Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies (ISSN: 2321 – 2799)

Volume 04 – Issue 04, August 2016

Understanding Curriculum
Brendan Mitchell

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Email: brendon_mitchell [AT] hotmail.com

____________________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT---- Defining curriculum is a complex task because there are scores of definitions in the literature for
curriculum predominately those that imply that curriculum, is objective, technical and tangible. For others it is an active
phenomenon that illustrates contextual influence and need, especially for the society it represents. The definitions,
overall, represent curriculum as a deeply personal and dynamic phenomenon, strongly influenced by the environmental
and personal influences that impact on curriculum, especially in its design and implementation. The research described
in this paper focuses on an analysis what curriculum is and the tensions associated with defining it. The paper goes onto
the discuss the eleven types of curriculum: (1) overt, explicit or written, (2) social curriculum or societal, (3) hidden, (4)
phantom, (5) null, (6) rhetorical, (7) Concomitant, (8) received, (9) curriculum in use, (10) electronic and (11) internal
curriculum. Within the descriptions of the types of curriculum, examples are used to elucidate and to further describe the
types of curriculum and how they are interrelated. In depth descriptions of the orientations and foundations of
curriculum follow which highlight their importance and relationship to curriculum and its construction. In brief, the
paper reveals the tensions associated with defining curriculum, defines the types of curriculum and provides clear and
coherent explanations and understanding of both curriculum orientations and foundations.

Keywords--- Curriculum, orientations, foundations, construction

____________________________________________________________________________________

1. INTRODUCTION
The paper begins with a discussion on the construct of curriculum and then focuses on a review of literature which
informs the types of curriculum followed by an explanation of curriculum foundations and orientations. The paper begins
with defining curriculum, which is a complex task because, as Portelli (1987) stated, there are over 120 definitions in the
literature for curriculum. The second section of the literature review examines the human influence on curriculum, especially
social and cultural factors and the bearing these can have on curriculum development and construction. Ornstein and
Hunkins’ (2009) four foundations of curriculum and Elliot Eisner’s (1985) five basic orientations to the curriculum and in
particular the social reconstructionist orientation are examined and discussed in depth.

2. THE TENSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DEFINING CURRICULUM

As has been noted in the introduction, there are over 120 definitions of curriculum (Portelli, 1987). Beauchamp (1981),
for example, identifies three uses of the term curriculum: firstly as a referent to substantive phenomenon, secondly as the
name of a system of schooling, and as a title of a field of study. For this study, each of these uses has merit, especially the
first which refers to curriculum as a phenomenon. This reference to phenomenon is evidenced in Ornstein and Hunkins’
(2009) reference to curriculum where they discuss the technical and non-technical definitions of curriculum, also
distinguished by Scheffler (1960) as scientific and non-scientific when prescribing the categories definitions fall into.
Scheffler (1960) asserts that scientific is technical in nature, and there is a call for specific knowledge while non-scientific is
more general and therefore general in definition.
Portelli (1987) discusses curriculum in three distinct areas: content (courses, subject content or matter); experiences
(both in school and life) while not discussed in Portelli’s journal paper changing or making students learning more enjoyable
and beneficial has led to changing pedagogical approaches from teacher centered to inquiry and flipped classroom models;
and a plan (for learning) which also encompasses pedagogical approaches. It is important to recognize the reference to
experiences, not just the experiences students have with curriculum, but the experiences all stakeholders, including teachers,
have with the design, implementation and evaluation of curriculum.

Asian Online Journals (www.ajouronline.com) 299

 Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies (ISSN: 2321 – 2799)
Volume 04 – Issue 04, August 2016

These introductory definitions illustrate that definitions for curriculum denote curriculum as objective, or in contrast,
subjective. It is not uncommon for people to hold a view of curriculum as a technical document developed with little
influence of the subjective. This subjective connotation is evidenced in Connelly and Clandinin (1988) who have taken the
Latin for curriculum which means a ‘race course’, that is, that which is run. Their reference moves beyond the technical and
emphasizes the experiential and subjective, recognizing the influence of the participants in the curriculum design,
development and enactment process.
The tension between curriculum as technical-objective and non-technical-subjective is evident in Ebert, Ebert and
Bentley (2011) who have provided an historical evolution of how curriculum may have come into being. This reference to
curriculum coming into being again captures the experiential rather than technical dimensions of curriculum. In medieval
Europe, the trivium was an educational curriculum based upon the study of grammar, rhetoric, and logic. The later
quadrivium (referring to four subjects rather than three as represented by the trivium) emphasized the study of arithmetic,
geometry, music, and astronomy. As evidenced where, historically, curriculum was typically described by the explicit
intentions of content specified, with little room for modification and adjustment (Ebert et al., 2011).
Evidence of the nature of curriculum as dynamic and open to adjustment is evident in Wiles and Bondi’s (2007) writing
when they discuss curriculum as being goals or values centered that are activated through the development process and result
in successful learning experiences for students. Wiles and Bondi (2007) argue that the definition of curriculum is reliant on
the individuals involved in the development process and the results the development process seeks to deliver.
The above definition differs from Wiles and Bondi’s (1984) (Dobbler, Johnson & Wolsey, 2013) explanation of a
curriculum as a flexible plan for learning and a structure that provides for the translation of vision into learning experiences
for students. They go onto discuss curriculum as a way to think about broad swaths of learning experiences that encompass a
given period of time. The plan for learning provides the guidance for what content is to be covered and how the teaching and
learning process is to be implemented.
The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Human Resources Development Working Group (n.d.) defines
curriculum as a course meant to be connected and integrated that should lead to learning. Although their view of curriculum
is quite technical, the ultimate goal a curriculum achieves will be influenced by the context and those involved.
Olivia (1997) identifies curriculum quite traditionally as that which is taught in schools, a set of subjects, subject content,
a program or course of study, a set of materials, a sequence of courses, a set of performance objectives, everything that goes
on within the school including extra-class activities, guidance, and interpersonal relationships, and everything that is planned
by school. Olivia (1997) also draws our attention to the personal nature of curriculum by referring to it as the experiences of
learners in a school and the experiences a learner has from the result of schooling.
In summary, the many definitions of curriculum in the literature imply that curriculum, in the minds of some authors
(Beauchamp, 1981), is objective, technical and tangible. For others (Wiles and Bondi, 2007), it is an active phenomenon that
can vary depending on context and need. The definitions, overall, represent curriculum as a deeply personal and dynamic
phenomenon, strongly influenced by the environmental and personal influences that impact on curriculum, especially in its
design and implementation. It is this emphasis on curriculum as a phenomenon. As Pinar et al. (1995) state:
(curriculum) is what the older generation chooses to tell the younger generation..(it) is intensely historical, political,
racial, gendered, phenomenological, autobiographical, aesthetic, theological and international. It becomes the site on
which the generations struggle to define themselves and the world” (p.847-8).

