the entire
civilization; scrutiny of controversial issues; commitment to bring about social and
 constructive change; cultivation of a planning-in-advance attitude that considers the realities
of the world we live in; and enhancement of cultural renewal and internationalism.
Stemming from this view, reconstruction expands the field of curriculum to include intuitive,
personal, mystical, linguistic, political and social systems of theorizing. In general, the
curriculum advocated by reconstructionists emphasizes the social sciences-history, political
science, economics, sociology, psychology and philosophy-and not the pure sciences. The
thrust is on developing individual self-realization and freedom through cognitive and
intellectual activities, and thus, on liberating people from the restrictions, limitations and
controls of society. The idea is that we have had enough of discipline-based education and
narrow specialization, and that we don't need more specialists now, we need more "good"
people if we want to survive.

Before we proceed further, let us ask ourselves a question. What insights do we gain from the
discussion on the philosophical foundations of curriculum'? Foundations of Curriculum Ideas
about curriculum and teaching do not arise in a vacuum. As curriculum development is
heavily influenced by philosophy, those involved in such planning should be clear about
contemporary, dominant philosophy.

If we are unclear about our philosophy of education, our curriculum plans and teaching
procedures will tend to be inconsistent and confused. This being so, we should be aware of
the fact that development and awareness of a personal philosophy of education is a crucial
professional responsibility. Further, we need to be constantly open to new ideas and insights
that may lead to a revision or refinement of our philosophies. Our position should be that no
single philosophy, old or new, should serve as the exclusive guide for making decisions about
curriculum. What we, as curriculum specialists, need to do, is to adopt an eclectic approach,
in which there is no emphasis on the extremes of subject matter or socio-psychological
development, excellence or quality. In essence, what we need is a prudent philosophy-one
that is politically and economically feasible and that serves the needs of students and society.
It is here that open distance education comes forth with its promises for the future.

PSYCHOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS
By providing a basis for understanding the teaching/learning process, educational psychology
deals with how people learn. By implication, it emphasizes the need to recognize diversity among
learners. However, it is also true that people share certain common characteristics. Among these
are basic psychological needs which are necessary for individuals to lead a full and happy life. In
this section, we shall be talking about the major learning theories and their contribution to
curriculum development. Besides, we shall touch upon the basic psychological needs of
individuals and reflect on their translation into curriculum.
We shall at this juncture remind ourselves that our main thrust will be on the contributions made
by the theories of learning for curriculum development. Let us therefore make it clear that we are
not, right now, interested in studying the theories of learning in detail, which has already been
done to some extent in earlier courses on distance education.

Learning theories and curriculum

For the sake of convenience we have classified the major theories of learning into the following
groups:
 i) Behaviorist theories which deal with various aspects of stimulus- response and
reinforcement scheme;
ii) Cognitive theories which view the learner in relationship with the total environment;
and
iii) Phenomenology which emphasizes the affective domain of learning.

Let us take up each of them in the given order and examine its contribution to curriculum
development.

i) Behaviorism and curriculum

The behaviorist school, which represents traditional psychology, is rooted in a
corresponding philosophical speculation about the nature of learning. It has particularly
dominated psychology in the first half of the twentieth century. After a few decades of being
in the wilderness lt has recently gained currency once again with the advent of individualized
education.
Without going into the details we shall touch upon the main, characteristic features of the
behaviorist school of thought.
Essentially, learning is considered a habit-formation and teaching is regarded as arranging
learning experiences in such a way as to promote desirable behavior. Further, behaviorism
maintains that what is learnt in one situation can be transferred to other situations as well.
Broadly, behaviorists advocate that: behavior is likely to be influenced by the conditions
under which learning takes place; attitudes to and abilities of learning can change or improve
over time through the application of proper stimuli; learning experiences can be designed
and controlled to create desired learning; selective reinforcement is essential; and rote
learning and memorization of knowledge are unnecessary.

Having thus touched upon the crux of behaviorism, we shall now turn our attention to its
contribution to curriculum development. It provides the following significant guidelines.

