CONFERENCE PAPER No. 33
Curriculum Frameworks: Who (or
what) is framing whom?
Presented by
Colin Marsh & Catherine Harris
Curriculum Frameworks: Who (or what) is framing
whom?
Colin Marsh and Catherine Harris
Introduction
Various theorists and educators over the years have produced
their preferred curriculum knowledge groupings or frameworks.
Most well-known ones include those produced by Hirst (1974) and
Phenix (1964) whose focus was on knowledge ‘disciplines’ as
curriculum organisers. Knowledge disciplines and associated
‘school subjects’ were, for much of the 20th century, the major
curriculum organisers across Australian States.
In the early 1990s multidisciplinary curriculum frameworks
emerged and were advocated by many educators as an important
springboard and focus for teachers in terms of curriculum
planning. The use of multidisciplinary curriculum frameworks was
very evident in Australia in April 1991 when eight learning
areas were created by the Australian Education Council (AEC) and
planned for use in all states and territories. It was argued
that they would be a stimulus for evoking creative ideas and
activities. Yet, they are also a major tool for control and
direction. These eight learning areas or key learning areas
(KLAs) have largely endured in all states and territories even
though the ambitious plans for national statements and profiles
did not survive.
This paper examines the current uses, benefits and problems in
using multidisciplinary KLA's as curriculum frameworks. To do
so, this paper comprises two sections. In the first section we
examine the role of disciplines as knowledge (and curriculum)
structures and how these have historically acted as powerful
frames for curriculum. We theorise the role and purpose of
curriculum frameworks and discuss the discipline/subject wars
that have traditionally driven curriculum frameworks. In the
second section, we explore the development of multidisciplinary
KLAs across Australia’s States and Territories and query their
effectiveness as knowledge and curriculum organisers.
Disciplines as curriculum frameworks: An historical overview
Educational theorists over the years have produced curriculum
frameworks which they purport to be ideal. For example, Hirst
1974) has argued convincingly that knowledge can be classified
into eight forms, which he labels as:
o Mathematics
o Physical sciences
o Human sciences
o History
o Religion
o Literature and the fine arts
o Philosophy
o Moral knowledge
Historically, the organisation of school knowledge relied on
disciplinary knowledge as an overarching curriculum frame.
Bernstein explains that there are different kinds of broad
macro-level disciplinary knowledge structures:
Firstly, those that are specialised and distinctly
insulated from other knowledge structures, these are
singulars (e.g. physics, chemistry, history, economics,
psychology); but secondly, where once-insulated singulars
have converged intellectually and in fields of practice,
these are regions (e.g. engineering, medicine,
architecture, cognitive science, management) (as cited in
Moore, 2000, p186).
The relationship between singular knowledge structures and
knowledge regions is evident when we consider ‘social science’.
Long argues that:
Traditional disciplines in the social sciences are those
academic subjects that have established themselves as the
key ways of subdividing social science in the nineteenth
and twentieth century, particularly since the Second World
War. While there is no consensus on a definitive listing,
traditional social science disciplines usually include
psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, political
science, and geography (and depending on the definition of
social science, history and law) (2002, p3).
In this sense, Long posits knowledge regions as the precursor to
singular knowledge disciplines. As stated earlier the school
curriculum has historically relied on disciplines as knowledge
organisers. And much like knowledge regions devolved into
singular disciplines it is often assumed that singular
disciplines have subsequently devolved into school subjects.
The relationship between academic disciplines and school
subjects has been well debated. For example Stengel (as cited in
Feldman, 2003) has written about three different ways in which
the two can be related:
1)Academic disciplines and school subjects are essentially
continuous; 2) academic disciplines and school subjects
are basically discontinuous; 3) academic disciplines and
school subjects are different but related in one of three
ways – a) academic discipline preceded school subject, b)
school subject precedes academic discipline, or c) that
the relationship is essentially dialectic (p18).
Martin (1969) takes a social perspective and argues that the
school curriculum is not just about the transmission of
knowledge but serves much broader purposes that demand a much
broader curriculum. She contends that the curriculum is not a
mirror turned on knowledge (as per the disciplines).