This description of curriculum illustrates that curriculum-as-text is context bound and because of its contextual
locatedness, the contextual influencesy its nature will be illustrated in its text. The text becomes illustrative of the spheres
of influence – as Pinar et al. suggest – of how [a country] seeks to define itself.

3. TYPES OF CURRICULUM
This section provides an overview of the eleven types of curriculum I have identified: overt, explicit or written, social
curriculum or societal, hidden, phantom, null, rhetorical, concomitant, received, curriculum in use, electronic and internal
curriculum.
The overt, explicit or written curriculum is described by Srivastava and Kumari (2005) as that which is written as part of
formal instruction of schooling experiences. This could manifest in various forms. For example, this could take the form of a
curriculum document. Cuban (1992) refers to the explicit curriculum as an intended curriculum; that is one that is

Asian Online Journals (www.ajouronline.com) 300

 Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies (ISSN: 2321 – 2799)
Volume 04 – Issue 04, August 2016

recommended, adopted, and official. It serves as a documented map of theories, beliefs, and intentions about schooling,
teaching, learning, and knowledge - evidence in the development of a teacher proof curriculum. These types of documents
could be referred to as curriculum documents, a curriculum frameworks or a national curriculum.
The social curriculum or societal curriculum is described by Cortes (1981) as massive, ongoing, informal curriculum of
family, peer groups, neighbourhoods, churches organizations, occupations, mass, media and other socializing forces that
educate all of us throughout our lives.
The hidden curriculum is similar to the societal curriculum in that there are typically no curriculum documents supporting
it. The hidden curriculum is what is embedded in the curriculum and school structure such as schedules, policies and
structures. Longstreet and Shane (1993) refer to the hidden curriculum as the kinds of learning children derive from the very
nature and organizational design of the public school, as well as from the behaviours and attitudes of teachers and
administrators.
Bowles & Gintis’ (1976) view that schooling is the site for the instilment within the individual of values such as
punctuality, discipline, obedience and diligence. This opinion is supported by Longstreet and Shane’s (1993) view of the
elements that contribute to the make-up of the hidden curriculum. Additionally these values can be seen to form a part of
values education (embedded in the curriculum) and contribute to the development of good and productive citizens.
The phantom curriculum is the messages transmitted through media. Types of media have expanded with the
development of the internet and exposure to social media and e-learning particularly around discussions boards which once
were verbal in nature in face-to-face tutorials but now leave a digital footprint. Coupled with the ever increasing amount of
phantom curriculum available through media is the ease of access to it through portable devices. As far back as four decades
ago Yarbrough and Bruce (1974) described the phantom curriculum as, “the great unindexed body of data children acquire
even before beginning kindergarten has made educations clientele different in the space of a decade” (p. 226). Yarbrough
and Bruce (1974) go onto discuss the role of electronic communication devices and computer based instruction describing
their emergence as an unnerving change to many teachers.
The null curriculum is what is not taught in schools. Eisner (1985) discussed the null curriculum in detail and while
content at some school levels may be null it does not necessarily mean that it is not taught at another level. For example
subjects such as law and politics are not taught at primary/elementary level deeming them null but are available at secondary
level (Eisner, 1985). Other subject areas introduce different elements as students’ progress in their schooling, so while
algebra is null in lower primary school levels it is not null in higher levels (Star, 2003).
Eisner (1985) states that, “the options students are not afforded, the perspectives they may never know about, much less
be able to use, the concepts and skills that are not part of their intellectual repertoire” (p. 107). Flinders, Noddings and
Thornton (1986) provide an economic perspective of why some curriculum is null and that is that schools cannot teach
everything and educational resources should be channelled in such a way to meet educationally beneficial ends.
Eisner (1985) also goes on to theorize that what schools do not teach may be as important as what they do teach and
ignorance is not simply a neutral void; it has important effects on the kinds of options one is able to consider, the alternatives
that one can examine, and the perspectives from which one can view a situation or problems.
The rhetorical curriculum is comprised from reports and ideas provided by policymakers, school officials, administrators,
or politicians (Wilson, 2015). Additionally, these reports may come from come from organizations involved in concept
formation and content changes. So in essence the rhetorical curriculum are the guidelines provided by the overarching
educational body that help and shape both pedagogical and content and any changes and development of the curriculum. The
rhetorical curriculum may also come from the publicized works which include educational journals offering updates in
pedagogical knowledge. Needs analysis documents provide good examples of works that have not only provided updates in
pedagogical knowledge but also the need for continual improved in the practical aspects of teaching and learning.
Concomitant curriculum, through its very nature, overlaps with both the hidden and societal curriculums. It is what is
taught and practised at home; through religious expression, morals, ethics, behaviours and families’ social experiences. This
is very relevant in societies where there is a high importance of the family and religion influencing people’s lives based on
how Srivastava and Kumari (2005) describe the concomitant curriculum; that is received at church, at a mosque or temple
which includes values, morals or ethics based on a family’s preferences.
However, Mayfield (2008) holds a different view of what the concomitant curriculum is. Mayfield’s (2008) view is that
the concomitant curriculum is concerned with self-reflection and critical analysis providing students with autonomy and it is
this autonomy which is part of concomitant curriculum. Srivastava and Kumari’s (2005) definition which is supported by

Asian Online Journals (www.ajouronline.com) 301

 Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies (ISSN: 2321 – 2799)
Volume 04 – Issue 04, August 2016

