The theories of Taba, Schwab, and Pinar.
Write a two page paper comparing the theories of Taba, Schwab, and Pinar. How are the theories similar and different? Does the difference make the theories incompatible and how?
In the text,
Curriculum: Alternative Approaches, Ongoing Issues, 3rd Edition, Marsh and Willis describe Taba’s thoughts on thinking. Taba believed that thinking can be taught, that thinking involves actively engaging data, and that thought processes follow a logical (lawful) pattern. According to Taba, students need to have the environment of learning and thinking made available to them. Once in this environment, thinking will come naturally, and will be able to continue without constant teacher direction. This environment will be one where students will feel safe to express new ideas and personal opinions. The teacher will act as a guide who shows support to the students, leading them on an interactive journey of learning through sensory experience with the topic at hand. The teacher also assists in helping children organize the data they have collected. These methods will develop thinking skills within students as they progress into greater depths of knowledge about their subject.
It seems that Taba’s approach to teaching assumes that all children are hands on, tactile learners who organize their thoughts into logical patterns and steps. I agree that for some students, Taba’s methods would prove invaluable. However, there are many students who will need a more concrete method of instruction. Sometimes, children need to be told that A causes B, but that B could not happen without the help of C. I believe that Taba was expecting too much of the many children who do not see the world in more abstract terms and therefore can not on their own deduce the whole from the many parts.
Joseph Schwab, who studied as a natural scientist, stated that curriculum design was a place “where theory is partly inappropriate in the first place…” Instead, Schwab focused on the concept of practical reasoning and realized that in the realm of curriculum development, there were no right answers, just best answers from a pool of available choices. Schwab describes the deliberation process that leads to the decision of what curriculum will be followed. He also warns that this deliberation does not guarantee the best answer, but sometimes the most forcefully spoken answer. In deliberations, there is often not a communicable acceptance of ideas, but rather a dictator imposed consensus. In these deliberations, the debaters of the curriculum will consider the four commonplaces; subject matter, learner, teacher, and setting (Schwab used the term milieu). Schwab, unlike Tyler, sees no prerequisite order to the curriculum development process.
Schwab’s settings seem very typical of his time period. The 70s seemed to be a time of newness, and breaking away from the rules and rigidity of the past. This is evident in Schwab’s non ordered approach to curriculum development. Put a bunch of people in a room, hope no one’s too overbearing, and let them hash it out (Ok, that’s simplistic, but it does show the contrast to Tyler’s very orderly approach to curriculum development). Schwab’s approach also has a greater focus on developing the curriculum, whereas Taba’s approach deals more with the development of a teaching atmosphere and style.
Pinar, who holds an approach more similar to Eisner than to Tyler or Walker, does not feel that curriculum should lead towards a rigid statement of an end goal for a group. Rather, Pinar states that curriculum needs to be adjustable to an individual’s abilities and needs. In contrast to Eisner, Pinar gives better direction for individual freedom when he says to reflect on one’s personal beliefs and experiences than does Eisner, who leads us to follow “artistry” without considerable reflection on what is best for the pupil. Simply, Eisner comes off as teacher centered while Pinar gives the impression of being student centered under the creative uniqueness of the teacher. The curriculum the teacher assigns for the student will come from within the student, through the student’s experiences, molded for the student’s personal uniqueness. Additionally, Pinar states that the teacher should work to draw out good, upstanding, and creative qualities from his or her students. Similar to Schwab, Pinar stresses an appropriate classroom climate, free from criticism, boredom and other detriments to the learning process. Pinar stresses the actions of caring as an encourager to the learning process.
Pinar adds that teachers must explore themselves and their pasts in the same fashion they encourage their students. This almost Freudian process may be painful but it will be revelatory as the teacher seeks out a personal curriculum for her or his teaching methods. Pinar’s methods are less than realistic in today’s large schools and classrooms because they involve a great amount of individual attention and time given to each student to assist the student in the self-development of curriculum.
There will always be students who need a teacher who follows the individualizing principles of Pinar. Some children will not be able to follow the classroom curriculum and will need that extra attention. For this reason, educators should be aware of Pinar’s thoughts so they can implement them when necessary. However, most instructors and curriculum builders will be able to utilize the combined ideas of Schwab and Taba. A combination of deliberation in arriving at the best curriculum for the students with the creation of a productive learning environment will go a long way to enhance the lives of most students. For those who need that extra consideration, the unique curriculum building ideas of Pinar will benefit.
Filed under: EDC 541 Curriculum and Instruction for Diverse Learners
Copyright: May, 2003 - David Profitt
