article review on curriculum

1. Curriculum Theory and Practice. Mark K. Smith. 2000. In http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-
curric.htm. Retrieved July 4, 2009.
Reviewed by Glenda Rocillo Perey. De La Salle University - Dasmariñas
The article is a sixteen-page discussion of the definition of curriculum along with the four
ways of approaching curriculum theory and practice in the school system. Smith started his
discussion by using Kerr’s definition of curriculum, that is: “learning which is planned and
guided by the school.” He discussed curriculum as the following: a body of knowledge to be
transmitted; ends or product; a process; and praxis.
In his discussion of curriculum as a body of knowledge, he links curriculum to syllabus.
This approach to curriculum theory and practice, according to Smith focuses on the delivery of
content using effective methods of teaching. Since curriculum is equated with syllabus which
emphasizes content, teachers who adhere to this belief feel that the issues of curriculum no
longer concerns them as long as the content is taught to the learners effectively.
His next discussion is about curriculum as a product. This approach is based on Tyler’s
linear model which stresses the importance of formulating behavioral objectives. This approach
to curriculum theory and practice is also systematic and organized since it follows certain
procedure aimed at addressing the learners’ needs. He presented the four fundamental questions
to be considered in coming up with a curriculum (3) along with the procedure on how to carry it
out (3). However, this approach raises some concerns. First, since plan or program is pre-
established learners cannot decide on what they will learn or how they will learn. It also poses
issues on the part of the educators since they have limited interactions with the students (in terms
of negotiating on how they learn). Also, their (educators) duties are limited to being program
implementers only. The second concern is about questions on the nature of objectives.
Curriculum as a product suggests that behavior can be objectively and mechanistically measured

2. which is far from reality because learning may take time to occur. Another issue on the nature of
objectives is that trivial competencies are given more importance rather than overall or holistic
skills. The third concern is on the teaching practice of objectives. Curriculum as a process is
grounded on technological and industrial settings and may not be applicable in classroom setting.
Lastly, it ignores the idea that learning also occurs through interaction and not only through
specific listings of objectives.
Curriculum as a process is Smith’s next topic of discussion. Curriculum as a process
stresses the constant interaction among teachers, students and other elements involved in the
classroom situation and how they prepare and evaluate the curriculum. In this approach,
curriculum is not rigid but may be adjusted according to the needs communicated and evaluated
by those who are involved in the learning process since it provides descriptions of classroom
events. He also outlined Stenhouse’ major parts of a curriculum (6). Smith contrasted curriculum
as a product and as a process in terms of the following: model, outcomes, teaching practice, and
learners. Product models engage in workshops while process models prefer experimentation. In
terms of teaching practice, in product model, teachers accept the behavioral objectives set in the
plan/program while in the process model educational ideas or proposals are tested and verified
by the teachers in their respective classes. Regarding the learning outcomes, product model pre-
establishes the behavioral objectives, the content, and the methods while in the process model,
content and methods are developed as learners and students interact. In product model, learners
are objects to be acted upon. Because it has pre-specified plan, direct attention to teaching is
emphasized while in the process model, learners are involved in their own learning through
interactions. Attention is given to the learning process and not to teaching to achieve outcomes of
the objectives. Although Smith seemed to favor process model over product model, he did not

3. overlook some issues. First is in terms of degree of uniformity in what is taught. Since this
approach treats learners as subject and recognizes that there are individual differences among
learners, there is variety in content. The second problem is that it focuses too much on the
learners but not on the context in which learning occurs. When students in the process model
take public examinations (which are standardized) and scored low, this may be interpreted as a
weakness on the part of the student because s/he is evaluated in comparison with others or based
on a given set of criteria and not based on his/her own progress as an individual learner. Third, if
teachers are not skilled in helping students make sense of the world by cultivating wisdom and
meaning-making in the classroom, students’ learning will be affected. Measures to overcome
such problem result to weakness of the approach since process is reduced to skills, thus making
process become the product.
Lastly, Smith focused on curriculum as praxis which highlights explicit commitment to
emancipation of the human spirit by collectively encouraging students and teachers to confront
the real problems of their existence and their relationships through interaction, reflection and
informed actions. One criticism of curriculum as praxis is that it does not place emphasis on
context. This is also true of the first three approaches mentioned. Smith quoted Catherine
Cornbleth to prove the importance of context in the curriculum. She pointed out that curriculum
is contextually shaped.
Of special interest is on the brief discussion of hidden curriculum – things that students
learn but are not overtly planned in school arrangements. Although it is often treated negatively,
it may also have positive effects when it helps develop socially valued skills among students or
when they become active participants in critiquing and challenging the existing norms and

4. institutions. Smith argued that if curriculum is treated as a contextualized social process, hidden
curriculum becomes explicit and becomes a part of the process.
Smith also showed problems when curriculum is adopted in informal education. In
curriculum models, objectives and activities are laid out or planned while outcomes in informal
education do not require particular objective(s). Also, the nature of the activities used in informal
education cannot be predicted. Another argument is that in curriculum models, teachers have
specific plan for actions towards teaching and learning. In other words, learning in curriculum
models are planned while in informal education, learning is not planned but spontaneous. Since
context defines curriculum, it is evident that the context of curriculum is closely linked with
school and the elements in it. When informal educators use the terms in curriculum, they are
crossing the borders between formal and informal education.
The article provided clear explanation on curriculum theory and practice but one needs to
be familiar with some names such as: Franklin Bobbit, F.W. Taylor and Catherine Cornbleth to
mention a few. Readers are not given sufficient background regarding the stand of these people
regarding curriculum. Readers of the article must have previous knowledge of what curriculum is
all about, along with terminologies (like hidden curriculum) in discussing this topic. The author
also provided a very brief discussion on curriculum as praxis compared to the other topics like
curriculum as products and process.
Considering the points presented by Smith, I think that the approaches he mentioned
should not be treated as contradictory to one another. Instead, there should be integration of these
four approaches to give us a more holistic view of curriculum. Since curriculum must be
responsive to the needs of society, it must consider the social milieu of the learners to help them
cope with problems and come up with lasting solutions. Curriculum must also be learner-

5. centered because learners are the center of the educative process. To do that, focus on the
product (proof of what students can do as a result of learning) and process (how each students in
a class learn) should be given consideration. Thus, these things should determine the content of
each course syllabus in a particular curriculum.
And although curriculum is closely associated with schooling, a person’s education and
learning is not limited within the walls of the school. Learning in school should be supplemented
and reinforced by informal education. Formal and informal education should work hand in hand
in providing optimum learning to the learners to realize their potentials.
The readers will be enlightened about the ways of approaching the curriculum. As
educators, they will be moved to consider their own beliefs about curriculum and think about
their own roles in the educative process.