Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility - Essay Example

Having meaning to issues that surround one's environment is quite important especially to those in the teaching profession. The cause of events and occurrences is not as important at some point as the meaning behind such phenomena (McCarthy, 1981). In my teaching, I usually encounter questions that aim at enlightening the students on meaning instead of causality. The learning experience to them needs to be as practical as possible. EmancipatoryCriticism and being critical of issues prevailing in the world around me are important aspects that guide me as a teacher.

Being critical comes in handy in trying to understand how things and circumstances are the way they are and why not in another form (McCarthy, 1981). In teaching and learning for one to perform better the knowledge imparted or acquired needs to be scrutinized for validity. Curriculum as content or subject matter seems to embed a transmissive pedagogy inspired by technical interests, whereas curriculum as an intended learning outcome is more inspired by practical interests. Being technical is emphasized more by the fact that institutions taking the curriculum as subject matter have specific goals to meet and the time to do so.

This makes the whole system follow a defined path that is predictable for quite a long time (Schubert, 1986). When a curriculum is viewed as an intended learning outcome practicality of the system is put to test. This understanding goes to give reasons why things are the way they are (Schubert, 1986). An example is where arguments for and against certain issues are discussed. The assumption is that the learners are to unfold as intended. Curriculum as an agenda for social reconstruction is inspired by emancipatory interests.

The stakeholders are supposed to embrace changes in the school system. This calls for them to be critical of the prevailing system so as to bring about change. In an ideal speech situation, the participants are free to present their arguments while evaluating other participants’ assertions (Taylor & Williams, 1992; Cooren, 2000).