Q.

1 Critically examine the hidden curriculum

planning.
Answer:
THE CONCEPT OF CURRICULUM:
The content of schooling in all of its forms (written and unwritten) is called the
curriculum. This ancient Latin noun meant “a running, course” as in “conjiccere se
in curriculum” or “a quick course at full speed, swiftly, hastily” (Andrews, 1854, p.
405). The importance of understanding the Latin roots of the concept of
curriculum is that it was a designed experience. Someone or somebody had to
give thought to the course to be run before the actual running, and just as
importantly, it had to be run speedily. Because schooling represents only a
portion of a human being’s life, the curriculum is not the entire life but the
designed life for the students in the school. The limitations of time itself comprise
a kind of necessity to be “quick” about its use in schools.
There are different audiences for the curriculum in the schools: students,
teachers, parents, taxpayers, accreditation agencies, government bureaus, other
political bodies, and even society as a whole. The selection of the written content
comprising the curriculum involves determining of all the things that could be
included that are the most important. It is clear there is more to be taught than
time is available (Rutter, Maughlan, Mortimore, Ouston, & Smith, 1979). The
designation of the content of curriculum—whether that content consists of facts,
figures, or in the terminology of Alfred North Whitehead (1959), “inert
knowledge” that he claimed was “the central problem of all education” p. 7)—or
the idea that knowledge should be learned in a problem solving active mode, or
even that knowledge should be selected by the student and not the state,
curriculum designation is a political decision and not a scientific one. The selection
of the “stuff ” that comprises curriculum content is about purposes and values,
and it is about power.
In a sense, the task of defining the concept of curriculum is perhaps the most
difficult of all, for the term curriculum has been used with quite different
meanings ever since the field took form. Curriculum, however, can be defined as
prescriptive, descriptive, or both. Prescriptive [curriculum] definitions provide us
with what “ought” to happen, and they more often than not take the form of a
plan, an intended program, or some kind of expert opinion about what needs to
take place in the course of study. (Ellis, 2004, p. 4)
Another term that could be used to define the descriptive curriculum is
experience. The experienced curriculum provides “glimpses” of the curriculum in
action. Several examples, in chronological order, of descriptive definitions of
curriculum are:
The definitions provided for prescriptive and descriptive curricula vary primarily in
their breadth and emphasis. It would seem that a useful definition of curriculum
should meet two criteria: It should reflect the general understanding of the term
as used by educators, and it should be useful to educators in making operational
distinctions.
The definition stipulated above suggests that there is a major difference between
the planned curriculum and actualized curriculum. Yet even these distinctions are
not sufficiently precise to encompass the several different types of curricula. It is
important to note that the word curriculum (as defined from its early Latin
origins) means literally “to run a course.”
If students think of a marathon with mile and direction markers, signposts, water
stations, and officials and coaches along the route, they can better understand
the concept of types of curriculum (Wilson, 2005).
As early as the late 1970s, Goodlad and associates (1979) were perhaps the first
to suggest several key distinctions. As Goodlad analyzed curricula, he determined
that there were five different forms of curriculum planning.

The ideological curriculum is the ideal curriculum as construed by scholars

and teachers—a curriculum of ideas intended to reflect funded knowledge.

The formal curriculum is that officially approved by state and local

school boards—the sanctioned curriculum that represents society’s interests.
The perceived curriculum is the curriculum of the mind—what
teachers, parents, and others think the curriculum to be.

The operational curriculum is the observed curriculum of what

actually goes on hour after hour in the classroom. Finally,

The experiential curriculum is what the learners actually experience.

While those distinctions in general seem important, the terms are perhaps a bit
cumbersome and the classifications are not entirely useful to curriculum workers.
It seems to be more useful in the present context to use the following concepts
with some slightly different denotations:
The recommended curriculum,
The written curriculum,
The supported curriculum,
The taught curriculum,
The tested curriculum, and
The learned curriculum.
Four of these curricula—the written, the supported, the taught, and the tested—
are considered components of the intentional curriculum.
The intentional curriculum is the set of learnings that the school system
consciously intends, in contradistinction to the hidden curriculum, which by and
large is not a product of conscious intention.