Ellis (2014) who says, “Values are often taught and learned along the way, through what is sometimes referred to as the
hidden curriculum or concomitant curriculum” (p. 19). Values and citizenship education is important for social, economic
and political development and stability and schools must take a role in developing citizenship (Shayea, 2014).
The received curriculum is what students actually take out of classroom. Cuban (1992) referred to this as the learned or
enacted curriculum. Cuban (1992) also noted "the gap between what is taught and what is learned—both intended and
unintended—is large" (p. 223). The gap between the overt, explicit or written curriculum and what students actually receive
or take out of the classroom varies between students based on teacher competency (and their opinions of what is important
for students and possibly a teacher’s own personal preferences), location, schools, time allocated to specific parts of the
curriculum and students. Kelly (2009) supports this statement by discussing that it could be a conscious or deliberate
decision by a teacher to impart curriculum to students or possibly an unconscious decision by the teacher to omit parts of the
official curriculum. This is where a mismatch occurs between those who have planned the curriculum those (teachers) who
deliver the curriculum and, therefore, determines what (parts of curriculum) the students have the opportunity of taking out of
the classroom.
While the formal curriculum (written, explicit or overt) includes textbooks, content and concepts and Ministry of
Education policy documents, curriculum in use is the actual curriculum that is delivered and presented by each teacher
(Wilson, 2015). Sandlin and Cervero (2003) identify the importance of looking at the pedagogical approaches and classroom
practices when analyzing curriculum and its related documents. From here the overlap between curriculum in use, the
received curriculum and formal curriculum is as follows: the formal curriculum is what should be taught (guided through
formal curriculum documents), the curriculum in use is what parts and how those parts of the curriculum are delivered by a
teacher and the received curriculum is what parts of the curriculum a teacher delivers individual students receive.
Wilson’s (2015) description of the electronic curriculum is an extension of the phantom curriculum where the electronic
curriculum can be both formal and informal and includes; chat, messenger and personal emails. Hendricson et al. (2004) take
a more formal approach to the electronic curriculum referring to it as the E-curriculum, which refers to computer-based
learning, electronic educational materials (online subjects, CDROMs), online data bases to search for materials, online
evaluations and assessments, and formal academic communication through email. Hendricson et al. (2004) also include the
infrastructure such as internet enabled classrooms, digital and multi-media equipment and access and equipping students with
laptops to be able to participate and integrate fully as components of the E-curriculum.
Olivia (1997) and Wilson (2015) describe the internal curriculum as unique to individual students as they process
experiences and content to create new knowledge. I would suggest the internal curriculum theory is more of a cognitive
learning theory than a type of curriculum as it has relevance and application in the form of students processing their
experiences to all ten curriculum types discussed above.
Figure 1 demonstrates the relationships among the different types of curriculum and summarizes the inter-relationships of
the types of curriculum that have been discussed. The figure has two distinct areas to it: formal and informal education and
shows the relationships among the types of curriculum and how they contribute to students’ received curriculum. The null
curriculum appears twice on the figure, as gaps can emerge between both the rhetorical curriculum and the formal curriculum
and the formal curriculum and the received curriculum. In societies where religion and family have a strong influence on
peoples’ lives both the societal and concomitant curriculums are going to have an influence on the students’ education both at
school (as part of the curriculum in use) and in their home lives. The figure highlights the importance of both curricula and
their links to the hidden and received curriculums.

Asian Online Journals (www.ajouronline.com) 302

 Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies (ISSN: 2321 – 2799)
Volume 04 – Issue 04, August 2016

Curriculum Hidden
in Use Curriculum Concomitant
Curriculum

Null Societal
Curriculum Curriculum

Electronic Formal Received Internal

Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum

Phantom
Null Curriculum
Curriculum

Rhetorical
Curriculum

Figure 1: Relationships Among the Types of Curriculum

4. CURRICULUM AS A HUMAN CONSTRUCT

As the title of this section, curriculum as a human construct implies curriculum is a human construction. The previous
sections with its introduction to the construction of curriculum and the subsequent analysis of the eleven types of curriculum
makes clear the human influences on curriculum production. Curriculum areas are determined at a point in time, by a range
of people who perhaps have different agendas and/or points of view of what should be included in a curriculum (Sowell,
2005). Identified stakeholders are made up of teachers, parents, students, trainers, researchers, principals, public and private
sector corporations and businesses, inspectors and politicians. In brief, these stakeholders not only have influence on the
development of the intended curriculum but also the enacted curriculum.
This influence on curriculum development is most obvious when education is seen to be a means for human resource
development tool for countries. This is commonly evidenced in today’s globalization efforts that have led to the construction
of curriculum to meet economic needs and goals (Wiseman, Alromi & Alshumrani, 2014). Alongside the push for a skilled
workforce for economic reasons, attention to values education or citizenship education is an emphasis in curriculum.
Ornstein and Hunkins (2009) discuss the dynamic in the construction of curriculum for present and future purposes, such
as citizenship and economic gain, because of the preferred outcomes of stakeholders. This influence of stakeholders often
results in what Bell, Carr, and Jones (1995) have described curriculum as a “marble cake” (p. 99), where a range of course
foundations can be represented in a formal curriculum through the different points of view curriculum developers have
(Sowell, 2005). This is due to the variance in the views of the personnel involved in constructing the curriculum.
As has been discussed previously a variety of views represented by people involved in constructing the curriculum and
the make-up of curriculum construction teams can affect the curriculum construction process. The influencing factor is
discussed further by Marsh and Willis (2007) who maintain that while a mix of specialists and practitioners is desirable in
curriculum construction many curriculum development projects have been dominated by specialists and experts. More input
from teachers who use the material and are able to provide input into the curriculum construction process through practical
experience and are able to make decisions on their knowledge of the subject, their teaching experience, and their perceptions
of their students (Goodlad, 1979).

