POSSIBLE BARRIERS IN THE PHASE OF INITIATION
OF THE CUBIC CURRICULUM IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS
Virginija Rupainiene
Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University College Dublin, 7-10 September 2005
Introduction
The changing reality demands of constant development and improvement of curriculum, of course keeping to heritage, traditions, but on the other hand the knowledge collected through the ages should be handed down according to the requirements of our day context as well.
A great number of researchers explored different aspects of curriculum such as its concept, characteristics, planning and development, constructing according to various models and realization: Tyler (1949, 1975, 1992), Hilda Taba (1962), Josef Schwab (1970), Freire (1971), Tanner & Tanner (1980), Saylor, Alexander & Lewis (1981), Beauchamp (1981), Oliva (1982), Portelli (1987), Walker (1990, 1994), Tyler Rohwell & Sredl (1992), Millburn (1992), Longstreet & Shane (1993), Jackunas (1993), Marsh & Willis (1995), Pukelis (1999), Wragg (1997), Davies & Ellison (1997), Posner (1998), Bitinas (2000), Young (2000), Lauzackas (1997, 2000), Griffith (2000), Eisner (1979, 1991), Longworth (2003), Jucevicius et all (2003), Marsh (2004).
As one of new approaches towards curriculum – the cubic curriculum is presented by Wragg (1997). The quintessence of it is that the school community is able to construct the most appropriate and challenging curriculum for its needs using the model of the Cubic curriculum when the three dimensions of subject matter, cross-curricular themes and issues, the different methods of teaching and learning are planned.
Planning and realizing the Cubic curriculumis treated as innovation and thus makes the field of the scientific problem. On one hand, in every phase of realization of the innovation certain universal and specific activities in the aspect of school community should be foreseen because the school community participation in realization of the Cubic curriculum as the multi-dimensional construct is of great importance. On the other hand, it’s of great value to identify the possible barriers that can occur during the activities of the school community in the phase of initiation of the Cubic curriculum. That’s why the scientific problem is solved through the research questions: what activities should be peculiar for the phase of initiation of the Cubic curriculum and what are the possible barriers that can occur during the activities of the school community in the phase of initiation of the Cubic curriculum.
The aim of the article is to disclose the possible barriers that can occur during the activities of the school community in the phase of initiation of the Cubic curriculum.
The methods of research are analysis of scientific literature and reflection.
The article consists of three parts. In the first part, the arguments why in the changing reality the cubic curriculum and its construction according to the model of cube is superior to traditional ones are disclosed. In the second part, activities of the school community in the phase of initiation of the cubic curriculum as innovation are analyzed. In the third part, referring to the analysis of scientific literature and reflection of the authoress, the possible barriers occurring in the phase of initiation of the cubic curriculum at the level of person and organization are revealed.
The cubic curriculum versus traditional curriculum
In the society of knowledge and information which is challenging great changes the transformation of paradigm of teaching into paradigm of learning is more obvious every day. The attitude towards curriculum is changing as well and the new requirements for the school arise. One of the latest views presented by Wragg (1997) is the cubic curriculum, i.e. the curriculum which is constructed and realized by the school community should be understood as the multi-dimensional phenomenon undergoing constant changes which can be managed and then the successful self-realization of the children in the world of knowledge and information which seems uncertain and complex today.
According to Wragg (2004) the debate about curriculum is never closed because the world around us dynamic and changing and to some extent schools must reflect this flux. No – one can, or, should, put a moratorium on change. Underlying the escalating demands on citizens in many fields of work and the society among the most essential segments of cubic curriculum Wragg (1997) sees not only the dimensions that can help to direct towards the successful practice of life such as the content of teaching/ learning delivered through the school subject matter, general and transferable skills developed through the integration or mastering of learning strategies that should become incentive for life long learning. He also underlies the partnership and responsibility of the school community members who legitimately are potential initiators of the school curriculum. “The curriculum – what is taught and learned in schools – should be accessible to all with a legitimate interest in it: teachers, pupils, parents, governors, members of the public”. Wragg (1997) stresses that even if a National Curriculum is fairly restrictive, there are still usually opportunities for significant decision making, by teachers and pupils, since it is impossible for somebody outside the school to prescribe every conceivable micro-strategy on a day-to-day basis. He advises curriculum initiators in schools to pay attention towards some vital aspects which give more illustrative picture of the changing reality and demand to change curriculum. Why should we talk about another kind of curriculum?