CURRICULUM DESIGN AND DELIVERY: Curriculum design refers to

the physical act of creating the curriculum for use in the schools. This may involve
the purchase of textbooks (one kind of work plan and curriculum) and/or the
writing of curriculum guides (another kind of work plan), and neither may be well
connected to the other. This presents a real problem in considering the alignment
of curriculum to the tests in use. School officials like to believe that teachers
follow curriculum guides when in fact the research reveals they are much more
likely to be dependent upon the textbook as the actual day-to-day work plan or
“real” curriculum (see Apple, 1988; Venezky, 1992). Curriculum delivery refers to
any act of implementing, supervising, monitoring, or using feedback to improve
the curriculum once it has been created and put into place in schools.

Curricular Goals:
Curricular goals are the general, long-term educational outcomes that the school
system expects to achieve through its curriculum. Three critical elements are
included in this definition.
First, goals are stated much more generally than objectives. Thus, one goal for
English language arts might be “Learn to communicate ideas through writing and
speaking.”
-One objective for fifth-grade language arts would be much more specific: “Write
a letter, with appropriate business-letter form, suggesting a community
improvement.”
Second, goals are long-term, not short-term, outcomes.
The school system hopes that after 12 years of formal schooling, its students will
have achieved the goals the system has set. Finally, curricular goals are those
outcomes the school system hopes to achieve through its curriculum.
Here, it is important to make a distinction between educational goals and
curricular goals.

Educational goals are the long-term outcomes that the school system
expects to accomplish through the entire educational process over which it has
control, as Brown (2006) found from a survey conducted with educators, parents,
and employers as to what type of skills they believed students should be
developing.
The following is a prioritized list of survey responses:
1. Critical-thinking skills
2. Problem-solving strategies and effective decision-making skills
3. Creative-thinking processes
4. Effective oral and written communication skills
5. Basic reading, mathematics, and writing abilities
6. Knowledge of when and how to use research to solve problems
7. Effective interpersonal skills
8. Technology skills
9. Knowledge of good health and hygiene habits
10. Acceptance and understanding of diverse cultures and ethnicities
11. Knowledge of how to effectively manage money
12. Willingness, strategies, and ability to continue learning

Q.2 How you can select and organize the learning

experiences according to content.
Answer:
Social-System Variables:
The concepts of school climate and culture have become part of the standard
rhetoric in contemporary discussions of school effectiveness. Unfortunately, both
terms are complex and neither is clearly defined. However, McREL (Mid-continent
Research for Education and Learning)—known to conduct, examine, and translate
rigorous quantitative research into useful information for educators—found that
culture matters.
In a study conducted by McREL on school-level leadership, school culture surfaced

as the often overlooked factor in school improvement efforts. It was found “that
when leading bold improvement efforts, one of the first things that suffers is a
school’s culture—specifically, a shared vision, a sense of purpose, cohesiveness,
overall well-being of staff members, predictable routines, and a sense of control”
(Waters, 2009).
The conclusions from the research on culture reflect four attributes of Purposeful
Communities:
• Agreement on what people can accomplish only because they work together as
part of an organization
• Agreement on ways in which they will work together as part of an organization
• Effective use of all tangible and intangible assets in the organization
• High levels of collective efficacy (Waters, 2009) Confirming McREL’s research
findings, Linda Darling-Hammond (2010) states, “America’s commitment to equity
will determine our future.” She goes on to say, “Creating schools that enable all
children to learn requires the development of systems that enable all educators
and schools to learn” (p. 8).
In keeping with Darling-Hammond’s viewpoint, a small but growing number of
school leaders are reviewing their districts’ social systems and considering the
integration of students by socioeconomic status. Other research findings were
related to teacher–student relationships: Teacher–student interactions in general
were positive and constructive; students shared in decision making; and there
were extensive opportunities for student participation in activities. Obviously, all
these factors can be influenced through effective leadership by both
administrators and teachers. They are the building blocks of a strong and healthy
organizational culture (Waters, 2009).

