Curriculum models provide a structure for teachers to “systematically and transparently map out the rationale for the use of particular teaching, learning and assessment approaches” in the classroom, and are regarded as an effective and essential framework for successful teachers (O’Neill 2015, p27). Feeding into a particular curricular stance, it is essential to recognise the multiplicity of sources which will govern this individual framework. Oronstein and Hunkins observe that, when designing a curricular stance, educators must first consider the “philosophical and learning theories” which will inform their “design decisions” (2009, p182). This approach is essential to ensure that the curricular approaches one selects are “consonant with…show more content… I was particularly struck by the distinction between different modes of delivering curriculum and in particular the contrast between Product and Process methods, in curriculum development.
At this point it might be useful to analyse the distinction between these two processes. Neary identifies the Product Model as one that “emphasises plans and intentions” whereas in the Process Model, the emphasis is on the “activities and effects” (O’Neill 2015, p27). In essence therefore the Product Model can be regarded as a more traditional and historically tested method of developing curriculum. The work of John Franklin Bobbitt and Ralph Tyler very much advocate Product curricular designs, maintaining that these designs are centred on the creation of a disciplined and “structured learning environment for students” (O’Neill 2015, p). The Product Model can be regarded as the historically tested and more ‘traditional’ method of developing curriculum. Teacher planning and the presentation of learning intentions to students is core to the…show more content… These contrasting methodologies are cleverly illustrated by Stenhouse when he equates the Product Model as a “workshop” as a result of its highly structured, disciplined and industrial nature, while on the other hand, he sees the Process Model in the classroom, as a “laboratory” closer “to the world of experimentation” (Stenhouse 1975, p142). This method therefore, instils a culture of inquiry. Students are encouraged to experimentally test, question and evaluate subject matter as a means to discovering “meaning in it for himself or herself’ (Ornstein and Hunkins, 2004, p209). On the surface this approach appears to be very much supported in terms of current educational discourse and through my experience at lectures it has certainly been the approach that commands most support. However, I have noted a number of difficulties associated with this approach. Some of these concerns have been explored and articulated by such as Shirley Grundy, who sees it as overly dependent on “cultivation of wisdom and meaning-making in the classroom” and as a result the actual capability of students to “make sense” of subject matter and the world around them, can be