A curriculum, according to behaviorists, should be based on the following concerns:

i) Remedial measures, acquisition of skills, considerations of basic or advanced learning;
ii) Well-defined, short-term and long-term objectives;
iii) Appropriate instructional materials and media to suit the learner's abilities;
iv) Shaping behavior through prescribed tasks, phase by phase activities, close supervision
of activities and positive reinforcement; and The Field of Curriculum
v) Diagnosing, assessing and reassessing the learners’ needs, objectives, activities, tasks
and instruction with a view to improving the curriculum.

We can observe manifestations of these guidelines in the theories, principles or trends related to:
individualized education (and to some extent, open system of education); instructional design and
systems; teacher-training techniques such as simulation teaching, microteaching, competency-
performance based teacher education; educational technology including programmed instruction
(which provides, with modifications, a base for self- instructional materials in use in the distance
mode of teaching/learning).

ii) Cognitivism and curriculum

Today most psychologists explain the phenomenon of human growth and development in
cognitive, social, psychological and physical terms. They also note that learning is primarily
 cognitive in nature. Growth and development refer to changes in the structure and function
of human characteristics. Most cognitivists believe that growth and development occur in
progressive stages. One example is Piaget's (Piaget, 1950) description of cognitive
development in terms of stages from birth to maturity. Most curriculum specialists tend to
show greater adherence to cognitivism than to behaviorism. This might be because the
cognitive approach leads to logical methods for organizing and interpreting learning; and the
cognitive approach is rooted in the tradition of teaching based on subject matter.
Even contemporary behaviorists incorporate cognitive processes in their theories of
learning. Because learning in schools/colleges emphasizes the cognitive domain, it follows
that most educationists feel that learning is synonymous with cognitive development. As a
corollary, a problem solving approach in teaching/learning gains currency.
But, if we take an actual teaching/learning situation into consideration we tend to realize
that this learning model is incomplete and that something is lost in its processes of actual
transfer in the classroom. In reality, the teaching/learning process boils down to the teacher
talking predominantly and students mostly responding to what is said by the teacher.
What should be of concern to the curriculum specialists?
They should be aware of the fact that a school/college should be a place where students are
not afraid of asking questions, making mistakes, taking cognitive risks and playing with
ideas. Further colleges/schools should be more humane places where students can explore
and fulfill their human potentials. Obviously, curriculum has to play a vital role to actually
realize this objective.
iii) Phenomenology and curriculum
Phenomenologist point out that the way we look at ourselves is crucial for understanding our
behavior and that we respond to an organization or pattern of stimuli and not to an isolated
stimulus.
It emphasizes that learning must be explained in terms of the "wholeness" of the problem.
Here you can draw a parallel with cognitivism. But what differentiates phenomenology from
cognitivism is that the former stresses the affective and the latter the cognitive aspects of
learning.
Because each individual has specific needs and interests related to his or her self-fulfillment
and self-realizations, there can't be a generally prescribed humanistic curriculum.
Humanistic learning may enhance the mental health of the learners, harmonize personal
feelings among students and teachers, and improve various aspects of human awareness
among students, teachers, and curriculum specialists, yet its processes rely mainly on
personal experiences and subjective interpretations that leave them open to criticism.
Therefore, there is a great need to examine and understand what is relevant in humanistic
curricula.

Please note that most textbook writers tend to be cognition-oriented. However, one should
propose that behaviourist components are needed for planning and developing a sound
curriculum. Further, humanistic components of teaching and learning must also be incorporated
into the curriculum. Let us say, therefore, that each theory of learning has something significant to
contribute towards explaining various aspects of human behavior and learning.