Social- and economic-related programs such as Head Start and Even

Start are designed to assist economically challenged preschool children. Head
Start is a federal program that has been around since the 1960s. Some school
districts are designing their school operation to have Head Start on campus. This
allows a good transition for the Head Start children to matriculate into a
kindergarten program. Having Head Start on-site in a school district also enhances
opportunities for staff development and offers a way to improve staff relations.
Head Start teachers and administrators have an opportunity to plan their
curricula so that it threads unnoticed into the district curriculum. On-site Head
Start teachers are, thus, better able to understand the goals and objectives of the
school district and better able to correlate their programs with district primary
teachers. There were two great achievements in the design of Head Start.
First, the program highlighted social and emotional development—emphasizing
health, comprehensive services, and social services to families. Second, Head
Start introduced parent participation. Probably the most important single
determinant of a child’s growth is the behavior of parents (Perkins-Gough, 2007).
Even Start is a family literacy program that includes preschool children and their
parents. Both children and parents go to school. Parents work to complete their
high school education or receive adult literacy instruction (Michigan Department
of Education, 2010). The implicit aspect of this program is that children are
provided with an enriched preschool curriculum. As advocated by Cunningham
and Allington (1994), parents also learn more about parenting, including ways to
involve their children in reading and writing. Another social aspect of curriculum
that may be hidden is the involvement of parents and community. Although
parents may not directly create a change in curriculum, their approval or
disapproval can have a tremendous impact on how a school is operated, what is
taught, and how it is taught. An example might be the involvement of parents at
the primary level and their support of technology. When parents are in the school
at the primary level and see the impact that technology is having on their
children, they often become major supporters of educational technology. This
support is generated in the passage of special levies and bonds that affect the use
of technology at all grade levels—even high school.
The involvement of the community can have an impact on curriculum
development in much the same way. If members of the community feel positive
about what is happening in their schools, they are much more apt to support the
schools financially. This financial support might include more staff, improved
facilities, materials, and/or staff development. The connection to the curriculum
may not be readily apparent to some, but it is definitely a major factor in the
success of the school.
Culture Variables As noted by sociologist Arlie Hochschild, “We are all connected
in chains of care, not only to friends and family around us, but also to other
people whom we cannot see” (as quoted in Hargreaves & Fink, 2006, p. 20).
Sometimes, in school settings it is the people of other cultures who are not seen
and/or not understood. Successfully teaching students from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds—especially students from historically
marginalized groups—involves more than just applying specialized teaching
techniques. It demands combining English Language Learning and Leadership—
thus, putting it all together (Lindquist & Hill, 2009). Because the hidden
curriculum impacts student learning, Glatthorn and Jailall (2009) identify the key
factors that seem to constitute the hidden curriculum:
• Time allocation: For example, are health and physical education allocated
sufficient time to change the behavior of children and youth?
• Space allocation: How much space is allocated for teacher conferring and
planning?
• Use of discretionary funds: How are such funds expended, and who decides
this? • Student discipline: Do suspensions seem to reflect an ethnic bias?
• Physical appearance: Does the appearance of facilities suggest that those in the
building care for the school? Are walls decorated with student artwork?
• Student activities program: Does this program reflect and respond to student
talent diversity?
• Communication: Are most of the messages over the public address system of a
positive nature? How often are student voices heard?
• Power: Do teachers have power in the decision-making process? Do students
have any real power over the factors that matter? (pp. 115–116)
These aspects of the hidden curriculum also can be influenced by administrators
and teachers working together.
To summarize, then, the hidden curriculum is seen here as both constant and
variable aspects of schooling (other than the intentional curriculum) that produce
changes in the student.

The constants—the ideology of the larger society, the way in which certain
knowledge is deemed important or unimportant, and the power relationships
that seem necessary in large bureaucratic institutions—seem unlikely to change.
However, the variables—those aspects of the organizational structure, the social
systems, and the culture of the school that can be influenced—require the
systematic attention of curriculum leaders