The first proposition is that education must be orientated to the future. It means that planning and realizing the school curriculum which embraces the development of the necessary knowledge and competences in order to meet only the challenges of today is not wise. Knowing how fast the information becomes old and ineffective some part of the constructed curriculum should incorporate a vision of the future – the latest discovered knowledge, skills, learning strategies, values, etc. The school community should come to consensus how to plan more possibilities for the children to be educated in the learning environments ensuring development of holistic reflection of the challenging realities and possible future factors.
The second proposition is that there are escalating demands on citizens. The harmony of general and special skills at work, at home, during leisure time, etc. enhances competent people to exploit their competence in all situations in every day life. Those who are not competent become the losers and can suffer from various forms of separation. That’s why the school should ensure to educate people not only coping with self-realization in the next phases of life but helping others to feel more competent as well.
The third proposition implicit in the cubic curriculum is that children‘s learning should be inspired by several influences because the life situations and activities they will have to perform in the future are complex, multi-dimensional. They have to be prepared to answer not only the “what” questions but to find out the argumentation for “why” and to solve the problems discovering the best solutions for the situation. Mastering the learning strategies planned by the curriculum initiators children should also develop the motivated view towards the life long learning.
The fourth proposition is that it is essential to see the curriculum as much more than a mere collection of subjects and syllabuses. It should be seen as the harmony of everything what is taught/ learnt at school, what can have an impact on the learner’s life in future: knowledge, skills, attitudes and patterns of behaviour, explicit and implicit values and beliefs, teaching/ learning strategies.
Thus, in his work Wragg (1997) delineated the field of school curriculum concept and later presented the cube as a perfect three – dimensional model suitable for non – traditional way of constructing the cubic curriculum by the school community members. The model helps to look at constructing the school curriculum in a simple way keeping to the three classical planning principles: continuation, sequence, integration. The model of cube represents everything what is taught/ learned at school. The three essential elements of the cubic curriculum are called dimensions and planning them can help us to take a systematic look at what the learning is or can be going inside or/ even outside the school:
- subject matter – all the content planned and realized through a set of subjects (typical and peculiar only for that school) placed on the timetable;
- children‘s competencies developed through the planned integrated themes and issues that disclose the complexity and causality of the occurrences;
- different methods of teaching and learningwhich have to mastered and employed in order to achieve inspiration for the life long learning.
How can the model of cube help to comprehend the possibilities and variations of the process of initiation of the cubic curriculum?
The cube is divided into cells. Each cell represents a combination of the three dimensions of the cube. The cube which consists of millions of cells would be difficult to understand (e.g. the curriculum of a university). That’s why it is suitablefor smaller institutions such as a primary school. Every dimension consists of several sub-topics. Labels are attached to all of them.
The model of the cubic curriculum is not a closed one. When constructing the school curriculum the preferred dimensions can be chosen and the labels within the dimension can be altered according to the context of a school. That means that every school can construct the unique cubic curriculum which can enhance realization of all the three dimensions: all the content incorporating a vision of a future and realized through a set of subjects; development of children‘s competencies through the planned integrated themes and issues that disclose the complexity and causality of the occurrences; mastering different methods of teaching and learning which inspire for the life long learning.
Picture1. The model of the cubic curriculum.
According to Wragg (1997) in many countries in schools the first dimension of the cubic curriculum is determined by the National curriculum and the schools have to follow it. Not many of interpretation can be done here. In most cases these are the subjects found on the formal curriculum such as native language, foreign language, maths, music, etc. or such as labelled under Humanities which represents a combination of subjects or some vocational choices of a school, e.g. “driving”.
The first dimension embraces the wide-ranging compilation of knowledge and experience accumulated by the mankind during the thousands of years and which the teachers have to give over to other generations through the most effective ways in the most enabling environments. As the learning is continuous and never ending process it is important that the synthesised and interpreted knowledge should be given over by the bright and ingenious teachers who are good communicators first of all.
In fact, the primary school community has very little possibilities for planning some other variant of school subjects because the national curriculum at the primary level gives only few little possibilities to do it. Usually, reaching the consensus within the schools, the school community members can construct the first dimension including the subjects which can ensure the incorporation of the vision of the future such as foreign languages, ICT, combination of all art subjects - art, theatre, dance, music.