Basic human needs and curriculum

Physical well-being and health are generally recognized and frequently dealt with through various
programmes such as those on fitness, nutrition and health problems. Mental health needs such as
those pertaining to acceptance, belonging, security and status have been widely studied but little
emphasized in the area of curriculum.
In this sub-section, we shall touch upon just two points which concern the topic under
consideration:
i) Self-actualization; and
ii) Developmental tasks.
Here, we shall discuss these and draw inferences as to how each one contributes to the
enrichment of a curriculum.
i) i Self-actualization
The notion of self-actualization characterizes individuals’ need for self- fulfillment in life
by actualizing/achieving their own potential. A curriculum should therefore provide
learning activities that allow students to identify themselves with those things they can
do well. It should also assist them to succeed in other activities that are difficult for them.
Learners are thus helped to find personal meaning in the learning experience.
Those responsible for curriculum development must pay attention to the concept of self-
actualization. We all recognize the importance of school/college and community based
goals for learners. Self- actualization on the other hand includes satisfying the desire to
know and understand in relation to personal needs and interest. Moreover it has been
noticed that when personal purposes are ignored, learners seem to be less successful in
meeting the set goals. If curricular plans reflect a balance between institutional and
personal needs, the impact on both may be substantially enhanced.
ii) Developmental tasks
We can define a developmental task as a task which arises in relation to a certain period
in the life of an individual, success in which leads to his/her happiness and to success in
later tasks, while failure in it leads to unhappiness in the individual and difficulties in
subsequent tasks. This fact is regarded as one of the most specific considerations in
organizing tasks. The needs of individuals are governed by the stage of development and
age they have reached, and also grow out of their need to respond to societal
expectations. The implication is that educators/curriculum planners should understand
behaviors manifested by a learner indicating her/his readiness and need to deal with a
particular developmental task.

As we facilitate the learners' success in these need tasks, their overall success can be ensured.
Further, in developing a curriculum, the development of an environment in which learners feel
genuinely secure should be ensured. When a curriculum develops such an environment, learning
takes place smoothly because the needs of students and what has been provided by the
curriculum are complementary to each other.
In our discussion of the psychological foundations, we dealt with the contribution made by
learning theories towards curriculum and also tried to see how much more effective a curriculum
may be framed if we consider the nature of basic human need while forming it.
TRENDS IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
To understand contemporary curricular problems and proposals, it is ideal that we
acquaint ourselves with the history of curricular thought and practice that stretches
back to antiquity. However, let us start this section with the assumption that we rarely
find histories that focus exclusively on curriculum and, therefore, turn to an overview of
general histories of education in an effort to get a few glimpses of the history of
curriculum.
The curriculum field may be viewed as a formal area of academic inquiry, but as a basic
human interest, its concerns are perennial. Parents and other members of society
 throughout history have wondered how best to help their young ones grow and mature.
Their response to this problem constitutes an unwritten history of informal curricular
thought and action. As societies became more formal and as institutions developed
within them to meet specialized needs, schools/colleges evolved to help students grow
more efficiently, to introduce them to the ways of their society and to help them acquire
an understanding of their cultural heritage.