Q.3 Using core ideas as focusing centers saves

seveal important functions in curriculum
development. Explain how?
ANSWER:
Joseph Schwab Because of his writings on the structure of the disciplines (see
Schwab, 1962, 1964, 1973), Schwab was widely held as a spokesman for ‘the
structure of the disciplines’ reform movement in the US in the 1960s—a
curriculum reform movement that foregrounded the importance of teaching the
‘structure’ in secondary and elementary school classrooms.
However, his way of thinking is very different from those of many other scholars
who had written on the topic (Westbury & Wilkof, 1978). Compared to those of
Bruner, Phenix, Peters and Hirst, for example, Schwab provided a broader and
more elaborate conception of the content, structure of academic disciplines (see
Deng & Luke, 2008). He characterized the problem of the structure of the
disciplines in terms of the organization of the disciplines (constituent disciplines
and their relationships), the substantive structure (essential concepts, principles
and frameworks that guide inquiry) and the syntactic structure (modes of inquiry,
canon of evidence and ways of proof) of each individual discipline (Schwab, 1962).
This characterization stands for a theory of knowledge that delineates not only
different types of disciplinary knowledge but also the conceptual and
methodological aspects of each individual type. It can be directly brought to bear
on curriculum making directed towards the teaching of disciplinary knowledge.
Schwab’s thinking about the structure of the disciplines, after all, is animated by
and directed towards a version of liberal education centred on the cultivation of
certain desirable powers of the mind deemed important for all members of a
democratic society—such as abilities to grasp key ideas and methods of the
natural and social sciences, to think critically and logically, and to express oneself
clearly and effectively—through conversations and inquiry into the nature,
contents and methods of inquiry in various academic disciplines (Levine, 2006;
Westbury & Wilkof, 1978).
His elaboration of the structures in academic disciplines, Fenstermacher (1980)
observed, can serve the purpose of bringing students into an encounter with
academic content as a means ‘to engage persons in structuring their experiences
in ways that continually enlarge their knowledge and understanding, their
autonomy and authenticity, and their sense of place in the past, present, and
future of the human race’ (p. 196).
Academic disciplines are, then, a resource ‘to be used in the service of the
students’ in the development of intellectual powers and moral dispositions
(Schwab, 1973, p. 515)—rather than a source or model according to which the
curriculum must conform. One way to differentiate different types of ‘resource’
disciplines used by Schwab is in terms of Aristotelian three groups of disciplines:
the Theoretical (mathematics, natural sciences and social sciences), the Practical
(ethics and politics) and the Productive (engineering, the fine arts and applied
arts). These three types of disciplines, by virtue of their distinctive substantive and
syntactic structures, embody three unique types of human powers believed to be
applicable to all subject matters (cf. Levine, 2006).
These three groups also encompass all the disciplines considered embodying
powerful knowledge by Young (2013), including science, technology, engineering,
mathematics, ethics, literature, arts, history, geography and social sciences.
Towards such an end, curriculum making is more than the matter of re-
contextualizing academic disciplines into school subjects as conceived by Young
and colleagues. It entails the necessity of discovering and appraising disciplinary
content—in the form of scholarly material—in terms of its educational potential
for fostering intellectual and moral powers. In ‘The practical: Translation into
curriculum’, curriculum making is characterized as a sophisticated deliberative
undertaking within an instructional context, undertaken by a deliberation group
comprised by representatives of four curriculum commonplaces—the subject
matter, the learner, the teacher and the milieu (Schwab, 1970/2013, 1973, 1983).
It starts with an understanding of learners—their background, interests and needs
—as an essential starting point. ‘Only if the representative with knowledge of and
sympathy with the children intervenes as an equal in the deliberation is the
discipline represented by the scholar likely to be treated as a resource of
education rather than as a model for it’ (pp. 504–505).
At the heart of curriculum making is a process of selecting and translating the
contents of academic disciplines in view of their educational potentials. As such, it
necessitates a discovery of the educational potential of scholarly material under
consideration, by means of a set of interpretive categories that serves to reveal its
educational value. Schwab (1973) introduced three ‘faces’ of scholarly material—
pertaining to his notion of the structure of the disciplines—each of which has a
particular layer of educational value. The first face is the purport conveyed by
scholarly material, e.g. an account of a past event by a piece of history, a moral
dilemma or an image of a person or society by a piece of literature, or a way of
classifying a group of natural phenomena by a scientific report.
For students, understanding the purport can give rise to the broadening of
knowledge horizon, transformation of perspectives, cultivation of moral
sensitivity and so forth—educational functions or ‘powers’ of powerful knowledge
that are also recognized by Young and colleagues (see Young, 2013; Young &
Muller, 2013). The second face concerns the originating discipline from which
scholarly material derives, standing for a coherent way of inquiry—a problem
formulated, an investigation carried out, the data or argument sought and a
conclusion reached. Having students understand and experience the problem,
method, principle and conclusion of a particular inquiry allows them to develop
