In Doug Risner’s Curriculum Theory Basics, he outlines numerous curriculum theories that educators have historically employed. There were two, however, that resonated with my own teaching practice most closely. In his description of Developmentalist Curriculum/Learner-Centered Ideology, Risner explains that the theory relies heavily on the learner’s lived experience to create connection for the learner within the lesson (Risner, n.d.); an idea that underscores Dewey’s understanding that if education does not resonate with some part of a student’s prescribed social identity, it becomes nothing but an external pressure; one which the educator has the full responsibility of interpreting and leveraging based on their understanding of the societal rules and norms in which the [student] exists and will exist in the future (Dewey, 1926). This ideology steers us away from skills-based learning, and toward lessons that students can apply to their own lived experiences in real time. By using students’ cultural experiences, learners can see how the lesson affects their lives and those of their peers and classmates. Taking this a step further, Risner’s idea of Social Meliorist Curriculum/Social Reconstructivist Ideology highlights the areas in the learner’s life that work specifically with the abuse of power and privilege in hopes that it will equip a new generation to deal effectively with those abuses (Risner, n.d.). So, not only is the learner identifying areas in their own life that can mirror the lesson, but they are also locating themselves within the systems of power and privilege in which our society operates. By understanding how we live inside of these systems, learners can then begin to reimagine how we might do so in the future.
When educators equip students by teaching them to think with their whole mind, the students will then be capable of living outside of stereotypes and binaries and, instead, grow toward their own understanding (Dewey, 1926), boosting their self-efficacy and ability to engage self-regulated learning, or SRL (Meece & Painter, 2012). In a keynote address, Stinson (2001) advocates building a lifestyle that is in a constant state of reflecting on our own practices, revising them, and allowing those practices to deeply influence our curriculum. This puts the action on the educator to be in a constant state of problematizing their own practices, values, and beliefs. When we identify our values and compare them to our curricula, the abuses of power and privilege are highlighted, allowing us opportunities to understand the boundaries of our practices and reimagine new realities for the field. When we practice doing this as educators, we not only build it into our lesson plans and curricula, but we also model the action of self-reflection for our students as one of the most valuable lessons that will aid them throughout their lives.
In a similar piece of writing, Wilson described many types of curricula used by educators. She lists among them the curriculum‐in‐use, which is the actual curriculum that is delivered and presented by each teacher (Wilson 1990, 2004, 2006). Once educators have done the critical work of self-reflection and problematizing of their practices and values, they can use their values as the foundation of their classroom curriculum. With mindfulness, intension, and often using backward planning, educators labor over the lesson plans, slides, classroom activities, texts, and other materials that will articulate the idea. However, the concepts and content that stick with the learner once they leave the classroom are considered the received curriculum (Wilson 19990, 2004, 2006). These lessons may be much different from those which the educator initially intended. This also includes what Chloe Angyal refers to in her book Turning Pointe as the hidden curriculum, or the “unofficial and sometimes unintended lessons students pick up from the way class is structured or conducted,” (Angyal, 2021). To address the harms of the hidden curriculum, we turn to Eisner’s idea of Visual Culture. Here, we understand visual culture to describe, “efforts to help students learn how to decode the values and ideas that are embedded in popular culture and fine arts” (Eisner, 2002, pg. 29). Learners become aware of these coded ideas and the effects they have on how we exist in the world. This relates back to Risner’s concepts of Developmentalist Curriculum/Learner-Centered Ideology and Social Meliorist Curriculum/Social Reconstructivist Ideology, which rely on the learner’s lived experience and their ability to identify their relationships to power and privilege within these experiences. This way of combining how we teach with what we teach, what we know, and what we experience is defined by Owens Wilson as the internal curriculum. It is a process that might help learners to build a new future for themselves and for society.
For this to be the result, educators must build on what Eisner (2002) calls Discipline Based Arts Education, which enables us to talk about art, understand its historical context, and question claims about its value and function. Having a deep, critical understanding of the lesson and the ability to articulate that understanding helps us to practice what Eisner calls Cultural Problem-Solving. When these concepts are applied in curriculum building, learners understand the "rules" of a technique completely and have the skills to think critically about how they might break or reimagine them for a more equitable and sustainable practice for the present and future. Educating learners in this way quips them with the tools necessary for self-reflection and constant revision of practice that is constantly shifting and adapting to meet the needs of a rapidly changing world.
Comments