If we recall the earlier sections, curriculum has always been and continues to be influenced by
educational philosophers, besides societal needs. In the ancient times, though a formal curriculum
(of the shape it has obtained today) did not exist; young people were oriented towards meeting
cultural and social demands. Depending on the influence of educational philosophies, however,
curriculum-content for such orientations varied from one period to the other. Tracing the
historical antecedents of curriculum may give us a framework of its gradual growth. However, for
our immediate purposes we shall restrict ourselves to an overview of the twentieth century
curriculum and a speculation of the possible future trends in curriculum development.
Twentieth century curriculum
Early 20th century curriculum affirmed the shift in emphasis from sectarian education to liberal
education. Traditionally, curriculum was confined to religion-related orientations and classics.
Gradually, more and more subjects were added to the curriculum. As the focus was on mental
discipline, social needs, student interest or capabilities were given little emphasis. Further, during
this period, compartmentalization and not interdisciplinary subject matter was considered the
norm. There was an unwillingness to recognize the values of arts, music, physical and vocational
education. This was based on the theory that these subjects had little mental or disciplinary value.
If we pause for a moment here and think, we shall realize that even though we offer vocational,
industrial and/or technical programmes now, there is a tendency to consider traditional academic
programmes superior to them.
Gradually, demands were made for curricular changes. Industrial development led a growing
number of educators to question changes, as well as the authenticity of the traditional curriculum
and its emphasis on mental discipline. This shift was also influenced by the scientific movement in
child psychology (which focused on the whole child and learning theories in the 1900’s).
The argument that classics had no greater disciplinary or mental value than other subjects
eventually appeared and meant that mental discipline (which emphasized drill and memorization)
was no longer considered conducive for the overall growth and development of children. In
essence, societal changes and the emerging demands there from; the stress on psychology and
science; and the concern for social and educational reform made evident the need for a new
curriculum. Thus, the aims of education went hand in hand with the particular type of society
involved: conversely, the society that evolved influenced the aims of education.
Thus, the early twentieth century was a period of educational reform characterized by the
following:
i) Idea of mental discipline was replaced by utilitarian modes of thought and scientific inquiry.
ii) Curriculum tended not to be compartmentalized but to be interdisciplinary.
iii) Curriculum tended not to be static but dynamic-changing with the changes in society.
iv) Needs and interest of students came to be considered of primary importance. And now
curriculum is viewed as a science with principles and methodology not just as content or subject
matter.
Possible future trends
Keeping in view the prevalent political, economic and academic climate, it is not difficult for us to
visualize (of course, only to a certain extent) future trends and the influence they may have on
education, particularly on curriculum development. (However, we should also confess here that
such a speculation is fraught with risks that normally go with it.)
Although in this Unit we have been underlining the fact that social changes will have a vital role in
determining a curriculum. If the present day growth of information is any indication the
information flow will increase rapidly in the future. Clearly, the increasing flow of information
negates the traditional notion of content-mastery. Students, therefore, will need to acquire critical
thinking, and problem solving abilities rather than static and/or absolute knowledge and skills of
factual recall.
Further, in the 21st centuries, the need for change will accelerate. For example, it took us more
than one century to shift from an agricultural society to an industrial one. But it took hardly two
decades to shift from an industrial to an information society.
What are the implications of these observations?
Job patterns will constantly change dramatically and so workers will be moving frequently from
one job to another. Accordingly, to keep them abreast with each task/job that they take up, we will
need to give them periodic training. The speed of change we have been referring to suggests not
only that fields will be dynamic, but also that new ones will emerge. By implication, education and
orientation will, of necessity a lifelong process. In essence, unlike the past, we cannot consider our
education complete just because we have attended schools/colleges or graduated from an
educational institution. Nor will we be able to enter a job or profession and expect to remain in it
for life without regular training.
Traditionally, organizations have followed hierarchical structuring with power and
communication flowing in a pattern from top to bottom. Increasingly, however, centralized
institutions are being replaced by smaller decentralized units. Much of the impetus for this change
has come from the inability of hierarchical structures to effectively solve problems. Rigid and
efficient organizations are no longer as efficacious as fluid and flexible ones in which
experimentations and autonomy call thrives. Applied to education, this kind of decentralization
gives recognition to an individual’s need for self-determination and ownership in the decision
making processes.
What are the implications of the above discussion?
In the main, there will be radical changes in the socio-academic ecology of school/college
environment. Barring a few, if any, schools/colleges have so far been functioning as bastions of
autocracy with little importance given to students' needs and teachers' competence. Because of
the changing societal needs and greater awareness of the need for purpose-oriented education,
the needs of every individual in the school/college will have to be recognized. In other words,
there will be a change in the treatment of students as a homogeneous entity. Rapid growth in
information will result in the emergence, every now and then, of varied curricula for purposes of
reeducation and retaining. The number of consumers will obviously be more than the
programmes available. In such a situation, the mode of the teaching/learning process cannot be
the one which is prevalent now, i.e., face-to-face. Obviously, a viable alternative mode is distance
education.

Retrieved from: http://www.cssforum.com.pk/punjab-public-service-commission/pms-optional-

subjects/education/76539-philosophical-psychological-foundations-curriculum.html
FOUR MAJOR FOUNDATIONS OF CURRICULUM AND THEIR
IMPORTANCE IN EDUCATION
JANUARY 9, 2015 ALVIOR, MARY G.

This article explains the four major foundations of curriculum and their importance in education.
Examples are provided to stress the importance of curriculum in the academe.
Read on and reflect on some of the experiences you have had in school to match it with how philosophy,
history, psychology and sociology influence those experiences of yours.