Understanding the complex and often contested nature of
academic disciplines and school subjects reveals much about the
contested nature of curriculum frameworks. But what is a
curriculum framework? Bernstein (1996) uses the terms
classification and framing to describe how curriculum is
ordered and these are useful concepts as they highlight the
purpose and nature of ‘framing’ curriculum. Specifically,
Bernstein explains that “classification describes the
relationships between disciplines or bodies of disciplinary
knowledge in a pedagogic setting, [and] how they establish and
maintain the boundaries that mark their identity” (as cited in
Long, 2002, p186). Strong disciplinary identities rely on
insulating themselves from other disciplines through the
establishment and maintenance of classifying disciplinary
discourses. Whatever maintains the strengths of the insulation,
maintains the relations between the categories and their
distinct voices (Bernstein, 1996, p21). In this sense, the
formal school curriculum is a powerful frame for the
maintenance or adaptation of school subjects (whether they be
highly insulated singular subjects or weakly classified areas
of study.
In this sense curriculum frameworks are knowledge organisers. If
you consider that a curriculum framework has the potential to
provide a structure for designing subjects, a rationale and
policy context for subsequent curriculum development of these
subjects and has real implications for the enactment of
curriculum work, the importance of curriculum frameworks as
knowledge organisers becomes more apparent. For example, the way
or ways in which different curriculum frameworks organise
knowledge privileges certain forms of knowledge over others.
Further, formal curriculum organisation has powerful sociocultural effects on teacher’s worklives and indeed student’s
learning experiences.
Marsh (2005) argues that under a curriculum framework, a
curriculum will be more coherent and orderly because the
framework is arranged sequentially from kindergarten (prep) to
secondary levels and priorities are established for each level.
Further, planning criteria and standards are applied
consistently across all levels of a curriculum framework.
Additionally, within the structure of a curriculum framework, it
is possible to incorporate desirable skills such as generic
skills of communication and language skills, numeracy skills and
problem-solving skills. Curriculum frameworks can provide an
important springboard and focus for teachers in terms of
curriculum planning. Further, they can be a stimulus for evoking
ideas and activities. Yet, it is also evidence that they are a
tool of control and direction.
Despite the stated advantages of widespread use of curriculum
frameworks, it should be noted that there can be difficulties
for administrators and teachers in using them. A great number of
teachers might benefit from having the detailed planning
documents but others feel it limits their creativity. If the
frameworks are directly linked to forms of teacher appraisal,
then clearly the framework has become an instrument of
compliance and a method of control by central education
authorities.
Throughout much of the 20th century (particularly post WWII) the
school curriculum across Australia’s States and Territories has
been shaped by what Goodson (1983) has termed the ‘subject
wars’. These subject wars are founded on the changing
classification (and hence framing) of academic disciplines and
school subjects. Far from being a simple process whereby changes
in the classification of academic disciplines filtered through
to school subjects, the relationship between academic
disciplines and school subjects has been a fractious one.
Much debate exists around the nature and purpose of school
subjects (Goodson, 1983, Stengel, 1997; Young 1998). Whilst the
origin of school subjects can be traced to the academic
disciplines, Stengel (1997) and Young (1998) are quick to point
out that the relationship between school subjects and academic
disciplines is not simply one of derivation. In other words
school subjects are not merely watered down versions of their
academic or ‘parent’ discipline but rather:
Discrete entities, their differences defined by audience,
outlook, subject matter and methodology. The first is
concerned primarily with the production of knowledge, the
second with the production of learning and its relevance
to [children and] adolescence (Young, 1998, p.9)
Stengel (1997) concedes that there are no stable meanings for
either ‘academic subject’ or ‘school subject’ citing Popkewitz’s
view they are not sacrosanct bodies of knowledge that exist
unchallenged. (Stengel, 1997 p593). Indeed Musgrove, (cited in
Goodson,) describes academic disciplines and school subjects as
“social systems sustained by communication, networks, material
endowments and ideologies” (Goodson, 1981, p163). These social
systems should be viewed as comprising a range of conflicting
sub-groups, segments or factions and these factions fluctuate
considerably over time (Goodson, Anstead & Mangan, 1998). Often
such conflict focuses on epistemology (the nature of knowledge)
and pedagogy (the nature of teaching and learning); both across
different school subjects and within specific school subjects.
Epistemological and pedagogical orientations have implications
for the ways in which particular school subjects are perceived
and indeed the status that is attributed to them.