Asian Online Journals (www.ajouronline.com) 303

 Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies (ISSN: 2321 – 2799)
Volume 04 – Issue 04, August 2016

Caswell (1952) identified that ideas about the purposes of education, the nature of learning and of the learner, and the role
of the school in the community must be interpreted into courses of action by those who develop the curriculum. Without the
implementation plan inefficiencies and differences in implementation practices can occur (Sowell, 2005). Where differences
in these basic theories exist, curriculum issues arise; and the sharper the differences, the more critical the issues become.
Different positions need to be explored and critically analyzed (Unruh & Unruh, 1984) and then a consensus can be reached
which is beneficial to curriculum reform (Marsh & Willis, 1995).
Personnel in teams formed for curriculum construction effects the outcomes of curriculum is the geographic location of
curriculum team members. Unruh and Unruh (1984) have noted that geographic location and the ability to have curriculum
development teams meet together regularly has an influence on curriculum construction. While the internet (and related
technologies) have decreased the reliance on face to face curriculum development meetings, Paykoç et al., (2004) note the
lack of a national online data base in Turkey was one of the problems contributing to the participation of practitioners and
professionals in the decision making process.
What if curriculum developers come from abroad? Does this create issues with a range of personal opinions and also the
ability for committees to meet face to face regularly? Marsh and Willis’, (2007) opinion would seem to support the notion of
inviting range of professionals to participate in the curriculum construction process when they state “Different positions
cannot be understood until they have been clearly enunciated, explored, and subjected to criticisms. Then and only then can
informed consensus be reached” (p. 138). In undeveloped and developing countries there is still the need for expatriates but
these people need to be suitably qualified and have the capacity and capability to transfer skills to build the capability and
nationals (Mngomezulu, 2012). National staff needs to be part of the curriculum planning and development processes and
the processes should be not dominated by expatriates (Barton & Walker, 2012).
Team diversification is important in curriculum construction and is supported by what Sims and Sims (1995) who state,
“one of the immediate benefits of a diverse team composition is that there are few ties to existing curriculum and practice and
diverse teams bring a fresh view to the design process” (p. 44). However, Sims and Sims (1995) note that team members
need to be provided with training in effective team skills. Teamwork must be a stated goal of the overarching curriculum
design process and the team leader must operate as a liaison between team members.
Political issues can also influence the human construction of curriculum. Stellar (1980) discusses how education policy
makers respond quickly to political demands rather than educational needs. Stellar (1980) goes on to state “the difference
between what special interest groups and educational professionals perceive as curriculum can be very wide” (p. 161).
However, Stellar (1980) also notes that curriculum constructors can use the political process to instigate change. Kennedy
(1995) states, “curriculum reform is about changes to the content and organization of what is taught, within the constraints of
social, economic and political contexts” (p. 177). In essence, Stellar (1980) is saying politics can be an impetus to create
curriculum change, whereas Kennedy (1995) identifies that, in contrast, politics can often be a constraint to change. National
ideology and philosophy (which includes religion) can have a large influence on the curriculum which in turn define
curriculum content and curriculum materials used.
Roberts (1998) contests that curriculum cannot be neutral, because it invariably becomes a site for political contest and a
vehicle to express political views. It is a means by which political parties use to help create distinction in their views or to
defend or promote (moral) values.
It is evident through this section that curriculum is a human construct and, by so doing, influenced by those involved in its
construction, ultimately, at the classroom level its reconstruction.

5. FOUNDATIONS AND ORIENTATIONS OF CURRICULUM

The foundations of curriculum provide a framework for the design and development of curriculum. Ornstein and Hunkins
(2009) describe the foundations of curriculum as the areas outside of the curriculum which influence the field. Ornstein and
Hunkins (2009) go on to say, “the foundations of curriculum see the external boundaries of the knowledge of curriculum and
define what constitutes valid sources from which to derive the field’s principals, theories and ideas” (p. 13). Ornstein and
Hunkins (2009) have categorized the foundations of curriculum into four areas: philosophical, historical, psychological and
social.
There are various orientation frameworks with two that are of particular merit, Schiro (2012) and Eisner (1985). Shiro
(2012) identified, described and analyzed four orientations that have influenced, and continue to influence, American schools
and educators: scholar academic, social efficiency, learner centered, and social reconstruction. In addition to Schiro’s (2012)

Asian Online Journals (www.ajouronline.com) 304

 Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies (ISSN: 2321 – 2799)
Volume 04 – Issue 04, August 2016

framework is the seminal work provided by Elliot Eisner (1985). Eisner’s (1985) work includes further elaborations and
likely has more international application.
Eisner (1985) identified five orientations to the curriculum; academic rationalism, the development of cognitive
processes, personal relevance, social construction and reconstruction, and curriculum as technology. Whilst it could be
argued that additional orientations have evolved since Eisner described his orientations, all recent suggested additional
orientations such as curriculum for social and political control, curriculum as emergent, curriculum for complex
understandings and thinking, curriculum education for democracy, curriculum for social justice and project-based curriculum,
are all related to one of Eisner’s (1985) five orientations to the curriculum.

6. FOUNDATIONS OF CURRICULUM
The following sections discuss and analyze Ornstein and Hunkins’ (2009) foundations of curriculum beginning with the
philosophical foundations which include perennialism, essentialism, progressivism and reconstructionism each underpinned
by a specific philosophical base. Included in this section is the importance and challenges of developing philosophical
foundations in curriculum. Historical foundations to curriculum are reviewed with specific attention given to the historical
foundations to curriculum in the Arab world. Following the historical foundations to curriculum I examine the psychological
foundations to curriculum which include behaviourism, cognitive psychology, phenomenology and a discussion on the
psychological foundations specific to English language teaching and learning. This is followed by Ornstein and Hunkins’
(2009) fourth and final foundation of curriculum, the social foundations of curriculum.