independence in thinking, an ability to judge the reliability of knowledge claims,
and an understanding of the merits and limitations of a particular mode of
inquiry.
Schwab (1973) wrote: The attempt to formulate a scientific problem, however
simple, and to carry out the investigation required by the problem, is to learn
about questions to be addressed to scientific material with no mere lectorial
presentation can convey. To grasp some of the many ways in which different
historians conceive the character of historical knowledge, to identify the facts
pertinent to each history, and to seek out these facts is to understand the kind of
history one is reading at a given moment. It is a means of realizing the limitations
of a particular kind of history as one among a number of ways of throwing light
upon the past and interpreting the present, and it enhances competence to judge
the dependability of the history under scrutiny. (p. 517)
The third face concerns certain access disciplines that need to be brought to bear
on scholarly material to reveal its full complexity and sophistication. A particular
piece of material is scrutinized in terms of different types of questions, different
perspectives and different methods of inquiry from various disciplines. In other
words, it is subject to treatment in a variety of ways and according to a variety of
methods. As such, the material renders diverse opportunities for the cultivation of
critical thinking, freedom of thought, self-understanding and prudent thought and
action. Schwab explained: Access to a scientific work is access to ground for
critical judgment which avoids the misinformation, the extremes of belief, and the
confusion which are often the outcomes of popular renderings of such materials.
Access to the structure of argument, whether toward political or moral action, is
access to a judgment about the better and worse commitment of our time, our
energy, and our developing character. Access to historical works is access to one
of the factors which determine who we think we are, what problems we think we
have, and how we ought to act. In general, possession of such disciplines is
possession of avenues toward freedom of thought, feeling and action. (p. 516)
These three faces are also seen in his College curriculum and student protest in
which Schwab (1969) discussed how to recover the meaning in scholarly material
through ‘arts of recovery’—in terms of the meaning conveyed, a particular way of
inquiry involved, and multiple ways of inquiry brought forth that could be brought
to bear on the material.
By means of such arts, scholarly material is made to open up manifold
opportunities for challenging the understandings, intellectual competences and
moral judgments of students. It is important to note that the discovery of the
educational potential of scholarly material is not directed towards making
students into scientists, mathematicians or historians. It is for the purpose of
educating them to be free and responsible citizens capable of serving and
improving their local communities. In this regard, the educational potential
embodied in a piece of scholarly material is also ascertained in terms of meeting
the needs of the community and individual students.
One figuratively turns the piece of scholarly material from side to side, viewing it
in different lights. What use might it serve in the development of more critical
loyalty to a community? What might it contribute to the child’s resources for
satisfying activity? What might it contribute to a moral or intellectual virtue held
to be desirable by the planning group? To what convictions might it lead
concerning conservation or reform of a community setting? To what maturation
might it contribute? (Schwab, 1973, p. 520) Lastly, such an analysis of educational
potential is required for all pieces of scholarly material competing for a place in
the curriculum. The final decision on inclusion of a particular piece of scholarly
content into the curriculum is made with reference to its educational potential
and in view of the four curriculum commonplaces. From the subject matter: Is the
purport of the material an important historical event or condition, for example? Is
it good history, arising from well validated facts, interpreted in a defensible way
toward insights useful to our time and circumstance? From the milieu: Does it
contribute toward improvement of a community? Is it likely to be acceptable to
that community? If it is novel or disturbing, are there steps we can take to
facilitate its acceptance? From the children: Is the good it is supposed to do more
urgent or more important than the goods served by competing curricular bits? Is
it appropriate to the age and experience of the children under consideration?
What consequences may it have for the relations of children to parents and to
other significant adults? What effect may it have on the relation of each child to
himself? From the teacher: Is he or she prepared to teach it as it should be
taught? Can this training be successfully centred upon? Will the teacher be in
sympathy with the values embodied in the curricular bits? If not, are there
prevailing values among teachers which can be used to help enlist them in the
service of the embodied values? (pp. 520–521) Consequently, content selected
for inclusion in the curriculum is inextricably embedded in a complex web of
considerations pertaining to the four curriculum commonplaces.
As Fox (1985) observed, it is very difficult to ‘separate subject matter from the
other commonplaces, especially when one attempts to deal with the problems of
the structure of knowledge without invading areas which rightfully belong to the
learner, the teacher, and the milieu’ (p. 69). Such a concept of content, together
with the three faces that serve to disclose the potential of content for cultivating
self-understanding, intellectual powers and moral dispositions, can be seen as
constituting a theory of content that underpins deliberative curriculum making
espoused by Schwab (1973) in his ‘Practical 3’ paper.

