SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF BENIN, BENIN CITY, NIGERIA.

DEPARTMENT OF CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY,

FACULTY OF EDUCATION.

GROUP ASSIGNMENT ON:

CIT 831: THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF CURRICULUM DESIGN,

DEVELOPMENT, INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENTS.

TOPIC: DISCUSS THE PROCESS-DRIVEN CURRICULUM

GROUP 3

1. OMOROGHOMWAN OSAYIMWENSE (MATHEMATICS EDU)

2. EMOVON OFURE (BIOLOGY EDU)
3. ADESOYE ODUNAYO A. (COMPUTER EDU)
4. AKINTEYE DEBORAH (ENGLISH EDU)
5. OSIANENE OGHENENYERHOVWO (ENGLISH EDU)

APRIL, 2017.
ABSTRACT:

This work is on the ‘Process Driven Curriculum’. According to David Newlyn

(2016), ‘the process model of curriculum is one of the more recently developed
theoretical models of curriculum, the process model, has had a significant impact
on curriculum development. It has changed the way that curriculum development
has historically been thought of and planned and has provided a new direction for
curriculum planning in the twenty first century’.

The Group examined the theory and model of Process-Driven Curriculum, its
concept, ideas, beliefs, advantages and criticism.

INTRODUCTION:

What is the meaning of Process?

Process is a systematic series of actions directed to some end. The Harper Collins
Online Dictionary defined process as a series of actions which are carried out in
order to achieve a particular result and Business Online Dictionary defined
process as a sequence of interdependent and linked procedures which, at every
stage, consume one or more resources (employee time, energy, machines,
money) to convert inputs (data, material, parts, etc.) into outputs. These outputs
then serve as inputs for the next stage until a known goal or end result is reached.

What is Curriculum?

Although the term 'curriculum' has been in existence for a considerable period of
time, its meaning is not always clear (Smith & Lovat, 1993). This is because of the
different contexts in which the term can be and is used (Lunenburg, 2011). The
term is highly contextual and connotes different political, social and ideological
meanings dependent upon the user(s) groups of the term (Ewing, 2013). As it is a
pivotal precept of this article it is desirable to take a juncture to discuss the term
and put it in the context of how it is used within this article.

As a starting point and an illustration of the difficulties associated with this term
take the following definitions by leading theorist in the field.

Johnson candidly states that curriculum is simply "planned learning experiences"

(Johnson, 1967: 129).
Albeit still very broadly, bit with a little more detail, Grumet states that
"curriculum is the collective story we tell our children about our past, our present
and our future" (Grumet, 1981: 115).

Tanner and Tanner offer a more complex definition when they posture that
curriculum is "The planned and guided learning experiences and intended
outcomes, formulated through the systematic reconstruction of knowledge and
experience, under the auspices of the school, for the learner's continuous and
willful growth in person-social competence" (Tanner & Tanner, 1975: 13).

Smith, Stanley and Shores offer the following definition of curriculum: "A
sequence of potential experiences that is set up in the school for the purpose of
disciplining children, youths and groups in ways of thinking and acting. This set of
experiences is referred to as the curriculum" (Smith, Stanley & Shores, 1957: 3).

S. Abbott (2014) sees curriculum as the knowledge and skills students are
expected to learn, which includes the learning standards or learning
objectives they are expected to meet; the units and lessons that teachers teach;
the assignments and projects given to students; the books, materials, videos,
presentations, and readings used in a course; and the tests, assessments, and
other methods used to evaluate student learning.

Finally Connelly and Clandinin (1988) state that: "Curriculum is often taken to
mean a course of study. When we set our imaginations free from the narrow
notion that a course of study is a series of textbooks or specific outline of topics to
be covered and objectives to be attained, broader more meaningful notions
emerge. A curriculum can become one's life course of action. It can mean the
paths we have followed and the paths we intend to follow. In this broad sense,
curriculum can be viewed as a person's life experience" (Connelly & Clandinin,
1988: 34).

