Historical Foundations

The historical foundation of curriculum is the record of how the field came to think about itself. In the early twentieth century, a handful of thinkers turned curriculum from a vague idea into something that could be studied and built on purpose. Their definitions disagree in useful ways, and reading them together shows the field finding its feet.

Five thinkers who shaped the field

Two camps show up in the table. Kilpatrick stands a little apart, viewing curriculum as purposeful activity centred on the child, with child growth and development as its whole purpose. The others lean toward calling curriculum a science, something that can be studied with method.

Charters and Bobbitt both treat curriculum as a science built on learners’ needs, with Bobbitt adding that its job is to prepare learners for adult life. Caswell widens the picture, organizing curriculum around social functions, organized knowledge, and learners’ interests together. Tyler, whose model the later half of this guide is built on, called curriculum a science and tied it directly to a school’s philosophy, linking the historical foundation back to the philosophical one.

Flashcard

How did William Kilpatrick define curriculum?

Tap to reveal

Answer

Purposeful, child-centred activity for child growth and development

Kilpatrick stood apart from the thinkers who called curriculum a science. For him, its whole purpose was the growth and development of the child.

Flashcard

What did several early thinkers, like Charters and Bobbitt, call curriculum?

Tap to reveal

Answer

A science based on learners’ needs

Charters tied it to the teacher’s plan of activities and lessons; Bobbitt added that it prepares learners for adult life. Treating curriculum as a science let the field study and design it on purpose.