Q.4 How can a teacher effectively implement the

curriculum in the school.
ANSWER:
WHAT IS A COURSE OBJECTIVE?
A course objective specifies a behavior, skill, or action that a student can
demonstrate if they have achieved mastery of the objective. As such, objectives
need to be written in such a way that they are measurable by some sort of
assessment. Course objectives form the foundation of the class. Everything in the
course should work together to ensure students master the course objectives.
On teacher’s desks, in binders on book shelves, or in some remote corner of their
classroom most teachers have in their possession a copy of their district’s or
school’s curriculum planning document for their grade level and / or content area.
Whether developed at the district or school level, the curriculum guide, called a
curriculum framework in my county, is almost certain to exist. The curriculum
guide, in general, is expected to be used by teachers in the development of their
lesson plans and for achieving curriculum goals and objectives. The difference
between a curriculum goal and a curriculum objective is that “a curriculum goal is
a purpose or end stated in general terms without criteria of achievement” (Oliva
& Gordon, 2013, p. 175) while a curriculum objective “is a purpose or end stated
in specific, measurable terms” (Oliva & Gordon, 2013, p. 176).
As broad, general statements of purpose, curriculum goals are derived from three
sources: studies of society, studies of learners, and suggestions of subject matter
specialist.
From studies of society the curriculum developer derives information about the
needs of contemporary life, tradition, enduring values, and aspirations. From
studies of the learner the curriculum maker learns about needs, interests, ability
levels, and learning styles.
From subject-matter specialists the curriculum worker learns what knowledge is
of greatest importance (Lunenburg, 2011, p. 1). Curriculum goals, by definition,
are not specific to individual students and as such address students as a group.
Curriculum goals can be written at numerous degrees of generalities and should
involve many curriculum workers such as teachers, subject specialists, academics,
principals, teacher trainers, administrators and others who may be engaged in
curriculum efforts on several levels at the same time. . . .
The goals are the basic elements in curriculum planning and should be clear and
well articulated without ambiguities (Learningdomain, n.d., p. 10). If the three
sources of curriculum goals are accepted as true, then curriculum goals should be
a reflection of national policies and priorities, be grounded in the most current
research and literature on best practices in learning and teaching, and state the
expectations of what students should know. In developing curriculum goals, the
same outcomes are expected for every student. The idea of every student is
important here because there is a tendency to write goals that are directional or
“lofty” that perhaps only a few students … can accomplish.
The idea of every student commits you to writing goals that you think you can get
every student to reach. The best situation would be for goals to be written for a
K–12 curriculum, in which case they would describe what students should be able
to do when they leave high school. If your curriculum is being written for an
elementary or middle school program, the specific goals should describe what
students should be able to do when they leave the fifth grade or eighth grade, or
the last grade for which your school is responsible (Rink, 2009).
The federal government can now promote a comprehensive approach to help all
students succeed in life.
By the year 2000:
1. Every child will start school ready to learn.
2. The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent.
3. Pakistani students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated
competency over challenging subject matter including english, mathematics,
science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, art, history, and
geography; and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use
their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further
learning, and productive employment in our nation's modern economy.
4. The nation's teaching force will have access to programs for the continued
improvement of their professional skills needed to instruct and prepare all
American students for the next century.
5. Students will be first in the world in science and mathematics achievement.
6. Every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills
necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise rights and responsibilities
of citizenship.
7. Every school in the United States will be free of drugs, violence, and the
unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined
environment conducive to learning.
8. Every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement
and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of
children (Austin, 1994, p. 1).
The intent was for these goals to have been realized by the year 2000. Although
some objectives, related to these goals, may have been achieved, the goals
themselves have not. Goals, if they are to be of any value, must be attainable.
Those who develop a curriculum have a duty to consider the curriculum goals as
achievable in addition to curriculum objectives. Where a goal is conceptual and
basically an umbrella statement, curriculum objectives are statements which
provide measurable, defined, reachable, and ideal student outcomes.
There are three common types of objectives:

