Abstract
Innovation in curriculum is gaining its thrust from a new set of value priorities—humanism, concern for racial and socioeconomic minorities, support of pluralism and diversity, increased interest in affective development, education for the very young, and legitimization of the search for value. These priorities are coupled with new understandings of how learning takes place, which cast the learner in an active, responsible, self-actualizing role and, at the same time, support the development of precise, highly organized sets of learning materials designed to achieve clearly defined objectives as efficiently as possible. Implications of these factors are examined in relation to curriculum design, instructional materials, professional roles, and the need for in-service education.
Résumé
L'innovation des programmes d'étude est activée par une nouvelle échelle de priorités des valeurs: esprit d'humanisme, intérêt manifesté à l'égard des minorités raciales et socio-économiques, appui accordé au pluralisme et à la diversité, intérêt accru envers le développement affectif, éducation des très jeunes, et légitimisation de la recherche des valeurs. Ces priorités vont de pair avec de nouvelles connaissances sur le processus d'acquisition du savoir, connaissances qui lancent l'élève dans un rôle actif et responsable dans son épanouissement personnel et qui, en même temps, contribuent à la mise au point d'une série de textes éducatifs précis et hautement organisés conçus en vue de la poursuite, d'une manière aussi efficace que possible, de certains objectifs clairement définis. L'auteur étudie les répercussions provoquées par ces facteurs sur la conception des programmes, les textes d'étude, les rôles professionnels et la nécessité d'une éducation en cours d'exercice.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. The positive view of self. InPerceiving, behaving, becoming. Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1962, Pp. 99–117.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.To nurture humaneness: Commitment for the '70s. Washington, D.C: The Association, 1970.
Biber, B. The “whole” child. Individuality, and values in education.A new look at progressive education. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development 1972. Pp. 44–87.
Bloom, B. S..Stability and change in human characteristics. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Bloom, B. S., et al. (Eds.)Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay, 1956.
Bremer, J., & von Moschzisker, M..The school without walls. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971.
Bruner, J..The process of education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963.
Educational Policies Commission.The purposes of education in American democracy. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1938.
Engelmann, S.Preventing failure in the primary grades. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1971.
Fox, R., Brainard, E., Howard, G., Georgiday, W., & Olivero, J.,The principal as the school's climate leader: A new role for the principalship. Englewood, Colo: CFK, 1971.
Fox, R. S., Girault, E., Lippitt, R., & Schaible, L.Inservice education to support the utilization of new social science curricula. Boulder, Colo: Social Science Education Consortium, 1967.
Fox, R. S., & Lippitt, R..The human relations school. Englewood, Colo. CFK, 1969.
French, W.Behavioral goals of general education in high school. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1957.
Gagné, R. M.The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.
Goodlad, J. I. Curriculum: State of the field.Review of Educational Research, 1969,39, 367–375.
Havelock, R. G.Planning for innovation through dissemination and utilization of knowledge. Ann Arbor Mich.: Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, 1971.
Jung, C., & Lippitt, R. The study of change as a concept.Theory into Practice, 1966,5,
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B.Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: McKay, 1964.
Lippitt, R., Fox, R., & Schaible, L. Discovering differences.Social Science Laboratory Units. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1969. (a)
Lippitt, R., Fox, R. & Schaible, L.The teacher's role in social science investigation. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1969. (b)
Lumsdane, A., & Glaser, R.Teaching machines and programmed learning: A source book. Washington, D.C.: Dept. of Audio-Visual Instruction, National Education Association, 1960.
Maccoby, E., & Zellner, M.Experiments in primary education: Aspects of Project Follow-Through. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1970.
Mager, R. F., & McCann, J.Learner-controlled instruction. Palo Alto, Calif: Varian, 1963.
Maslow, A. H. Some basic propositions of a growth and self-actualization psychology. InPerceiving, behaving, becoming. Washington, D. C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1962. Pp. 34–49.
McNeil, J. D. Forces influencing curriculum.Review of Educational Research, 1969,39, 293–318.
Mead, M. Youth revolt: The future is now. In W. Van Til (Ed.),Curriculum: Quest for relevance. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971. Pp. 234–241.
Michigan Dept of Education. The common goals of Michigan education. Lansing: The Department, 1971.
Raths, L., Harmin, M., & Simon, S. B.Values and teaching. Columbus, O.: Merrill, 1966.
Reimer, E. An essay on alternatives in education.Interchange, 1970,2(1), 1–35.
Rosenberg, M. Criteria for evaluating the treatment of minority groups in textbooks and other curriculum materials. A Michigan Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Position Paper, 1972. (Obtainable from Virginia Sorenson, President, Grand Rapids Area Office, WMU, 105 N. Division, Grand Rapids, Mich. 49502.)
Schwab, J. J. Structure of the disciplines: Meanings and significances. In G. W. Ford & L. Pugno (Eds.),The structure of knowledge and the curriculum. Chicago: Mc-Nally, 1964. Pp. 6–30.
Taylor, R. L., & Groom, T. L..Social studies education projects: An ASCD index. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1971.
Trowbridge, L. M. An analysis of the objectives and materials of the Physical Science Study Committee course in high school physics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1960.
Van Til, W..Curriculum: Quest for relevance. Part III.Curriculum for the future. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971. Pp. 219–269.
Wilson, L. C.The open access curriculum. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1971.
Zahorik, J. A., & Brubaker, D.Toward more humanistic instruction. Dubuque, Iowa: Brown, 1972.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fox, R.S. Innovation in curriculum: An overview. Interchange 3, 131–143 (1972). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02137640
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02137640