Given the broad and differing natures of the above definitions it can be seen that,
although initially perhaps seeming somewhat banal, the term curriculum is rather
complex. It is not the intention of this article to thoroughly and completely
explore the various dialectical or polemical definitions of the term curriculum or
to examine why these different definitions have come about. However it is
necessary in the context of this article to acknowledge the complexities
associated with defining the term due to issues such as contextualization and to
provide a clear statement of how the term is used in this article.

In this article it is submitted that curriculum is defined as a programme of

planning the learning activities of students. That is, the word is being used in an
expansive sense to encompass everything from the thinking associated with
planning what will happen, to consultation with relevant stakeholders, to
planning individual lessons based on objectives, to the identification of the
resources needed to deliver the relevant content and evaluating what has
occurred in the classroom.

A model of curriculum is therefore the stage by stage designing of the curriculum.

THE PROCESS DRIVEN CURRICULUM

One way of looking at curriculum theory and practice is to view it as a process. In

this sense curriculum is not a physical pre-defined set of resources or facts to be
taught and learned, but rather the interaction of teachers, students, and
knowledge. In other words, curriculum is what actually happens in the classroom
and what people do to prepare and evaluate.

The product view of the curriculum is concerned, mainly, with what students
learn. The ‘process’ model, in contrast, is concerned with how learners learn and
with their growth and development as human beings. In this view, learners are
seen as active participants in the construction of knowledge and development of
understanding rather than as passive recipients of knowledge. It is therefore
associated with cognitive and constructivist theories of learning and with notions
of active learning and deep learning. This approach to learning is more likely to
develop learner autonomy and a propensity to lifelong learning.

Knight’s (2001) while stating the need for the process based curriculum and
criticizing the outcome-based approach stated that “complex learning cannot
easily [be] reducible to precise statements” that  “grow like mould and become
unwieldy” (p.373); and that these approaches run the risk of reducing creativity,
innovation, and flexibility; threaten faculty autonomy; and, represent a
‘reductionists’ approach to learning
Based on process driven philosophy of curriculum, in terms of its applicability to
teaching, this process model has some very exciting elements. The process model
sees the student as an active participant in education. They have some input into
and control over the process development.

If, as teachers, we do not seek to simply produce graduates who memorize

information and facts, but graduates who can apply information to new situations
and has the capacity to be a lifelong learner, then this model may be of
considerable value (Stenhouse, 1978). It emphasizes the development of
experiential skills, rather than of specific content, as the content itself will
frequently and sometimes quite dramatically change. Indeed Preston (1992) and
Symes (1992) indicated that in areas of study like engineering, medicine and law
up to fifty per cent of knowledge gained is obsolete within five year of study. So
understanding process, rather than having specific elements of knowledge
becomes very valuable for the learner’s future. That is, whilst some knowledge is
of course still important, specific pieces of knowledge will quickly become
irrelevant, but an understanding of a process can be a skill which can help the
student throughout their entire future career.

PROPONENTS OF THE PROCESS DRIVEN CURRICULUM

This approach to the curriculum and to learning has a long tradition. John Dewey
(1938) emphasized the importance of experience in education. A.N. Whitehead
(1932) suggested that “the curriculum is to be thought of in terms of activity and
experience rather than of knowledge acquired or facts stored.” (Quoted in Kelly,
2009: 100).

However, as a model of curriculum, the process driven model of curriculum can

be said to be developed by Lawrence Stenhouse in 1978.

The most frequently cited reference to the process curriculum is Lawrence

Stenhouse’s An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development (1975) in
which he sets out his arguments against behavioural objectives as the basis for
the curriculum and proposes an inquiry-based approach to learning. Whilst
Stenhouse does not deny the importance of passing on the knowledge base of a
subject, he emphasizes the importance of inquiry and discovery in the
development of learners’ understanding and allowing for the emergence of
‘unintended learning outcomes’ which might not be specified in the objectives
and not, necessarily, assessed. Rather than the use of aims and objectives to
prescribe the content and structure of learning, Stenhouse’s scheme advocates
the use of loosely framed objectives in which learners can explore and discover
within the subject or area of study.