Learner objectives that indicate what the learner should know or do after
when a period of learning is completed;
Instructional objectives that indicate what the teacher or individual
providing instruction expects to accomplish; and

Behavioral objectives that indicate what the learner may be expected to

do.To ensure that curriculum objectives are written to achieve their intended
purpose, the College of Charleston (n.d.) recommends the following: Checklist for

Educational Objectives :
Related to a goal:
Answers the question “What will the learner be able to do at the end of the
activity? “Stated in precise, observable, measurable terms. Realistically obtainable
during the activity (p. 1)
In addition, objectives should be considered important or essential and be
grouped so that there is a logical flow in the components of instruction. As
statements of overall concepts, objectives describe a learning outcome.
Objectives should describe what a student will be able to do as a result of learning
using action verbs such as will have, will learn how to, or will be able to.
Objectives are normally produced by a group of teachers or planners based on
knowledge and experience. . . . derive from a variety of sources. . . . [and] are not
fixed. As teaching proceeds, some may have to be revised, some dripped because
they are unrealistic, and others added to address gaps (Amor, n.d., p. 1).
Curriculum goals and objectives present a focus for bringing together and linking
instruction and assessment. The philosophical beliefs of a school district or county
are consequential to curriculum goals and objectives and transmuted into the
classroom as preferred learning outcomes. It is important that any statement of
[curriculum] objectives of the school should be a statement of changes to take
place in the students. The attraction of this way of approaching curriculum is that
it is systematic and has considerable organizing power (Learningdomain, n.d., p.
13). As such, moving from curriculum goals to curriculum objectives should
establish an educational program that moves specific groups of learners towards
the curriculum goals and objectives.

Q.5 Discuss the problems and issues in curriculum

implemenation in Pakistan.
ANSWER:
The Taba Model was developed by Hilda Taba (1902 – 1967), an architect, a
curriculum theorist, a curriculum reformer, and a teacher educator. She was born
in the small village of Kooraste, Estonia. Taba believed that there has to be a
definite order in creating a curriculum.
Hilda Taba is the developer of the Taba Model of learning. This model is used to
enhance the thinking skills of students. Hilda Taba believed that there must be a
process for evalutating student achievement of content after the content
standards have been established and implemented. The main concept of this
approach to curriculum development is that teachers must be involved in the
development in curriculum.

Strengths of using the Taba Model in the classroom:

1. Gifted students begin thinking of a concept, then dive deeper into that
concept.
2. Focuses on open-ended questions rather than right/wrong questions.
3. The open-endedness requires more abstract thinking, a benefit to our
gifted students.
4. The questions and answers lend themselves to rich classroom discussion.
 5. Easy to assess student learning

Limitations of using the Taba Model in the classroom:

1. Can be difficult for non-gifted students to grasp.

2. Difficult for heterogeneous classrooms.
3. Works well for fiction and non-fiction, may be difficult to easily use in all
subjects
Strengths of Hilda Taba’s Model Some of the innovative aspects of Taba’s model
include determining required objectives and related content, selection and
organization of learning experiences in accordance with specific criteria; selection
of a variety of teaching strategies and evaluation procedures and measures. Her
model gives due consideration to external factors that may affect various
components of a curriculum including the vicinity and community of school’s
location, the school area educational policies, the goals, resources, and
administrative strategies of the school, teachers' personal styles and
characteristics, the nature of the student population among others.
The present focus on global demands about educational practices and needs casts
aspersions on these identified strengths. Taba’s model of curriculum process has
been criticized for its application difficulty in heterogenous classrooms. Again,
Taba’s inductive model restricted the development of curriculum or planning to
only the teachers rather than to the higher authorities. It is a rigid model. The
nature of teaching-learning, being unpredictable, one cannot be sure of the
learning outcomes. It becomes pertinent at this point to query. As well as
consider critically, the educational status of those authorities who are required to
make inputs aside the teacher. What are their interests? Whose opinions would
they reflect? What would be their major considerations as they draw their
decisions, overall good or personal and selfish goals? African education can be
better positioned for a more lasting legacy than is evident if the Nigerian situation
can be used as a case in point.

