Curriculum as a Governing Device
The meaning of the concept of a curriculum is elusive. It is used to establish goals, often their content and, in some cases, methods for teaching. There are, therefore, three types of curricula: those that state goals, those that state goals and content, and those that state goals, content, and methods for teaching. Since the 1990s there has been a fourth type – measurable outcomes that function as curriculum stating what is measurable knowledge. The very meaning of a curriculum as a governing instrument has changed. Once a plan for the intended content, curricula are now more of assessment requirements. Hence, the concept of a curriculum once meant the intended outcomes that are supposed to govern the teacher’s work. The curriculum was “translated” by teachers into strategies for teaching. This was the professional core. The instruments for measuring outcomes have now...
- Blankertz, H. (1982). Die Geschichte der Pädagogik: von der Aufklärung bis zur Gegenwart. Wetzlar: Büchse der Pandora.Google Scholar
- Bloom, B. S., et al. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company Inc.Google Scholar
- Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. New York: Vintage Books, Random House.Google Scholar
- Freudenthal, H. (1975). Pupils’ achievements internationally compared – The IEA. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/n1j4241573286118/fulltext.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lundgren, U. P. (1981). Model analysis of pedagogical processes (2nd ed.). Lund: Liber Läromedel/CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
- Papadopoulos, G. (2006). The OECD and the evolution of national policies for education, 1960–1990: An overview. In J. Kallo & R. Rinne (Eds.), Supranational regimes and national education policies. Encountering challenge (Research in Educational Science 24). Helsinki: Finnish Educational Research Association.Google Scholar