Referring to the challenges of the reality the successful application of the knowledge in practical situations becomes more and more important. Thus it’s purposeful for the schools to plan the second dimension of the cubic curriculum - the development of competences through the interdisciplinary integration creating opportunities for the children to experience how the knowledge gained can be put up in practice. When initiating the cubic curriculum the teachers and parents should discuss and agree upon what competences in what sequence and when they are able to develop and to foresee the possibilities for continuation and integration as well. The primary school curriculum puts forward development of competences like social, communicative, cognitive, creativity, healthy living, learning and competence of mastering the ICTs. The interdisciplinary integration finds out the wide possibilities for developing the school values through the hidden curriculum – what children learn without the official curriculum.
The third dimension a very important and weighty one is the teaching/ learning strategies. It is not defined by the authorities. But the teachers and pupils themselves make the decisions what teaching/ learning strategies the most appropriate for the school/class context, the subject, school/class culture or the level of the experience should be planned. For some subject the teaching/ learning strategies can be suitable, for others not. Those strategies disclose the proficiency of the teacher and become the fundamental value of the very day interaction between the teacher and the student. That’s why it is important to plan such an interaction when the teacher avoids his/her domination and creates opportunities for the pupils’ cooperation, reflection and evaluation, developing their competences in problem solving, critical thinking, life long learning. It is possible that constructing the cubic curriculum two primary schools can plan different teaching/ learning strategies representing different paradigms. It can happen because one can still favour the teaching paradigm when the other prefers the learning strategy and is already putting into practice such methods as group and team work, project, group and team reflection, mind maps, etc.
Thus the school community coming to the consensus and using the model of the cube can construct the unique cubic curriculum which corresponds best to its needs and possibilities and the preferred teaching/learning paradigm.
Though Wragg (19970 didn’t formulate the definition of the cubic curriculum and there’s lack of the study in his work of the wide school community activities in the process of initiating the cubic curriculum, the authoress of this work argues that the cubic curriculum is all the planned and realized learning incorporating vision of the future, embracing the content of a set of subjects, development of children‘s competencies through the integrated learning and mastering of teaching/ learning methods that inspire for the life long learning. The school community should not only plan the cubic curriculum but also to assume responsibility for it.
The question can arise if this point of view is really up to date and what is the difference from other interpretations.
It is not easy to define curriculum which is being investigated for more than 100 years. Many researchers advocate their own preferred definition of curriculum which emphasizes other meanings or connotations reflecting the period and the filed of their interest. This term is not translated and used in many languages. According to Portelli (1987), more that 120 definitions of the term appear in the professional literature devoted to curriculum.
Marsh (2004) cites Portelli (1987), drawing on a metaphor developed by Soltis (1978) “Those who look for the definition of curriculum are like a sincere but misguided centaur hunter, who even with a fully provisioned safari and a gun kept always at the ready, nonetheless will never require the services of a taxidermist”.
Oliva (1982) generalised the interpretations of the curriculum definitions done by many researchers over the years. Depending on their philosophical beliefs they conveyed different interpretations. Sometimes curriculum as treated in a narrow way (as subject taught), sometimes in a broad way (all the experiences of the learners both in school and out directed by the school). The implications for the school to be drawn from the differing conceptions of curriculum can vary considerably. The school that accepts the definition of curriculum as a set of subjects faces a much simpler task than the school that takes upon itself responsibilities for experiences of the learner both inside and outside of school. Thus, these definitions reveal at least two types of schools; passive and dynamic.
Picture 2.Classification of curriculum definitions (Oliva,1982)
The generalized views of researchers towards the curriculum disclose their position in the paradigm of teaching. There’s no implication of the learning paradigm and the central position of the teacher is obvious. All of them put emphasis on different aspects and there isn’t any which presents the holistic treatment of the curriculum. Many of the segments mentioned embrace the concept of the content and only two of them “a series of experience undergone by the learners at school” and “that which an individual learner experiences as a result of schooling” in some part discloses the segment of the gained skills of the pupils. Interpretations of curriculum definitions generalized by Oliva’s don’t disclose what groups of school community should take part in the processes of initiation, realization and institutionalization except the one definition which gives the commonname – personnel related directly with pupils during the lessons and after them. There are no more implications about other possible groups of school community (parents, governors, members of the public) actively taking part in curriculum planning.