6.1 Philosophical Foundations

Whilst there are a number of educational philosophies discussed in the literature I am going to limit my discussion to
teacher centered and student approaches. Two are traditional philosophies perennialism and essentialism and two are
contemporary philosophies - progressivism and reconstructionism. Perennialism is a conservative educational philosophy
and is aligned with realism. Ornstein, Pajak, and Ornstein (2011) have described the perennialist approach as being grounded
in the tradition of the past, especially the knowledge foundations representing the past. Doll (1986) provides a concise
summary of perennialism by stating it constitutes the, “theory and principles tend to come first in the learning experience;
application or practice follows” (p. 33).
The second conservative educational philosophy is essentialism, which is linked with perennialism through its connection
to the philosophical base of realism (Ornstein et al. 2011). Olivia (1997) provides the following explanation on the
similarities between the two traditional educational philosophies, “The perennialist agrees with the essentialist in that
“education is preparation for life” (p. 179). They are both teacher centered philosophies where the teacher is the authority,
the teaching is subject centered and traditional values are explicitly taught. Like the perennialists, the essentialists emphasize
that education should show permanent and enduring values that have been transmitted from one generation to the other
(Ekanem & Ekefre, 2014). Both of the traditional philosophies can be seen to have neo-Aristotelian characteristics where
reality and truth are seen as stable and unchanging phenomenon and that curriculum should follow what has been proven to
be true.
But as Ornstein and Hunkins (2009) point out, “like perennialism, essentialism is subject-centered; however, essentialism
is not rooted in the past” (p. 41). Essentialism differentiates from perennialism with its curriculum focus on problem solving
and social justice. Ornstein and Hunkins, (2009) note that while essentialism has a teacher centered approach it also
incorporates problem solving and encourages students to regress to find solutions to problems with knowledge and skills they
have gained. The perennialist looks to the past for the answers to social problems (Olivia, 1997) whereas the idealist can be
seen to find solutions to past problems with facts, skills and knowledge gained (Doll, 1986) which can be seen as being more
proactive in contributing to the eradication of social problems than the realism.
This leads us into the two contemporary educational philosophies - progressivism and reconstructionism. The view of the
progressivist is that, “education is for life” (Olivia, p. 179), where knowledge leads to growth and development both
individually and socially. Progressivism has a pragmatic philosophical base and Ekanem and Ekefre (2014) state, “it anchors
on the importance and value of change, process and relativity since it clearly nudged on the fact that the value of an idea is
dependent on its actual consequences” (p. 268). Ekanem and Ekefre (2014) go onto to describe progressivsm as a philosophy
that engages learners in the teaching and learning process and that sees things at a particular point in time recognizing that
change and social development can alter values and ideas. This approach encourages students to think critically. Dewey’s
inquiry based teaching and learning approach contributed to the introduction use of the progressivist approach. Olivia (1997)

Asian Online Journals (www.ajouronline.com) 305

 Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies (ISSN: 2321 – 2799)
Volume 04 – Issue 04, August 2016

describes the approach as, learning by doing. Ornstein and Hunkins (2009) summarize the main tenet of progressivism.
They state that, “progressivist skills include problem-solving, scientific methods, cooperation and self-discipline because
reality is constantly changing and progressivism emphasizes how to think, not what to think” (p. 46).
Reconstructionism is the second contemporary education philosophy, and like the progressivist approach, the role of the
teacher is that of a guide and leader while encouraging students to inquire and learning through application of concepts to test
theories. Reconstructionism differentiates itself from progressivism in that is through curriculum the instructional objective
seeks social reform, social equality through education (Ornstein et al. 2011). This has led to reconstructionist curriculum
addressing social priorities that focus on national imperatives that serve a global purpose. Ornstein and Hunkins (2009) have
said that it emphasizes “personal self-knowledge, particularly mystical, spiritual, and moral introspection and that current
society is marked by alienation, a failure to accommodate diversity, and indifference to people’s needs” (p. 53). I would
suggest that the above statement is an extreme view of the role of reconstructionism. Reconstructionism’s emphasis primarily
includes education for change and social reform (Ornstein et al. 2011) and learning is concerned with contemporary and
future society today and in the future (Ornstein et al. 2011) which could be interpreted as accommodating diversity and
people’s needs in what is a globalized and multi-cultured world (The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization, 2015).
Whilst this foundational overview is not a tool to examine the success and/or societal failure of educational philosophical
foundations, it provides the foundation to identify what the apparent motivations and broad goals of the curriculum are.
Further these foundations ultimately impact on teaching practice and what might be expected of teachers in their practice,
which is a further line of investigation in this study. The educational philosophical foundations in curriculum do have two
primary influences; first on teachers where philosophical approach implemented by teachers and administrators and the
relationships between these stakeholders typically determines the pedagogical approach followed by teachers. The second are
the areas of the types of curriculum teachers and schools are using and the content knowledge of teachers in specialist areas.
To summarise, the importance of developing philosophical foundations in curriculum is imperative as educational
philosophy is what provides the framework for the aims and methods of schools. The instructional objectives, knowledge or
student outcomes, role of teacher and the curriculum focus are defined along with the pedagogical approaches to be used in
the teaching and learning process.

6.2 Historical Foundations

Curriculum developers need to reflect on past (and present) curricula to examine what worked and what did not work. It
could be argued that in many cases a new curriculum is just a new version of a curriculum with some adjusted features
reflecting contemporary issues of importance in content or pedagogy or a combination of both (Doll, 1986). Doll (1986),
statement, “that not only are curricula usually similar to their predecessors, but that they are copied from other schools and
school systems” (p. 21). This is supported by Pinar and Reynolds (1992) who state, we, “as students of curriculum, live and
work in the aftermath of the death of our predecessors” (p. 92).
Ornstein and Hunkins (2009) discuss the importance of looking at the historical foundations of curriculum and say,
“Curriculum specialists need an understanding of history to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past and to also prepare them
for the future” (p. 70). Ornstein and Hunkins (2009) go onto to talk about how curriculum developers needing to have an
understanding of the historical foundations before they are able to develop and interpret new concepts and this “helps us
integrate curriculum, instruction, and teaching” (p. 70). It is this statement that provides the link between curriculum and
instruction as where curriculum content of the essential skills (three Rs) and essential subjects (English, arithmetic, science,
history and foreign language) has not changed greatly.