The components of Stenhouse's model are:

Content

Methods

Evaluation

Step one of the model developed by Stenhouse involves the selection of content.
The idea is that content is much more specific than objectives.

At the second step of the model, methods encompass an understanding of

teaching methodology. That is, how is the content, prescribed in step one, to be
taught to the students.

The final step of the model involves evaluation. That is, evaluation of the content,
from step one and the methods from step two. The content could be examined
via a number of effective formative and summative mechanisms.

As a fundamental basis, the process model has no statement of objectives. It is

centered on the proposition that education is concerned with the development
of intellectual or cognitive developments and thus what is crucial to this process
is not the learning of a vast body of knowledge but rather the processes of
development that are prompted (Kelly, 1989).

Lawrence Stenhouse (1926-1982) produced one of the best-known explorations

of a process model of curriculum theory and practice. He defined curriculum
tentatively: "A curriculum is an attempt to communicate the essential principles
and features of an educational proposal in such a form that it is open to critical
scrutiny and capable of effective translation into practice" (Stenhouse, 1975).
He suggests that a curriculum is rather like a recipe in cookery. A curriculum, like
the recipe for a dish, is first imagined as a possibility, then the subject of
experiment. The recipe offered publicly is in a sense a report on the experiment.
Similarly, a curriculum should be grounded in practice. It is an attempt to describe
the work observed in classrooms. Finally, within limits, a recipe can be varied
according to taste, and so can curriculum.

According to Kelly (1989), the Process Model is based on the tenet:

that to have been educated is to have been helped to develop

certain intellectual capacities rather than to have acquired factual
knowledge or to have had one’s behaviour modified in certain ways.
(Kelly, 1989; 17)

Ross (2000) summarized the process-driven curriculum as follows:

Process-driven curricula exemplify Bernstein’s ‘integrated’ code, in which

the content areas stand in an open relation to each other. Students have
more discretion over what is learnt compared to individual teachers, who
have to collaborate with colleagues from other disciplines. Process-
driven curricula include a range of models -cross-curricular, integrated,
interdisciplinary, thematic. Multiple forms of assessment are used, with a
focus on formative, personal, course-work-based and open-ended
assessment (Ross, 2000).

BASIC IDEAS BEHIND THE PROCESS DRIVEN CURRICULUM

 Emphasis should be on means rather than ends

 Learner should have part in deciding nature of learning activities
 More individualized atmosphere
 Assumption that learner makes unique response to learning experiences

ADVANTAGES OF THE PROCESS-DRIVEN CURRICUL UM

The process-driven curriculum it is not desirable to produce a graduate who is a

master of some memorized facts. Rather it is desirable to produce a graduate who
is equipped to progress in their professional field throughout their entire future
career, rather than simply positioned to gain entry to the profession.
According to Kelly (1989), the process-driven curriculum is the only suitable
model of curriculum development because it focuses on the development of the
students

Naary, M. (2002) stated the advantages of the process model as follows:

 It emphasizes on active roles of teachers and learners

 It emphasizes on learning skills
 It emphasizes on certain activities as important in themselves and for ‘life’.

CRITICISMS TRAILING THE PROCESS MODEL

The potential problem with the process-driven curriculum lies with the lack of
emphasis on objectives and the difficulties of formal assessment. Those who tend
to the process view are often criticised because they put the development of the
individual before, or even instead of, subject knowledge.

For example, Naary (2002) highlighted the disadvantages of the Process Model as:

 Neglect of considerations of appropriate content

 Difficulty in applying approach in some areas

The process model has also been widely criticized by traditional curriculum
theorists (Brady, 1982; Skilbeck, 1984). Take for example the criticism of this
approach leveled by Skilbeck who is quite concerned by the thought of individuals
being free to choose what they learn and how they learn it. Skilbeck clearly values
a more rigid curriculum where there are commonly set and held criteria upon
which individuals can be educated and assessed. He states:

The curriculum cannot be left to the whims of individual teachers,

however charismatic and brilliant, or to the child’s preferences
(Skilbeck, 1984: 225).

