Curriculum Context Instructional Theory

Question: Discuss about theCurriculum Contextfor Instructional Theory. Answer: The curriculum theory is a laden with the normative. Several times, people confuse curriculum theory with learning theory, instructional theory or administrative theory, though each of these has distinct categories (Schiro, 2012). In the below paragraphs, two articles related to curriculum and curriculum theory in context of learning would be dicussed. In the article provided by Morris and Hamm (1976) it has been argued that curriculum theory is not unique, rather there are multiple curriculum theories. Even authors argued that there is no way to identify one curriculum theory to be the best or most appropriate in school settings compared to the others. Each of these has separate followers. Thus, it is important to understand what the key characteristics of the curriculum theory are. The first theory represented by the authors has an ontological basis, though it does not focuses upon teaching or learning rather only focuses upon the knowledge or the process, thus, this theory is not suitable for being implemented in the school settings, as teaching and learning processes are also important parts in determining students progress. The second theory focused upon the alternative structures of organizing knowledge. The third theory moved towards universal and the abstract representation. On the other hand, curriculum theory can be class ified on the basis of the curricular structures, for instance, in logical structure, the curriculum theory is systematically organized as a whole and based o the specialized disciplines. According to this theory, the transmission of logical learning through teachers promotes students effective learning. In case of conceptual structure, the descriptive rationale of internal mental process of jean Piagets theory is considered as the core of curricular theory. This theorys key strength is that it promotes hypothesis development. On the other hand, According to Bruner, both logic and psychology are crucial to develop curriculum theory, according to the cognitive structure; curriculum theory must be the part of learning and instructional theory. It is also supported by Bruner (1966) that developmental theory should be linked with the knowledge building as well as the theory of instruction. Authors claimed that Bruner also had a curriculum theory, which is dependent upon several factors, i.e. situation, human goals, hypothesizing and testing. On the other hand, empirical structure focused curriculum theory concentrated upon conservative assumption arguing that school needs to reflect the adult society. There are also others curriculum constructs based on different structures including biological or psychological structures or ethological ecological structure. Therefore, these different aspects of curriculum theory tell about the distinctiveness of the curriculum theory. Supporting the authors view, it has also been claimed by Schiro (2012) that the value of a curriculum theory should not rely on its specificity; rather on the question it is focused. Therefore, it can be interpreted from the article that the ideal curriculum theory should link with all the domains necessary in educational settings including learning, instruction and knowledge as well as curriculum development. The above article provided by Morris and Hamm (1976) has significantly discussed the classification of curriculum theory developed in different contexts and linked with the key construct of the curriculum development. However, the article provides information regarding different construct based on which the curriculum theory is development, but is unable to point proper characteristics needed for developing an ideal curriculum theory. In this context, authors significantly linked all the constructs of curriculum theory development with the key focus of it as well as it pointed out the key value of the curriculum theory that can be implemented in the school context. One limitation of the article is the lack of primary findings and the other one is the lack of proper resource indication in the literature. However, the authors significantly represented the content in a systematic way. In the next article by Cndido (2016) a primary study has been done for analyzing the teachers perception about the impacts of curriculum contents and of nonaccomplishment of school curriculum on students learning. Study represented that the Brazilian school system is suffering from the effects of morphological changes and of all adjacent social changes through some common pedagogical issues, which are expressed by exclusion in the school system. The authors focused upon the investigation, whether the learning problems are linked with the curriculum content and their nonaccomplishments. The article significantly selected the sample, i.e. the teachers of 9th grade students to identify their learning problems. Therefore, the paper significantly demonstrated its purpose and what is going to be done in the research, i.e. the perception of teachers regarding students learning problems related to the curriculum. Sample size was also defined by the authors with description. Authors significa ntly represented data gathered from the teachers, i.e. representing their perspective on the curriculum as well as students learning through the curriculum. The results revealed that 84 % teachers disagreed that students learning problems are related with the curriculum contents. On the other hand, 90 % teachers also disagreed that education reforms proposed changes to the school curriculum for improving the quality in education and students learning. On the other hand, others factors were also revealed by the authors, i.e. the data revealed that the experience of teaching does not have an impact upon their perception on the curriculum and learning problems relation. The data also revealed that the number of schools where teachers currently work also not influence their perception about the relation between the curriculum content and students learning issues (Pinar, 2012). On the other hand, the number of hours they teach everyday also shown no effect on teachers perception, although depending on the percentage of the expected curriculum contents, there is variation in the dependent variables pattern. This lack of relationship between two study variables can be justified through different phenomenon. Thus, the results did not helped in in-depth investigation of the possible explanations for the types of relations among curriculum and learning problems, assumed by teachers. Therefore, the article was unable to draw the linkage between the curriculum and learning issues, rather indicates that there is a need for better understanding of students cultural diversity, especially when democratizing education. These above two articles provided the essence of curriculum and curriculum theory and their importance in the learning context. Reference List Bruner, J. S. (1966).Toward a theory of instruction(Vol. 59). Harvard University Press. Cndido, H. H. D. (2016). The myth of curriculum impact in Brazilian education.Euro-JCS,2(2). Morris, R. C., Hamm, R. (1976). Toward a curriculum theory.Educational Leadership,33(4), 299-300. Pinar, W. F. (2012).What is curriculum theory?. Routledge. Schiro, M. S. (2012).Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns. sage publications.