Goodson (1983) has traced the evolution of school subjects in
the United Kingdom (UK) and examined their paths towards
acceptability and status. Interestingly, he notes that the
differential status of school subjects, evident when we compare
for example, Mathematics and Textiles and Design, derives from
their origins in both the academic disciplines and in the
separate educational sectors which preceded comprehensivisation
(Mathematics was offered at ‘academic’ schools whilst Textiles
and Design was offered at ‘technical/vocational’ schools)
(Goodson,1983). Over the last 50 years, we have seen therefore,
the continued dominance of some subjects (English, Mathematics,
and Science), the decline of other subjects (History) and the
death of yet others (Latin). We have also seen the emergence and
consolidation of new subjects (Information Technology,
Hospitality, Legal Studies).
It is very evident in the 1990s and the 21st century that
curriculum frameworks are being used widely in many countries.
They are predominantly guides that have been explicitly designed
and written to assist school communities of teachers, students
and parents in the curriculum “decision-making” about K-10
programs. It should be noted that curriculum frameworks can
assist in the review and development of curricula by schools and
system-level personnel. That is, there is an important
evaluative or control element involved in curriculum frameworks
compared with the traditional, limited range of subjects. The
grouping of subjects within each key learning area (KLA), also
allows for more opportunities for multidisciplinary and
interdisciplinary variations.
The introduction of Key learning Areas: A move towards
multidisciplinary curriculum frameworks
The creation of eight learning areas in Australia in 1991 has
been billed as an innovatory consultative approach to national
curriculum development. The typical nomenclature for these areas
of learning became “Key Learning Areas" (KLAs). Eight KLAs were
confirmed at this time:
o English
o Science
o Mathematics
o Languages other than English (LOTE)
o Technology
o Studies of Society and Environment (SOSE)
o Arts
o Health and Physical Education
The term KLA is in itself, a difficult one to define. A thorough
search of all State and Territory education sites yielded only one
definition – that offered by the Tasmanian Department of Education
who are keen to strengthen the use of KLAs within their newly
adopted Essential Learning Framework:
Key Learning Areas are a construct designed to organise
the diverse aspects of human intellectual knowledge,
experience and achievement. They, and the disciplines
they are based on, reflect the richly diverse ways in
which people come to know and understand the world
(Retrieved 26/11/04)
www.education.tas.gov.au/ocll/proflearn/keylearnareas.d
oc).
This definition begs a number of questions: How have KLAs been
organised?
By whom? With what purpose in mind and to what effect?
Typically, KLAs
have been organised around the attainment of significant aspects
of
knowledge, skills and understandings that characterise a
particular KLA.
Student attainment is generally measured against a set of
outcomes or
standards that have been identified as relevant to a specific
KLA.
Hannan (1992, p29), the then Director of Curriculum in Victoria,
notes that the
creation of eight KLAs was both pragmatic and conservative –
“this is the
break-up nearest to that already in use around the country”. Of
the eight
KLAs, four are established subjects, namely English, LOTE,
science and
mathematics. The remaining four (SOSE, Technology, Arts and
Health and
Physical Education) represent collections of subjects and even
new studies.
Whilst KLAs seem (on the surface at least) as though they
advocate a
multidisciplinary approach to curriculum organisation, one has
to ponder the
possibility that KLAs are highly disciplinary in nature. This is
evident in the
classification of English and Maths as KLAs and also the
establishment of
SOSE (which brought together [in name only] the formerly
separate subjects
such as History and Geography). The latter four are a curious
combination, perhaps reflecting pragmatic decisions and not a
little idiosyncratic preference. This is because the
categorisation of KLAs varies slightly between States and
Territories depending on contextual factors.
For example, many states have adopted a SOSE [Studies of Society
and Environment] KLA framework whilst NSW has adopted a Human
Society and its Environment [HSIE] KLA. Apart from a difference
in title, HSIE incorporates significantly fewer subjects than
SOSE and also has an explicit focus on Aboriginal Studies and
Asian Social Studies, which SOSE in Victoria for example does
not.. As another example, media studies was included in the arts
learning area even though in some states, such as Western
Australia, it is incorporated with English at the secondary
level. Such variance is also in evidence at regional and school
levels. Further, the studies in each KLA can have different
orientations such as academic, social and practical, depending
on the main purpose of learning and teaching, and can also be
organised into subjects, modules, units or other modes.
For each of the eight KLAs in the framework, national statements
and profiles were produced, all within an outcomes-based system.
