33 According to Lovet and Smith (1995) there is no one definition of curriculum. Moodley (2009) drawing from Marsh (1997, p. 3) contends that ‗because key players in education represent a diversity of values and experiences, it is extremely difficult to get wide public or professional consensus‘ on a clear definition for curriculum. Having its origins in the Greek, ‗currere‘ meaning, to be running, with the analogy of a competitive running track, the word curriculum is about knowledge (Lovet & Smith, 1995, p.16). The nature of curriculum, according to Moodley (2009) reflects and creates knowledge, truth and reality for its learners. Attesting for this knowledge, truth and reality are epistemological questions that education seeks to answer through curriculum.
Marsh (1997, 4 – 5) among others concur that curriculum has sometimes seen knowledge as detached from the knower and at other times personal and generated by the knower. It has been experientially driven as a social, group encounter or as disciplinary, syllabus directed courses of study. It has also been viewed as plans to be followed or as planned learning outcomes of the school (Moodley, 2009).
However, any definition of curriculum takes into account the socio-economic, political and historical context within which it is made and implemented (Marsh, 1997, p.3). Importantly, curriculum has been perceived as a product and as a process (Moodley, 2009). These, informed by the many contextual factors of its time, create the given reality and truth for its learners. Though the intention, planned or explicit curriculum, often captures the ideal and outlines what is to be included in a plan, programme or document, what really pans out in the classroom may not always reflect this. Curriculum practice, or process, the actual implementation or operational curriculum, often reflecting the truth of how curriculum happens in the classroom, is not always captured in the plan (Marsh, 1997, p.4-5). Lovet and Smith (1995, p. 16) advocate that ‗any useful definition of curriculum must include both product and process‘.
Thus, as Oliva (1997) in Moodley (2009) explains the explicit curriculum is that which is written as part of formal instruction of a school. It is a document of theories and beliefs, texts and supportive materials overtly chosen to support the intentioned instructional programme of teaching, learning and knowledge. Meighan and Siraj-Blatchford (1998, p.67) say that it is
‗all of the planned experiences provided by the school to assist the pupils in attaining the designated learning outcomes to the best of their abilities‘.
However, Eisner (1994) asserts that the explicit curriculum is only a small part of what schools actually teach.
Moodley (2009) records that the hidden curriculum, according to Eisner (1994), is what a school teaches because of the kind of place it is. The hidden curriculum includes a school‘s reward and discipline system,
34 organisational structure, physical characteristics, plans, furniture and surroundings that are created and employed to sustain its existence. These components are inherently recognised by parents, learners and teachers and are among the most important lessons children learn. Moreover, Wilson (1995) states that the hidden curriculum distinguishes between what is meant to happen and what teachers and learners actually do and experience.
Carl Rogers (Meighan & Siraj-Blatchford, 1998, p. 229) states that ‗learners do not participate in choosing the goals, the curriculum, or the manner of working‘. They have no choice in teaching personnel or educational policy. Thus they are powerless to exercise responsibility (Moodley, 2009). The hidden curriculum includes the transmission of norms, values, and beliefs conveyed during social interactions within schools. The null curriculum, that which teachers choose to leave out, according to Eisner (1985) may be as important as what they include and often supports the hidden curriculum. Sometimes relegated to factors of economy and efficiency, the messages relayed to learners are that these elements are not important. Yet, within a learner- centred and more particularly learning styles paradigm, the suggestion exists that learners may be able to contribute to, participate in and effect their learning responsibly and successfully. However, much depends on teachers and institutions in creating and supporting such possibilities, opportunities and environments.
Additionally and appropriately, for the purposes of this study, the reconceptualist concept of curriculum theory as espoused by Pinar (2004) serves to guide and position the understanding of curriculum theory and practice. Pinar reconceptualised a definition of curriculum radically shifting it from seeing it only as a noun as ascribed by the aforementioned definitions and understandings. Pinar (2004) advocated an understanding of curriculum as a verb, seeing curriculum as a dynamic experience. Thus curriculum is dynamic, progressive and holistic with the aim of understanding curriculum rather than just implementing or evaluating it moving beyond narrow prescriptions and procedures (Pinar, 2013).
Though this study does not aim to focus on what constitutes South Africa‘s curriculum specifically, there is an understanding that what constitutes as valuable knowledge, skills and learning; the learned curriculum, encompasses everything that goes on within the school (Moodley, 2009). Taking on a holistic approach, this involves the explicit, hidden, null and ideological curriculums, among others. Schools are the institutionalised response to the teaching of an official curriculum. Understanding and knowledge of this point of departure is vital to understanding curriculum implementation especially within environs of reform and change. In this study the definition most suited is that of the reconceptualist‘s definition of curriculum as a process and a product.
35