The Influence of Philosophy to Curriculum

Educators, curriculum makers and teachers must have espoused a philosophy or philosophies that are
deemed necessary for planning, implementing, and evaluating a school curriculum. The philosophy that
they have embraced will help them define the purpose of the school, the important subjects to be taught,
the kind of learning students must have and how they can acquire them, the instructional materials,
methods and strategies to be used, and how students will be evaluated.

Likewise, philosophy offers solutions to problems by helping the administrators, curriculum planners,
and teachers make sound decisions. A person’s philosophy reflects his/her life experiences, social and
economic background, common beliefs, and education.

When John Dewey proposed that “education is a way of life”, his philosophy is realized when put into
practice. Now, particularly in the Philippines, Dewey’s philosophy served as anchor to the country’s
educational system.

History and Its Influence to Curriculum

The history of one’s country can affect its educational system and the kind of curriculum it has. If we are
going to trace the formal beginning of curriculum, we get back in time to Franklin Bobbit’s book
entitled, “The Curriculum” which was published in 1918.

From the time of Bobbit to Tyler, many developments in the purposes, principles and contents of the
curriculum took place. Please read the Six Famous Curriculum Theorists and their Contributions to
Education for more information.

The Influence of Psychology to Curriculum

Curriculum is influenced by psychology. Psychology provides information about the teaching and
learning process. It also seeks answers as to how a curriculum be organized in order to achieve students’
learning at the optimum level, and as to what amount of information they can absorb in learning the
various contents of the curriculum.

The following are some psychological theories in learning that influenced curriculum development:
1. Behaviorism
Education in the 20th century was dominated by behaviorism. The mastery of the subject matter is given
more emphasis. So, learning is organized in a step-by-step process. The use of drills and repetition are
common.
For this reason, many educational psychologists viewed it mechanical and routine. Though many are
skeptical about this theory, we can’t deny the fact the influences it had in our educational system.

2. Cognitivism
Cognitive theorists focus on how individuals process information, monitor and manage their thinking.
The basic questions that cognitive psychologists zero in on are:

 How do learners process and store information?

 How do they retrieve data and generate conclusions?
 How much information can they absorb?
With their beliefs, they promote the development of problem-solving and thinking skills and popularize
the use of reflective thinking, creative thinking, intuitive thinking, discovery learning, among others.

3. Humanism
Humanism is taken from the theory of Gestalt, Abraham Maslow’s theory and Carl Rogers’ theory. This
group of psychologists is concerned with the development of human potential.

In this theory, curriculum is after the process, not the product; focuses on personal needs, not on the
subject matter; and clarifying psychological meanings and environmental situations. In short, curriculum
views founded on humanism posits that learners are human beings who are affected by their biology,
culture, and environment. They are neither machines nor animals.

A more advanced, more comprehensive curriculum that promotes human potential must be crafted along
this line. Teachers don’t only educate the minds, but the hearts as well.

4. Sociology and Curriculum

There is a mutual and encompassing relationship between society and curriculum because the school
exists within the societal context. Though schools are formal institutions that educate the people, there
are other units of society that educate or influence the way people think, such as families and friends as
well as communities.

Since the society is dynamic, there are many developments which are difficult to cope with and to adjust
to. But the schools are made to address and understand the changes not only in one’s country but in the
world as well.

Therefore, schools must be relevant by making its curriculum more innovative and interdisciplinary. A
curriculum that can address the diversities of global learners, the explosion of knowledge through the
internet, and the educational reforms and policies recommended or mandated by the United Nations.
However, it is also imperative that a country must have maintained a curriculum that reflects and
preserves its culture and aspirations for national identity. No matter how far people go, it is the country’s
responsibility to ensure that the school serves its purpose of educating the citizenry.

Now, it is your time to reflect. Can you think of your experiences in which the major foundation of
curriculum can explain it?

