A Review on "The Curriculum? That’s Just a Unit Outline, Isn’t It?"

The term curriculum seems to be misunderstood or overlooked by the academicians and the people who are working in the field of education or training. The study, The Curriculum? That’s Just a Unit Outline, Isn’t It?, of Fraser and Bosanquet (2006) indeed shed more light to this predicament. In it, they conducted a qualitative investigation, more particularly, through phenomenological method. 

They revealed afterward a vivid discussion of various perceptions and understandings about curriculum among the Australian academics. They analyzed the varied results through the lens of Habermas’s theory of knowledge-constitutive interests. It was impeccable. It helped me to make sense of the different information presented. I very like the flow of the argument and the synthesis of data. It was evidently rich in content. I even perceive this scholarly undertaking as indispensable to further comprehend not only the curriculum of Australia, but also of the world. The study can be a step toward the advancement of education.

In the research, it is interesting to note that the academics in Australia viewed curriculum differently. Four categories emerged when they analyzed the data from the participants. The categories were even put into partition. They broadly were curriculum as product focus teacher-oriented, and curriculum as process focus student-centered. From there, I learned that Australian academics did not have a unified definition about curriculum. I bet it also is true in the Philippine setting and even in other countries. Based on my years of teaching experience, I know many Filipino academicians and schoolteachers who perceive curriculum differently.

Upon reflection, this can create difficulties in the arena of education. Though many view that perception is miniscule, I have a contrary belief in such case. I see perception as immense and which affects the action of an individual. This is furthered by the studies of Dweck in which perception affects performance. In the same vein, I theorize that how academics view curriculum can affect their pedagogy, classroom pragmatics, and evaluation. When organized together, such collective perceptions indeed can influence the education system.

Therefore, I abhor the superficial understanding of some academics that curriculum is just about the syllabus, prospectus, or the systematic list of educational goals. It is now time to change such perception. I agree to the notion that the curriculum is such a process and the one who creates is not just the teacher. Students, the community, and many factors are involved. It is not just deliberate. Others are unintentional and some are not even seen or noticed.

The framework of Habermas elaborated the technical, practical, and emancipatory interest as applied in the study. Though the researchers did not mention any hierarchy, I view emancipatory as the best. I would elevate this category. I highly favor that the curriculum should be viewed through the lens of emancipatory interest by the academics and other stakeholders in education. In my opinion, when it occurs, for sure, the education shall be revolutionized. My preference is to make curriculum emancipatory. It is indeed how education should work, not as merely accumulation of deliberate instruction. It must liberate us, refine our thinking, and make humanity evolve.