In 1993, State Ministers decided not to go ahead with these
national statements and profiles, preferring instead to
implement their own State versions.
There was surprisingly little debate on the frameworks. Willmott
(1994) argued that the eight KLAs lacked a rigorously developed
theoretical base – that the division into eight learning areas
is a confusing amalgam of traditional subjects and pragmatic
expediency. More trenchant and probing in her criticism was
Collins (1994) analysis of the eight areas of knowledge. She
states that:
Attempts to group school subjects into larger, related
kinship groups has been a fraught process everywhere … the
questions of what bundles are satisfactory, either as
‘themes’ running across subjects (the ‘the arts), is a
major epistemological question. There will not be eight
bundles just because this seems to be a nice common sense
number. Areas of Knowledge can’t be created with the
stroke of a pen (Collins, 1994, p10).
Yet, during the remaining years of the 20th century, the eight
KLAs remained
as the curriculum planning structure in most states and
territories despite
considerable confusion over the purpose and nature of KLAs as
curriculum
frameworks. This confusion or at least a lack of consensus over
the
relationship between school subjects and KLAs is evident in
formal curriculum
documents. Some states have KLA based curriculum frameworks,
whilst
others have single subject syllabuses. In addition, there are
differences
between primary schools (which frequently base teaching on KLAs)
and
secondary schools (which often use single subjects to structure
student
learning) and teacher preparation. Some universities continue to
prepare
subject teachers rather than KLA teachers). These differences
are indicative
of the varied ways in which KLAs have been translated into
practice and the
varied networks involved in the formal and informal translation
of policy into
practice. Some variations about what was included in each KLA
began to surface in a number of States but this did not alter
the fundamental structure. Below, we outline the curriculum
structures of Australia’s eight States and Territories and
highlight those who rely on multidisciplinary KLAs as curriculum
organisers.
Table 1: Australian curriculum organisation in the compulsory
years of schooling: A State/Territory comparison
State/
Territory
NSW
Overarching
Formal Curriculum
Frame
Curriculum
Framework K-10
Curriculum
organiser
Emphasis
Syllabuses
KLA emphasis although
single
subject
Victoria
syllabus
differentiation
within KLAs
Discipline strand,
interdisciplinary
strand and physical
personal and social
Learning strand.
Victorian
Essential
Learning
Standards
P-12
(VELS)
[Framework]
Curriculum
Framework Yrs 110
(New Basics)
Framework
Syllabuses
KLA emphasis
Western
Australia
Curriculum
Framework K-12
Framework
Learning Areas
(congruent with
KLAs)
South
Australia
Curriculum
Standards
and
Accountability
Framework (R-12)
Essential
Learning
Framework
Curriculum
Framework
Preschool-12
Curriculum
Framework (based
on
EsseNTial
Learnings)
Framework
Learning
Areas
(includes
KLAs
and
age group levels such
as ‘early years’)
KLA
and
Essential
Learning Framework
Queensland
Tasmania
Australian
Capital
Territory
Northern
Territory
Framework
Statements
KLA emphasis
Framework
Learning
Areas
(congruent with KLAs)
(some information sourced from
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/fineprint/frameworks.php)
Recent criticism of KLAs
A number of authors have raised concerns over the nature and
viability of KLAs as curriculum organisers. For example,
Donnelly (2002) notes the problems with the New Zealand
curriculum in terms of its broad learning areas and provides
detailed arguments for returning to separate subjects,
syllabuses and standards. Similarly, Wilson (2002) states that
there are conceptual inadequacies and practical difficulties in
the existing KLAs. He contends that this has led to the burial
of key content and skills areas.
Reid (2005) argues that the KLAs are conceptually confused. He
states that “these learning areas do not stand up to close
scrutiny, comprising in one hand single subjects or disciplines
(eg. Maths, English); and on the other hand aggregations of
subjects (eg. Studies of Society and environment, Arts, Health
and Physical Education) under the guise of integration of
disciplinary knowledge (p14).
