©Extract from Chapter 4 “Teaching in the Lifelong Learning Sector” by Peter Scales Due for
publication January 2013 (McGraw-Hill/ Open University Press)
A curriculum for inclusive learning
This chapter is about:

defining the curriculum

process, product and praxis views of the curriculum

the ‘hidden’ curriculum

what is inclusion?

inclusive learning

widening participation

Equality Act 2010

Specific Learning Difficulties (SpLD) e.g. dyslexia
© Peter Scales 2012
Page 1
ACTIVITY
Perhaps we simply assume that what is taught in colleges; learning providers and
schools is ‘natural’. Critical and reflective practice requires us to challenge these
‘taken for granted’ assumptions.
Discuss the following in relation to what you teach and/ or what you have learned
as a student or school pupil:

what is taught?

why is it taught?

who is it learned by?

who decides what the content of the learning should be?

how it is taught?

how it is learned?
What is a curriculum?
Your discussions about the questions in this activity are, essentially, discussions
about the ‘curriculum’. So, what do we mean by curriculum? Some understand
curriculum to mean the content of a course; others might regard it as the total offer of
learning programmes provided by one institution or the range of provision at a
national level, as in the National Curriculum or the Adult Basic Skills Curriculum.
The content of a particular course or programme is called a ‘syllabus’ or the
‘specifications’. A list of programmes available in a particular institution is not a
curriculum – it is a prospectus or a directory. The term ‘curriculum’, in its fullest
© Peter Scales 2012
Page 2
sense includes not only the content of what is learned but also how it is learned; how
it is assessed; the wider personal, intellectual, learning and social skills it aims to
develop; the values of the learning provider and, in the case of the lifelong learning
sector, the values which underpin the LLUK Standards for teachers. Above all, a fully
realised curriculum will have, even if only implicitly, a clear philosophy and a
rationale which all those teaching on it can explain and discuss. Further education
colleges frequently refer to ‘student learning’ and the ‘student experience’ – a
comprehensive definition of curriculum includes both. Kelly (2009: 9) states, “…we
will understand by the term ‘curriculum’ the overall rationale for any educational
programme … the prime concern must be with the totality.”
Your discussions from the activity will probably have brought up issues relating to
who learns what and the extent to which learners are selected or guided towards
particular programmes of learning and places of learning. Any discussions of
curricula are, almost inevitably, also discussions about inclusion and inclusive
learning.
The product view of the curriculum
In the ‘product’ view of the curriculum education is seen as the transmission of
content. The key point is who defines and selects the content and for what purpose.
The majority of education in our system is based on an 'accepted' body of subjects
whose content and methods are relatively certain and can be prescribed in the form
of specifications and examinations by awarding bodies. The range of subjects
© Peter Scales 2012
Page 3
studied in schools, colleges and universities will be familiar to most of us - English;
maths; sciences; history; geography; religious studies, etc. These subjects are
generally the ones which are considered to have the most status and credibility,
whereas recent arrivals such as media studies are considered less favourably.
This view of the curriculum also holds that one of the main functions of education is
to transmit the culture of society. This, we could argue, is essential to the continuity
of society but again begs a question - whose culture is to be transmitted? The notion
of 'multiculturalism' has been the subject of considerable debate but it is undeniable
that we live in a diverse society in terms of, for example, religion; ethnicity; social
class; gender and disability. There is a political dimension here and a clear link to
inclusion. If the mainstream culture is based, as some suggest, on a predominantly
white, middle-class, ‘middle England’ worldview, then people of different cultures or
different life experiences may feel excluded or unable to participate fully in the
education system as it is. These concerns are apparent whenever politicians and
teachers make competing claims about what should be taught in the school history
curriculum or in English literature.
The product view of curriculum also derives, in part, from the aims and objective
approach to education associated with Ralph Tyler (Tyler 1949) and subsequently
developed in Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Bloom 1956).
These ideas were based on a more ‘scientific’ approach to education, the key idea
being that if the aims and objectives were clearly defined then the educational
© Peter Scales 2012
Page 4
‘outcomes’ could be more accurately and reliably assessed and reported. This
‘reporting’ is an important consideration and,
“…such approaches are highly valued because they can be evaluated
in ways which are valued by managers and government ministers… it is
a simple exercise to evaluate an objectives-driven curriculum: they have
either been met or they have not. (Tummons 2010:24)
The process view of the curriculum
The product view of the curriculum is concerned, mainly, with what students learn.
