Curriculum Theory

The first model explored in the article by Smith (1996, 2000) was curriculum as a body of knowledge to be transmitted. In this model the contents of a specific course are made aware of at the beginning of schooling, it shows the exact topics that will be explored, and it also makes parents aware of what their children may be learning (Smith, 1996, 2000). I think this model is beneficial for parents who may have a hard time understanding the reasons behind what a teacher is doing and why they are teaching their children certain topics. The second model mentioned by Smith (1996, 2000) was curriculum as an attempt to achieve certain ends in students, or curriculum as a product. Curriculum as a product is more of a technical exercise, as there are set objectives which are then applied and measured (Smith, 1996, 2000). In my schooling, I would say that curriculum was more of a product approach than anything. We were aware of what needed to be done, when it needed to be done by, and how we would be assessed on said assignment. I think that having curriculum as a product limits the creativity of a child. Being handed a rubric stating exactly what is needed to achieve a high mark is what limits us as students. The third model by Smith (1996, 2000) was curriculum as process. This model has behavioural objectives, documents on specific implementation, as well as a strong interaction between students, teachers, and their knowledge (Smith, 1996, 2000).  The fourth and final curriculum model explained by Smith (1996, 2000) was curriculum as praxis. This model is a development of the process model and includes statements about the interests that it serves for the students (Smith, 1996, 2000).