Harris (2005) contends “that key learning areas, such as
mathematics and English have had a relatively smooth acceptance
by teachers because of their single subject nature. Other key
learning areas, which are conglomerations of previously distinct
subjects, have had numerous barriers to realising their full
potential. These barriers include territorial and sometimes
divisive subject subcultures and there is the challenge of
preserving depth of student understanding in face of enormous
curriculum breadth”
Concluding comments
It is problematic whether KLAs will survive. In a number of
States major changes have been planned, or trialled. For
example, the New Basics Project in Queensland has a focus on
four new Basics (life pathways and social futures;
multiliteracies and communications media; active citizenship and
environment and technologies). The Essential Learning’s
Frameworks (2005) and Tasmania use a different framework of
thinking, communicating, personal futures, social responsibility
and world futures.
The Victorian Curriculum Reform (2004) Consultation Paper
emphasises three learning strands (as outlined in Table 1) and
no reference is made to KLAs.
The 2003 MCEETYA National Curriculum Consistency Project (1994)
initiated by Federal Minister Brendan Nelson may cause changes
to the current KLAs in that the present curriculum domains being
mapped are listed as mathematics, science, civics and English.
Frameworks are clearly in a state of flux. Whether the recently
developed integrated frameworks will prove to be more relevant
and enduring is problematic. Many pedagogical and political
issues remain to be solved. We need to be mindful of the overt
and covert priorities of the key players. Our original question
still stands and is only partly answered in this paper - Who or
what is framing whom?
References
Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity:
Theory, Research, Critique. London: Taylor and Francis.
Collins, C. (1994). Curriculum and Pseudo-Science: Is the
Australian National Curriculum Project built on credible
foundations? Canberra, ACSA.
Department of Education Tasmanian (2004) Essential Learnings
Framework. Hobart: DET.
Donnelly, K. (2002). A Review of New Zealand’s School
Curriculum. Education Forum, October, pp1-69.
Feldman, A. (2003). The nature of science as an academic
discipline and school subject. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. April
21-25, Chicago, IL. ED 476658.
Goodson, I. F. (1981). Becoming an academic subject: Patterns of
explanation and evolution. British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 2(2),
163-179.
Goodson, I. F. (1983). School subjects and curriculum change.
London:
Croom Helm.
Hardy, T. (1990). Curriculum Frameworks in the ACT: The case of
could, should or must? Curriculum Perspectives, 10(4), pp1-8.
Harris, C. (2005). The Key Learning Area movement: A force for
pedagogical change or a façade for continued conservatism? The
case of Human Society and Its Environment (HSIE) and History in
NSW? In C. Harris & C. Marsh (Eds) (2005). Curriculum
Developments in Australia: Promising Initiatives, Impasses and
Dead-ends. Adelaide, Open Books.
Hannan, B. (1992). National Curriculum: A System Perspective.
Unicorn, 18(3), pp28-31.
Hirst, P. H. (1974), Knowledge and the Curriculum. London,
Routledge and Keegan Paul.
Long, D. (2002). Interdisciplinarity and English school of
international relations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, March 25-27,
New Orleans.
Marsh, C.J. (2005) Teaching Studies of Society and Environment,
4th edition, Sydney, Pearson.
Martin, J. R. (1969) The disciplines and the curriculum,
Educational Philosophy and Theory,1.
Moore, R. (2000). The (re)organization of knowledge and
assessment for a learning society: the constraints of
interdisciplinarity. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2),
pp183-199.
Nelson, B. (2003). Nationally Consistent Schools, Press release
18 August.
Phenix, P.H. (1964), Realms of Meaning: A Philosophy of the
Curriculum for General Education. New York, McGraw Hill
Reid, A. (2005). The politics of National Curriculum
Collaboration: How can Australia move beyond the Railway Gauge
Metaphor? In C. Harris & C. Marsh (Eds) (2005). Curriculum
Developments in Australia: Promising Initiatives, Impasses and
Dead-ends. Adelaide, Open Books.
Stengel, B. (1997). ‘Academic discipline’ and ‘school subject’:
contestable
curricular concepts. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 29(5), 585602.
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (2004). Victorian
Curriculum Reform 2004 Consultation Paper. Melbourne: VCAA.
Willmott, G. (1994). National Collaborative Curriculum
Development: Statements and profiles and Senior Secondary
Education. Curriculum Perspectives, 14(1), pp52-56.
Wilson, B. (2002). Curriculum: Is less more? Paper presented at
the Curriculum Corporation Conference: Canberra.
Young, C. (1998). Context and the teaching and learning of
history in the
secondary school. Paper presented at the Second International
Practitioner
Conference, University of Sydney, Australia.