Theoretical postulates
For Hilda Taba, education serves a triple purpose.
- It allows the transmission of culture, of the human spirit.
- It contributes to making individuals social entities.
- It allows society to be structured in a coherent way.
Likewise, the approach to education must respond to a totality and not be a mere
transmission of data. The individual must be able to reason and infer about future
situations.
According to Taba, it is imperative that education forms whole individuals
inscribed in democratic ideas. This is vital so that societies are not vulnerable to
totalitarianism and the economy thrives.
Education must respond to the needs of society. Similarly, education must be
centered on the processes inherent to the student. In addition, there must be an
approach based on the very nature of the knowledge to be imparted.
When structuring an educational curriculum, it is necessary to consider several
factors sequentially. First, needs must be established, focused on the culture.
Once that north is established, work is done based on objectives for those needs.
In this way, the contents to be taught are selected and organized in a coherent
way. It is also vital to choose the type of experiences that accompany said
contents and to establish the forms and contexts of evaluation.
The work of this researcher confers her a privileged rank in the field of world
education.

The essence of curriculum Design the need for a

conceptual Framework: 
Curriculum design, like education as a whole, relies on the explanation of
phenomena that theory provides, but is not itself theoretical. The terms
educational theory or curriculum theory can be employed only through a loose
and nonscientific use of the word “theory”. At its most scientific, curriculum
design, is an applied science, like medicine and engineering, it draws on theory
from
the pure sciences, but itself develops not theory but operating principles to guide 
decision making in practical situations.
Conceptualizing Attitudes and beliefs about learning:
Miller and Seller (1985) describe three orientations that are useful and pertinent
to developing and understanding
One Is beliefs and attitudes about learning:
(a) the transmission position,
(b) the transaction position, and
(c)the transformation position.
Each is helpful in understanding the philosophical,
psychological and social contexts in which curriculum is developed.
In the transmission position, the function of schooling is viewed as transmitting
facts, skills, and values to students. This orientation stresses mastery of
conventional school subjects through traditional teaching methodologies,
particularly textbook learning. The people most often associated with this view
are Thorndike and skinner. 0n the transaction position, the student is seen as
rational and capable of intelligent problem solving, education is viewed as a
dialogue between the student and the curriculum in which the student
reconstructs knowledge through a dialogical process. 

The curriculum Development or planning process:

The curriculum development process can be puzzling to new teachers. The
process is often discussed in the literature as a blueprint for developing a
curriculum that has applicability across a range of subjects (i.e. a macro view)
however, it is also defined as the plan teachers adopt in the classroom for
organizing learning activities (i.e. a micro view) Both interpretations
of curriculum development are valid and helpful in conceiving and continually 
Implementing successful learning activities for students. Having developed a
conceptual framework and an  
Understanding of the essence of curriculum design,   it is important for aspiring
teachers to become familiar with macro and micro level planning, learning theory,
and student assessment program evaluation.
Macro level curriculum planning in North America, whether highly centralized or
decentralized, is often the result of task force reports and competing
prescriptions of what should be taught in schools. The end products of such
processes are interesting to analyze. The commonwealth of Virginia i.e. for
example, has produced a statewide technological education curriculum for its
schools and school teachers. That curriculum has been carefully and
professionally crafted, covers a specific band of the technological education
curriculum spectrum, provides educators with excellent curriculum materials, and
demonstrates one process for developing curriculum. An alternative approach has
been adopted in the province of Ontario, where only general learning outcomes
are specified at the provincial level, Responsibility for the more detailed
development of the curriculum has been embraced by school boards and systems
of school boards. Both approaches to the development of a new curriculum
one centralized, the other decentralized are valid and merit ongoing analysis
and study.