Curriculum Models/Curriculum Orientations

Curriculum Models/Curriculum Orientations
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

Curriculum Models/Curriculum Orientations
In his article on the questions of curriculum, Dillon uses a precise method to assess what a curriculum ought to contain. He argues that there are three broad categories of any curriculum namely the nature, elements, and practice of the said curriculum. His approach seems somewhat necessary and easy to understand paying attention to those involved in the curriculum itself. He, later on, discusses various theorists and their attempts at describing what a syllabus is stating that the questions are paramount when it comes to an understanding and constructing any practical curriculum (Dillon, 2009).
Infed’s article on what a curriculum is both theoretically and practically draws the conclusions that it composes of any amount of information that ought to be communicated through a process where teachers engage students with clear objectives. However, a belief in the transmission of knowledge without a formal curriculum seems to suffice to claim that education does not necessarily mean schooling (Smith, 1996, 2000).
Johan Muller’s article titled, ‘Forms of Knowledge and Curriculum Coherence’ explores various issues concerning higher education curriculums using a socio-epistemic approach. He attempts to describe the origin and faults of higher education’s disciplines. Various curriculums such as the old and contemporary analyses are made concluding that some may not be compatible with what the subjects aim to achieve (Muller, 2008).

He seems to propose that to get the right curriculum in either of the disciplines; the system ought to be clear on what kind of professional it wants to produce.
The articles seem to approach the issue of curriculums from different angles, but their objectives are similar since they all want to find out the best possible curriculum to put in use. Dillon’s questions despite their vital nature spark of much more thinking than any other article while Muller gives the reader to peek into the origins of education. The Infed’s article seems clear on what it proposes which is more of an informal curriculum.
Curriculum orientation is an educator’s approach to transmitting knowledge. It guides how an educator relates to the experience as well as the learners and the objectives of each step of the education process. It could also be a framework of how theory is turned to practice in education. I prefer a model that puts the learner into consideration more than it does the outcomes. The learner should be in a position to interact with the content under the transmission and dynamically show progress making an interaction model more practical.
The articles are well thought and researched giving insight into the topics. However, there seems to be a lot of bias in each approach to education especially when it comes to what should occur in curriculum formulation. I tend to agree that curriculums should give way to a learner’s objectives rather than just merely the expectations of the system while at the same time it is difficult to assume that every learner knows what they want when they enroll for any discipline. Curriculums are vital and present an opportunity to gauge progress. However, the articles present ideas concerning the formal sector of education while as stated by Infed, training can also be informal. More learner-focused curriculum orientation should be done for the informal sector. Generally, the articles are quite informative on the issue at hand. The readers should, however, aim at questioning the methods that may not be applicable.

References
BIBLIOGRAPHY l 1033 Dillon, J. T. (2009). The Questions of Curriculum. Curriculum Studies 41 (3), 343-359.
Muller, J. (2008). Forms of Knowledge and Curriculum Coherence. Journal of Education and Work 22 (3), 205-226.
Smith, M. K. (2018). What is Curriculum? Exploring Theory and Practice. Retrieved from Infed: http://infed.org/mobi/curriculum-theory-and-practice/