6.3 Psychological Foundations

The psychological foundations of curriculum define, primarily, to how students learn. If we do not know how people
learn teachers and curriculum designers do not know what to include in the curriculum and how the curriculum should be
delivered. We can see from my discussion on the philosophical foundations of curriculum section, the contemporary
philosophies tend to address individual students needs rather than a collective approach to student learning and teaching.
Research indicates that this development came about to address the psychological learning needs of students and in
recognition that not everyone learns the same way and that students do not all have the same attributes in the same sources.
Ornstein and Hunkins (2009) discuss the psychological foundations of curriculum in three separate but contrasting areas;
behaviourism, cognitive psychology, and phenomenology or humanistic psychology. Behaviourists have the view that

Asian Online Journals (www.ajouronline.com) 306

 Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies (ISSN: 2321 – 2799)
Volume 04 – Issue 04, August 2016

students can be conditioned to produce positive student outcomes through stimulation, positivity and a teacher’s ability to
motivate students.
The second psychological foundation of curriculum Ornstein and Hunkins (2009) discuss is cognitive psychology which
can be described as a relatively new (sub-section) foundation of curriculum with the term first coming into use in Ulric
Neisser’s 1967 book Cognitive Psychology (McLeod, 2007a). McLeod (2007a) goes on to describe cognitive psychology
revolving around the idea that if we want to know what makes motivates people then we need to understand the internal
processes of their mind. That is how the process of how knowledge is acquired and students are actively involved in the
learning process. Ornstein and Hunkins (2009) provide a more detailed explanation describing cognitive psychology as
“generating theories that give insight into the nature of learning, specifically how individuals generate structures of
knowledge and how they create and/or learn reasoning and problem-solving strategies” (p. 118).

Ornstein and Hunkins’ (2009) final psychological foundation of curriculum is phenomenology and humanistic
psychology with phenomenology being the study of the development of human consciousness and self-awareness and
humanistic psychology delving further to examine the choices people make in life and the results of these choices. Maslov’s
theories on human needs and Rogers’ work on students learning through self-actualization have helped shape and develop
humanistic psychology. Humanistic psychology assumes, people are basically good, and want to make themselves and the
world better. The humanistic approach emphasizes the personal worth of the individual and human values (McLeod, 2007b).

6.4 Social Foundations

Ornstein and Hunkins’ (2009) fourth and final foundation of curriculum is the social foundations of curriculum. The
social foundations of curriculum are concerned with society, education and schooling for social good. Goodlad (Clabaugh &
Rozycki, 1990) identified four public goals of which schools (and curriculum) should aim to achieve each of which
contribute to society therefore forming the social foundations of curriculum. The four public goals are:
1. Social, civic and cultural goals: e.g. interpersonal understandings and citizenship participation;
2. Intellectual goals: academic knowledge and intellectual skills;
3. Personal goals: emotional and physical well-being, creativity and aesthetic expression and self-realization; and
4. Vocational goals: being prepared for an occupation.

Doll (1986) notes that society is always changing but there can be support to keep traditions in the curriculum. He goes
onto say, “Tradition is sometimes beneficent, and curriculum personnel must find specific traditions that are good and then
see that these traditions are strengthened and used” (p. 117). I would suggest that some of these traditions would include but
are not limited to values education be it as an independent subject or imbedded in the curriculum is an example of where
traditions have been strengthened and used. Public goals will continue to evolve as the world becomes more globalized and
reliant on technology.

7. ORIENTATIONS TO CURRICULUM
In this section orientations to curriculum are explored. As opposed to foundations to curriculum which focus on the
underpinning premise of curriculum, orientations focus primarily on what is pursued by curriculum as outcomes. In other
words, orientations focus on what is desired and what the underpinning purpose of a curriculum is, and how these
imperatives are captured in the design and development process. Eisner (1985) categorizes his orientations to curriculum into
five distinct areas; academic rationalism, development of the cognitive processes, personal relevance, social adaptation and
social reconstruction and curriculum as technology. These characterizations organize the curriculum into categories which
share similar ideologies and goals.

7.1 Academic Rationalism

The first curriculum orientation academic rationalism argues, “that the major function of the school is to foster the
intellectual growth of the student in those subject matters most worthy of study” (Eisner, 1985, p.66). Eisner (1985) goes
onto discuss how children should be exposed to basic fields of study so they can find out if they have an interest and/or
ability for particular curriculum areas.

Asian Online Journals (www.ajouronline.com) 307

 Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies (ISSN: 2321 – 2799)
Volume 04 – Issue 04, August 2016

7.2 Development of Cognitive Processes

Along with academic rationalism the development of students' intellectual abilities is also the focus of the cognitive
processes orientation and the major functions of the school are, “to help children learn how to learn and to provide them with
the opportunities to use and strengthen the variety of intellectual faculties they possess” (Eisner, 1985, p. 62).
The differentiation between the academic rationalism and the development of cognitive processes orientations is that the
first focuses on curriculum content and the latter on students’ abilities to solve problems through inquiry. Dewey’s (1956)
influence on Eisner is evident in this orientation through Dewey’s work on inquiry based learning being largely initiated in
the science classroom with many other disciplines have adapted the pedagogical approach of students ‘finding out’ through
problem solving. I would suggest that Eisner’s more recent work particularly on connoisseurship has developed from the
development of the cognitive processes orientation. This is evident from what Eisner (1998) states:
We have to develop the ability to name and appreciate the different dimensions of situations and experiences, and the way
they relate one to another. We have to be able to draw upon, and make use of, a wide array of information. We also have
to be able to place our experiences and understandings in a wider context, and connect them with our values and
commitments (p. 6).

7.3 Personal Relevance

Eisner’s third orientation to curriculum is personal relevance where students have influence on curriculum in that courses
are designed so that students have an input in determining the personal significance a course will have for them. For
example, the personal significance could comprise of elective components both in subject matter and assessments where
students’ influence the teaching and learning process. Eisner (1985) argues, “that without actual participation or the
availability of real choices within the curriculum, school is likely to be little more than a series of meaningless routines” (p.
69). By providing personal relevance to the students the curriculum provides opportunities that are important to the students.
Therefore if the teaching and learning process takes a student centered approach one could argue by virtue it is becomes a
classroom management strategy because interested students (through their contribution to the curriculum) are more likely to
pay attention, not get side tracked and are more likely to be focused and engaged in the learning process. Reddy (2014) sums
this point up nicely by saying, “the climate of the classroom is where all the students want to learn and share and understand
together because the power of what they do together can be dramatic” (para. 11). Eisner realizes that there are limitations to
the personal relevance curriculum orientation in areas such as when is a child old enough to make judgement on what their
educational needs are, economies of scale in terms of class and school sizes, evaluation and assessment models, teaching
strategies and the content of the curriculum.

