Theories Of Curriculum

4.4. Views of Curriculum

Several researchers acknowledged the influential role of humans’ conceptions about teaching/learning and knowledge which are driven by their ideologies and philosophies (Lawton, 1989; Kelly, 1999). Bellalem (2008) put it differently and admitted that our “epistemological beliefs about the nature of knowledge and how knowledge should be taught and learnt” (p. 42) delineate the desired curriculum. The following are views conceived from different perspectives being (1) ideological and philosophical conceptions (Lawton, 1983, 1989), (2) approaches to curriculum (Smith, 2000), and (3) beliefs (Kemmis, Cole, and Suggett, 1983).

4.4.1. Ideological and philosophical conceptions.

4.4.1.1. Classical humanism. This ideology underlying

Curriculum as a process. The process approach aims at fostering engagement, and interaction between, the educational poles being students, teacher, and knowledge. Its main principles are “judgment and meaning making” (Smith, 2000, p. 9).

4.4.2.4. Curriculum as praxis. This approach is the same as the process one but it is characterised by its being in service of society and democracy where action and reflection constitute both sides of the continuum (Smith, 2000). The difference between the process and praxis approaches is well sketched in the following quotation:

While the process model is driven by general principles and places an emphasis on judgment and meaning making, it does not make explicit statements about the interests it serves. It may, for example, be used in such a way that does not make continual reference to collective human well-being and to the emancipation of the human spirit. The praxis model of curriculum theory and practice brings these to the centre of the process and makes an explicit commitment to emancipation. Thus action is not simply informed, it is also committed. It is praxis. (p.

Views of Curriculum in Foreign Language Teaching (FLT).

According to Bellalem (2008), curriculum in FLT is pondered over as continuum whose ends represent to distinct views: (1) the transmissionist view and (2) the socio-constructivist view.

4.5.1. Transmissionist curriculum. As the name indicates, the essence of this view is the explicit transmission of syllabi and language skills. Nunan and Lamb (2001) proclaim that rote learning of the static grammatical knowledge is encouraged, and that teacher/learners relationships take the form of transmitter/receiver; thus, Foreign Language (FL) classes are teacher and grammar-centered. Besides, curriculum is assumed to be politically-fronted in terms of prioritising competent students over incompetent ones (Carter, 2001); therefore, they face racial situations as far as economic privileges are concerned (Street, 1984, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998). This ‘competency’ and ‘incompetency’ are established due to accuracy assessment of students’ end products being language, rather than considering it a means towards an end (Nunan and Lamb,