Whilst Skilbeck's (1984) criticism might be for a stricter approach to the objects
and purpose of a curriculum than proposed by Stenhouse, it is clear this model is
very different to models of curriculum that already exist. Tyler was adamant that
a curriculum must have a specifically identifiable set of objectives and stated
clearly the problem with many educational programmes is that they “do not have
clearly defined purposes”(Tyler, 1949: 3). It is likely that Tyler would be critical of
Stenhouse’s model for failing to provide these ‘clearly defined purposes’.
Stenhouse seemed to recognise that the process model may not be very
successful in situations where what is to be learnt is information and skills. He
clearly acknowledges this when he states that:

... (simple) skills are probably susceptible to treatment through (the

use of the) objectives model (Stenhouse, 1978:85).

But Stenhouse contended that the process model would be most effective in
those areas of the curriculum which have a focus on knowledge and
understanding (Marsh, 1986). There is a fundamental difference between these
concepts.

It should be recognised there are potentially impediments in judging what has

been learnt under the auspices of this model. Stenhouse acknowledges that
evaluation, whilst still possible, will be very difficult (Stenhouse, 1978). Stenhouse
claimed evaluation should not take into account pre-specified objectives
(Stenhouse, 1978). One may then ask ‘what is to be assessed or evaluated’? It is
quite possible, depending on the content, that each person involved in a course of
study will have learnt something different from the shared experience delivered
via the curriculum. Although this will be difficult to assess. This is indeed
Stenhouse's contention, he notes the difficulties associated with assessment using
his model and highlights the need to use one of the more accepted models (that
has a specific focus on objectives) if a formative assessment of actual skills or
knowledge retained is paramount (Stenhouse, 1978).

CONCLUSION

An understanding of curriculum and of its developmental processes has always

been central to the professional work of teachers (Newlyn, 2016). Choosing any
model of curriculum development for teaching is important. A model of
curriculum provides a reference point for external examination of the activities
that are undertaken by the educator. A failure to have knowledge of and to
properly use a model of curriculum sends a clear message to an external observer
that what is happening in the classroom is random and haphazard. It is only via
the use of a model of curriculum that confidence can be gained that the activities
are well thought out, professional and rigorous in nature.
Although not the most common in the field, the process model of curriculum
development is an enlightened model (Brady, 1995). It is not at all similar to the
traditional models of curriculum which existed before its development. Its focus
away from objectives sets it apart from those other models and its drive towards
making the learning an active participant of the instructional process makes it
very important.

REFERENCES

 David Newlyn (2016). The Process Model of Curriculum in the Planning and
Teaching of Legal Units of Study. International Journal of English and
Literature. Volume 5.
 Dewey, J. (1938/ 1997) Experience and Education New York: Simon and
Schuster
 Kelly, A. V. (2009) The Curriculum: Theory and Practice London: Sage

 Knight, P.T. (2001). Complexity and Curriculum: A process approach to

curriculum-making. Teaching in Higher Education 6(3):369-381.

 Neary, M. (2002). Curriculum Studies in Post-Compulsory and Adult

Education. Cheltenham: Nelson-Thornes. Chapter 3

 Peter Scales (2013). Teaching in the Lifelong Learning Sector. McGraw-Hill/

Open University Press
 Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and
Development. London: Heinemann
 Westbrook J., Durrani N., Brown R., Orr D., Pryor J., Boddy J., Salvi F. (2013).
Pedagogy, Curriculum, Teaching Practices and Teacher Education in
Developing Countries. Final Report. Education Rigorous Literature Review.
Department for International Development. University of Sussex Centre for
International Education.
 Whitehead, A.N. (1932). The Aims of Education and Other Essays London:
Williams and Norgate Ltd.