7.4 Social Adaptation and Social Reconstruction

The fourth orientation to curriculum is a combination of both social adaptation and social reconstruction, both of which
are strongly evident in curriculum initiatives in today’s global education reform movement. Social adaptation has two
distinct segments in society; the first, “regards the manpower needs of society as most salient” (Eisner, 1985, p. 74). This
segment follows the economic and manpower needs society so when skills are needed in a certain area it is the roll of
education providers to produce suitability qualified personnel to meet the skill shortage or need.
The second segment of social adaption is “the need for conformity to exiting values and for children to take their place in
social order” (Eisner, 1985, p. 74). Eisner (1985) goes onto to reason that both segments are conservative in their views and
approaches are conservative and in my opinion (particularly in the first segment) reactive rather than proactive in nature and
implementation. Do curriculums produce the professions societies need? Do curriculums and through implication in the
process work and plan with industry to meet future skills needs? Do career education programs and school careers
counsellors know what future skills are needed by industry?
Social reconstruction “is basically aimed at developing levels of critical consciousness among children and youth so that
they become aware of the kinds of ills that society has and become motivated to learn how to alleviate them” (Eisner, 1985,
p. 76). Even though a national intended curriculum may not seek such critical consciousness, a teacher at the classroom level
may seek this as an imperative at the classroom level. By so doing, as Pinar et al. (1995) suggests, a reconceptualisation of
curriculum occurs at the interface between student and teacher. Whilst this is not new to curriculum as such with values being
taught through such subjects as social studies, history and religious studies, in recent years the social reconstruction
orientation curriculum has become prevalent with a number of countries taking the initiative to introduce values education

Asian Online Journals (www.ajouronline.com) 308

 Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies (ISSN: 2321 – 2799)
Volume 04 – Issue 04, August 2016

(be they stand alone subjects or embedded) in the curriculum. This can take the process of instilling values from teachers to
students, again even though this may not be explicit in the intended curriculum. Values Education has also been referred to
as the process that gives young people an initiation into values, giving knowledge of the rules needed to function in this mode
of relating to other people, and to seek the development in the student a grasp of certain underlying principles, together with
the ability to apply these rules intelligently, and to have the settled disposition to do so (The United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2015).

7.5 Curriculum as Technology

Eisner’s final orientation is curriculum as technology where the focus is on curriculum planning, purpose and goals.
Eisner (1985) goes on to reason the need to evaluate and measure what has been achieved and “to use those purposes as
criteria for evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of the plans made” (p.80). It must be noted that prima facie one may
associate this orientation with subject content but it includes other aspects of planning such as behaviour as Eisner (1985)
points out by saying, “form sets the boundaries within which the substantive goals of education can be articulated” (p. 81).
One can see that the planning and goal setting and evaluation of achievement of these goals make schools and teachers
accountable due to the planning and evaluation processes. Manley-Delacruz, (1990) goes further describing it as a scientific
method of control with the following rationalization, “means-end, efficiency-centered approach to the organization and
construction of school subjects, manifested in such forms as the behavioural objectives model, competency-based instruction,
and the accountability movement” (p. 10).

8. SUMMARY
The first part of the article explained what curriculum is and provided the different definitions of curriculum and the
tensions associated with defining curriculum due to the sheer number of definitions provided and justified by scholars. The
types of curriculum were then discussed and provided the background for a discussion of the human nature of the construct of
curriculum.
The second section of the paper focused on Ornstein and Hunkins’ foundations of curriculum and Eisner’s orientations to
curriculum. . It is evident that the foundations of curriculum not only shape how curriculum is delivered but also inform
curriculum developers on the construction of curriculum; particularly in the formulation and justification for educational
purposes, as they provides the foundation for organizing knowledge and formulating activities and procedures. Curriculum
orientations also provide the setting for creating positive learning environments and recognize that not all children learn at the
same rate and/or through the same method(s) of teaching and learning.
It is apparent there is some cross over between Eisner’s orientations to curriculum and Ornstein and Hunkins’ foundations
of curriculum. Orientations to curriculum focus on what a curriculum aims to achieve and the purpose(s) of the curriculum
and are established in the curriculum design and development phases. Curriculum will incorporate a range of orientations
and foundations and is not reliant on one or two dominant foundations or orientations.

9. REFERENCES

[1] Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Human Resources Development Working Group (n.d.). Retrieved
from http://hrd.apec.org/index.php/Language_Curriculum_and_Instruction
[2] Barton, L. & Walker, S. A. (2012). Race, class and education. Oxford, United Kingdom: Routledge.
[3] Beauchamp, G. A. (1981). Curriculum theory (4th ed.). Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock.
[4] Bell, B., Carr, M., & Jones, A. (1995). The development of the recent national New Zealand science curriculum.
Studies in Science Education 26, 73-105. Retrieved from
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Malcolm_Carr/publications
[5] Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. London, United Kingdom: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
[6] Caswell, H. L. (1952). Significant curriculum issues. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
207 – 214. Retrieved From http://www.ascd.org/ascd/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_195201_caswell.pdf
[7] Clabaugh, G. K. & Rozycki, E. G. (1990). Understanding schools: The foundations of education. Glenview, IL:
Harper Collins College Division.
[8] Connelly, M. E. & Clandinin, J. D. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners narratives of experience. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.

