Reflective Response to Reading Peter Hlebowitsh: The Burdens of the New Curricularist

“The practicality of theory can never be forsaken if one is going to expect theory to have manifest effects in practice. This is another way of saying that the separation of curriculum theory from curriculum development is practically impossible because, in the words of Ralph Tyler, it results in the denying of the essential purpose of theory. This is the burden of practice.” p. 265

As I read through Hlebowitsh’s essay I found myself once again agreeing and shaking my head in affirmation after each sentence. However, as I more fully grasped the position of the new curricularists he was challenging, I started to feel threatened. What is the role of an instructional designer, after all, if the notion of curriculum development is dead? Then a breath of fresh air: the above paragraph. Hlebowitsh was on my side!

Hlebowitsh frames the issues of practice and theory through the presentation of challenges to New Curricularists. Pinar, perhaps the leader of the New Curricularist movement, challenges the role of curriculum development as unnecessarily administrative and controlling.  Pinar goes on to suggest that theory alone is of no value to the curricular scholar moving forward. As Hlebowitsh points out however, the separation of theory and practice is not so simple a task. For what is theory if there is no practice to test the ideas?

It is my own belief that theory and practice work in a symbiotic relationship, one dependent upon the other. Consider curriculum a mirror with theory being the object in front of it. To truly understand the value and practicality of a theory, to determine if it indeed reflects the values and beliefs it purports, there must be something to reflect upon. The reflection in this mirror is practice. But one has to be careful in determining the differences of self perception and third party perception. I can stand in front of a mirror and see the most dashing man around. And while this is true from a self actualization standpoint, it may not be a shared perspective by others. Curriculum is much the same, and I believe this was the main point Hlebowitsh was trying to make. 

One’s view of curriculum depends on one’s perception, which is influenced by time, place, and experience. If we deal in superlatives rather then comparatives, theory will always be contestable. It is indeed impossible to define a shared world view; consider the Middle East; consider the Sudan; consider England and Ireland. Just as two people standing in front of a mirror may dress similarly and be viewed by a third party as similar, their internal perspective may be quite different. Curriculum debate is no different. 

As educators, we all share the responsibilities posited by Hlebowitsh. We must approach curriculum, whether it be theory or development as one approaches a mirror and realize that the reflection (practice) is one perspective of the object (theory). Without the object there is no reflection and without a reflection to assess, change does not occur.

History:

Reconceptualism – A key reconceptualist belief is that the curriculum is “the collective story we tell our children about our past, our present, and our future.” Furthermore, a student’s search for meaning is both reflective and interactive with the society around him/her. 

1. " Currere" and Reconceptualism: The Progress of the Pilgrimage 1975-1990.

RJ Graham - Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1992 - deakin.edu.au

New Curricularists - Curricularists that believe the efforts behind curriculum development have no place in the future of curricular scholars. They believe the efforts of developers are rooted in administration and control and serve only to limit the work of curricular scholars. W.F. Pinar is one well know New Curricularist.