Try to ask yourself the following questions:

1. Why should I take history, philosophy, psychology or even PE subjects in college?

2. Why is it that there is K to 12 and the mother tongue-based curriculum being implemented by the Department
of Education?
3. Why is there institutional amalgamation?
4. Why is there “One UP” (One University of the Philippines) now in the Philippines?
5. Why is there a need for a globalized higher education?
These questions imply that change will take place in the near future. So, brace yourself for the many
changes that will take place in education!

Reference
Bilbao, P. P., Lucido, P. I., Iringan, T. C., and R. B. Javier (2008). Curriculum development. Quezon
City: Lorimar Publishing, Inc.

Alvior, Mary G. (January 9, 2015). Four Major Foundations of Curriculum and their Importance
in Education [Blog Post]. In SimplyEducate.Me. Retrieved
from https://simplyeducate.me/2015/01/09/4-major-foundations-of-curriculum-and-their-
importance-in-education/
CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION, EDUCATION

SIX FAMOUS CURRICULUM THEORISTS AND THEIR

CONTRIBUTIONS TO EDUCATION
DECEMBER 3, 2014, ALVIOR, MARY G.

This article deals with influential people in the educational system particularly in shaping the
curriculum as we know today. It also talks about their specific contributions that can still be observed by
the present generation of learners.
Let’s enumerate and discuss the curriculum theorists and their contributions by chronological order.

The Six Famous Curriculum Theorists

1. Franklin Bobbit (1876-1956)

Bobbit believes that the learning objectives, together with the activities, should be grouped and
sequenced after clarifying the instructional activities and tasks. He also views curriculum as a science
that emphasizes the needs of the students. This viewpoint explains why lessons are planned and
organized depending on the needs of the students and these needs must be addressed by the teachers to
prepare them for adult life.

2. Werret Charters (1875-1952)

Aside from emphasizing the students’ needs, he believes that the objectives, along with the
corresponding activities, should be aligned with the subject matter or content. For that reason,
department chairpersons or course coordinators scrutinize the alignment or matching of objectives and
subject matter prepared by the faculty members.

3. William Kilpatrick (1871-1965)

For him, the purpose of curriculum is child development, growth, and social relationship. He also
introduced the use of small group interaction, and the project method in which the teacher and students
plan together. Thus, it is called as the child-centered curriculum.

4. Harold Rugg (1886-1960)

He introduced the concept of the development of the whole child, the inclusion of social studies, and the
importance of curriculum planning in advance.

5. Hollis Caswell (1901-1989)

He believes that subject matter is developed around the interest of the learners and their social functions.
So, the curriculum is a set of experiences. Learners must experience what they learn.
6. Ralph Tyler (1902-1994)
And as to the hallmark of curriculum development as a science, Ralph Tyler believes that curriculum
should revolve around the students’ needs and interests. The purpose of curriculum is to educate the
generalists and not the specialists, and the process must involve problem solving. Likewise, subject
matter is planned in terms of imparting knowledge, skills and values among students.

To sum it up, the famous curriculum theorists have almost similar views. All of them believe that the
curriculum should be learner-centered – addressing the needs and interests of the students. All of them
have salient contributions to the educational system of the world today.

If you are an observant student, you might ask the following questions about your teachers:

 Why is it that we are required to do projects, solve problems, and work in groups?
 Why is it that our teachers are being observed in class, and their lesson plans or syllabi are checked?
 Why is it that all of us should take social studies, and not only the 3Rs?
 Why are the lessons being prepared in advance?
 Why should we experience what we have learned?
 Why do our teachers integrate values in our lessons?
 And why is it that the school is after our development as whole individuals (to become generalists)
and be ready to face life’s challenges?
The answers to your questions are the people behind our educational system. They are the curriculum
theorists.

Now, would you like to become one someday?

Reference
Bilbao, P. P., Lucido, P. I., Iringan, T. C., and Javier, R. B. (2008). Curriculum development.
Philippines: Lorimar Publishing, Inc.

Alvior, Mary G. (January 9, 2015). Six Famous Curriculum Theorists and their Contributions to
Education [Blog Post]. In SimplyEducate.Me. Retrieved from
https://simplyeducate.me/2014/12/03/six-famous-curriculum-theorists-and-their-contributions-
to-education/