Asian Online Journals (www.ajouronline.com) 309

 Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies (ISSN: 2321 – 2799)
Volume 04 – Issue 04, August 2016

[9] Cortes, C.E. (1981). The societal curriculum: implications for multiethnic educations. In Banks, J.A. (ed.)
Educations in the 80's: Multiethnic education. 24 – 31. Washington D.C.: National Education Association.
[10] Cuban, L. (1992). Curriculum stability and change; handbook of research on curriculum.
[11] Macmillan, New York, NY: Macmillan.
[12] Dewey, J. (1956). The child and the curriculum & the school and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[13] Doll, R. C. (1986). Curriculum improvement: decision making and process. (6th ed.). Newton, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
[14] Ebert E.S., Ebert C. & Bentley M.L. (2011). The educator’s field guide: from organization to assessment and
everything in between. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
[15] Eisner, E. (1985). Five basic orientations to the curriculum. In the educational imagination: on the design and
evaluation of school programs’. New York, NY: Macmillan.
[16] Eisner, E. W. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice, Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[17] Ekanem, S. A. & Ekefre, E. N. (2014). Philosophical foundation of curriculum development in Nigeria: The
essencist mode l. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4(3), 265-271.
[18] Ellis, A. K. (2014). Exemplars of curriculum theory. New York, NY: Routledge.
[19] Flinders D. J., Noddings N. & Thornton S. J. (1986). The null curriculum: Its theoretical basis and practical
implications. Curriculum Inquiry, 16(1), 33-42.
[20] Goodlad, J. I. (1979). ‘What Schools are For’. Bloomington, In: Ph.D Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
[21] Hendricson W.D., Panagakos F., Eisenberg E., McDonald J., Guest G., Jones P., Johnson L., & Cintron L. (2004).
Electronic curriculum implementation at North American dental schools. J Dent Educ. 68(10), 1041-1057.
[22] Kelly, A.V. (2009). The curriculum: theory and practice. London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications.
[23] Kennedy, K. (1995). Curriculum reforms and international improvement in Asia. In Barry J. Fraser, Kenneth George
Tobin (eds). International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
[24] Longstreet, W.S. and Shane, H.G. (1993). Curriculum for a new millennium. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
[25] Manley-Delacruz, E. (1990). Revisiting curriculum conceptions: a thematic perspective. Visual Arts Research,
16(32), 10-25.
[26] Marsh, C.J., & Willis, G. (2007). Curriculum: alternative approaches, ongoing issues (4 th ed.). New Jersey, NJ:
Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
[27] Mayfield, K. (2008). I love being a freak. Exploring the ways adolescent girls on the margins create worlds of
power in high school classrooms. An Arbor, MI: ProQuest.
[28] McLeod, S. A. (2007a). ‘Cognitive Psychology’. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive.html
[29] McLeod, S. A. (2007b). ‘Humanism’. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/humanistic.html
[30] Mngomezulu, B. R. (20012). Politics and higher Education in East Africa. Johannesburg, South Africa: African Sun
Media.
[31] Olivia, P. F. (1997). Developing the curriculum (4th Ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
[32] Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2009). Curriculum foundations, principles and issues (6th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education.
[33] Ornstein, A. C., Pajak, E. F. & Ornstein S. B. (2011). Contemporary issues in curriculum (5th ed.). Boston: MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
[34] Paykoç F., Mengi B., Kamay P.O., Önkol P., Özgür B., Pilli O. & Yıldırım H. (2004). What are the major
curriculum issues?: The use of mindmapping as a brainstorming exercise. Paper presented at the First Int.
Conference on Concept Mapping. Pamplona, Spain.
[35] Pinar, W. F., & Reynolds, W. M. (Eds.). (1992). Understanding curriculum as phenomenological and deconstructed
text. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
[36] Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction
to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
[37] Portelli, J. P. (1987). Perspectives and imperatives on defining curriculum. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,
2(4), 354-367.
[38] Reddy, M., (2014, September 22). The best teachers enable the students to teach themselves. The Age. Retrieved
from http://www.theage.com.au/brand-discover/brighton-grammar/teachers/index.html#.VG7r_mfedrV
[39] Roberts P., (1998). The politics of curriculum reform in New Zealand. Curriculum Studies, 6(1) 27-45.
[40] Sandlin, J. & Cervero R. (2003) Contradictions and Compromise: The Curriculum-in-Use as Negotiated Ideology in
Two Welfare-to-Work Classes. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22:3, 249-265, DOI:
10.1080/02601370304844

Asian Online Journals (www.ajouronline.com) 310

 Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies (ISSN: 2321 – 2799)
Volume 04 – Issue 04, August 2016

[41] Scheffler, I. (1960). The language of education. Springfield, IL: Thomas.

[42] Schubert, W.H. (2012). John Dewey and Elliot Eisner: Relationships and influences. Journal of Curriculum and
Pedagogy, 9(1).
[43] Shayea, A. S. (2014). School administration and the development of citizenship of students in Saudi Arabia:
Contributions and practices. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 2(10), 97-105.
[44] Shiro, M. S. (2012). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns (2 nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
[45] Sims S. J. & Sims R.R. (1995). Total quality management in higher education: Is it working? Why or why not?
Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
[46] Sowell, E. (2005). Curriculum an integrative introduction (3 rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
[47] Srivastava, D.S. & Kumari, S. (2005). Curriculum and instruction. New Delhi, India: Gyan Publishing House.
[48] Star, L. (2003). Middle school algebra: Ready or not? Retrieved from
http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr147.shtml
[49] Stellar, A. (1980). Curriculum development as politics. Educational Leadership, 161-164. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/ascd/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198011_steller.pdf
[50] United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2015). Education. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/strengthening-education-systems/quality-framework/core-
resources/curriculum/
[51] Unruh, G. G., & Unruh, A. (1984). Curriculum development problems, processes, and progress. Berkley, CA:
McCutchan Publishing Company.
[52] Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. C. (2007). Curriculum development a guide to practice (7 th ed.). New Jersey, NJ: Pearson
Merrill Prentice Hall.
[53] Wilson, L. O. (2015). The second principal. Retrieved from http://thesecondprinciple.com
[54] Wiseman, A. W., Alromi, N. H., & Alshumrani, S. (Eds.). (2014). Education for a knowledge society in Arabian
Gulf countries: International perspectives on education and society series. Bingley, United Kingdom.
[55] Yarbrough E. V., Bruce W. C. & Hubright R. L. (Ed) (1974). Readings in curriculum and supervision. New York,
NY: Irvington Publishers.

Asian Online Journals (www.ajouronline.com) 311