The ‘process’ model, in contrast, is concerned with how learners learn and with their
growth and development as human beings. In this view, learners are seen as active
participants in the construction of knowledge and development of understanding
rather than as passive recipients of knowledge. It is, therefore, associated with
cognitive and constructivist theories of learning and with notions of active learning
and deep learning. This approach to learning is more likely to develop learner
autonomy and a propensity to lifelong learning.
This approach to the curriculum and to learning has a long tradition. John Dewey
(1938) emphasised the importance of experience in education. A.N. Whitehead
(1932), suggested that “the curriculum is to be thought of in terms of activity and
experience rather than of knowledge to acquired rather than facts stored.” (Quoted in
Kelly, 2009: 100).
© Peter Scales 2012
Page 5
The most frequently cited reference to the process curriculum is Lawrence
Stenhouse’s An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development (1975) in
which he sets out his arguments against behavioural objectives as the basis for the
curriculum and proposes an inquiry-based approach to learning. Whilst Stenhouse
does not deny the importance of passing on the knowledge base of a subject, he
emphasises the importance of inquiry and discovery in the development of learners’
understanding and allowing for the emergence of ‘unintended learning outcomes’
which might not be specified in the objectives and not, necessarily, assessed. Rather
than the use of aims and objectives to prescribe the content and structure of
learning, Stenhouse’s scheme advocates the use of loosely framed objectives in
which learners can explore and discover within the subject or area of study.
Why not process and product?
Education is beset with arguments concerning the desirability or efficacy of one
theory or idea over another. Politicians, academics, teachers and cultural
commentators fiercely defend their point of view and lobby for it to become accepted
practice. At the time of writing there is a ‘discussion’ around the relative merits of
teaching ‘facts’ and of ‘student-centred’ learning and policies are likely to be
developed on the basis of who wins the argument and can garner the most
convincing evidence to support their beliefs.
The underlying themes of this book, you might rightly conclude, are towards a
student-centred, process view of the curriculum and of learning. Other views,
however, are available and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The
© Peter Scales 2012
Page 6
curriculum doesn’t have to be, and probably can’t be, either process or product.
Unlike Charles Dickens’ fictional Mr. Gradgrind, to whom facts were the only things
necessary and everything else was to be ruthlessly expunged, even the most ardent
proponents of the product view of the curriculum would struggle to deny that
learners’ development and growth are an important part of what they do. Those who
tend to the process view are often criticised because they put the development of the
individual before, or even instead of, subject knowledge.
John Dewey’s contrast between traditional and progressive education is mirrored by
the contrast between the product and the process views of curriculum. In
‘Experience and Education’, Dewey cautions against the imposition of one extreme
and the rejection of the other and asserts that,
“Because the older education imposed the knowledge, methods and the
rules of conduct of the mature person upon the young, it does not follow,
except on the basis of the extreme Either-Or philosophy, that the
knowledge and skill of the mature person has no directive value for the
experience of the immature,” (1938/ 1997: 21)
It seems appropriate to suggest that when you are designing your curriculum or a
programme within it that you should seek to develop both process and product
approaches in a mutually beneficial combination. The development of understanding
is a desirable aim of education but it has to be an understanding of something –
usually a subject or a vocational area. Whether we like it or not the content of
subjects is, to a greater or lesser extent, prescribed. Maths teachers can’t reject the
syllabus in favour of a radical programme based on their own particular interests.
© Peter Scales 2012
Page 7
What they can do is to consider not only the ‘what’ of the subject but also the ‘how’ it
is taught and learned. Swan (2006) has carried out research into maths teaching and
concluded that learners who struggle with maths can benefit from methods which
include discussion to enhance their understanding.
References
Bloom, B.S. et al (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. 1: Cognitive Domain London:
Longman
Dewey, J. (1938/ 1997) Experience and Education New York: Simon and Schuster
Kelly, A. V. (2009) The Curriculum: Theory and Practice London: Sage
Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development London:
Heinemann
Swan, M. (2006) Learning GCSE Mathematics through discussion: what are the effects on
students? Journal of Further and Higher Education Vol. 30, No. 3 pp229-241
Tummons, J. (2010) Curriculum Studies in the Lifelong Learning Sector Exeter: Learning
Matters
Tyler, R. W. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press
Whitehead, A.N. (1932) The Aims of Education and Other Essays London: Williams and
Norgate Ltd.
© Peter Scales 2012
Page 8