Editorial: Curriculum and instruction: Whose life is this anyway?

School Science and Mathematics, Mar 2001 by Lederman, Norman G, Nies, Margaret L

Some of you may be old enough to remember the much celebrated movie starring Richard Dreyfus (Whose Life Is This Anyway?), from which we have derived the title for this editorial. We think it is a safe bet that most people reading this editorial are younger than we are, so a very brief summary of the movie's story line is probably in order.

Richard Dreyfus plays a man who, as a result of an accident, is permanently physically disabled and is unable to survive independently of significant medical support. He decides that he would like to be taken off life support and allowed to die because he considers the quality of the life he will lead to be far less than acceptable. He would rather die, and the movie focuses on whether an individual of sound mind should be allowed to make such a decision. The most dramatic scenes have Dreyfus pleading his case to a judge, who will ultimately decide, "Whose life is this anyway?" - Dreyfus' or the state's.

So you are now wondering what this movie (or at least its title) has to do with curriculum and instruction. Curriculum and instruction are not matters of life and death. We are all well aware that victims of poor curriculum and/or instruction must live with the consequences(R) . Bear with us, there is a connection.

Lederman recently had the opportunity to attend a conference on science textbooks organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and, in particular, by Project 2061. The conference, which was one of a series, was supported through external funding. Basically, the conference brought together textbook publishers, scientists, science educators, teachers, and other appropriate stakeholders to discuss the nature and quality of science textbooks, instruction, and learning. A focal point of the conference was 2061's well-known curriculum analysis procedure/tool. More about that later.

Conceptualizing Curriculum and Instruction

"Curriculum and Instruction" has multiple meanings to mathematics and science educators. To some of us, it was a set of courses that we had to take when becoming certified to teach and/or when completing our graduate degree programs. To others, it actually is the graduate degree we received. Most science and mathematics educators actually received their graduate degrees in Curriculum and Instruction, as opposed to receiving a degree from a distinct science or mathematics education department.

There is also little doubt that most of you reading this editorial teach one or more courses in curriculum and/or instruction. And, regardless of the depth of our experiences with the terms, somewhere along the line we have all been asked, or we have asked our students, "What is the relationship between curriculum and instruction?" There is little disagreement that a relationship exists, but the exact nature of the relationship is often a source of debate. The five following figures represent the most common perspectives/models on the relationship of curriculum and instruction.

The dualistic model depicts the relationship between curriculum and instruction as virtually nonexistent. What takes place in the classroom is viewed as independent of the overall curriculum for the course of study. Within such a conception, curriculum planners ignore the teachers, and teachers, and teachers, in turn, ignore the curriculum organization that has been developed. In many ways this model is an oxymoron as a depiction of the "relationship" between curriculum and instruction.

The interlocking model depicts an interdependent relationship, with neither curriculum nor instruction assuming a dominant role. Any attempt to clearly separate the two, as in the dualistic model, would do serious harm to both.

In the concentric model there is a clear relationship between curriculum and instruction, with one or the other subsuming the other. In one depiction, instruction is viewed as an integral part of curriculum, while in the other depiction, curriculum is viewed as an integral part of overall instruction. For example, a curriculum strongly emphasizing scientific inquiry would completely dictate the nature and kind of instruction taking place in the depiction represented on the left.

Finally, although the cyclical model views curriculum and instruction as separate entities, it is also implied that instructional decisions are made after curricular decisions, which in turn are modified after instructional decisions are implemented and evaluated. The process is viewed as continuous, repetitious, and never ending.

Each curriculum-instruction model has its supporters, with no definitively correct model from theory or practice emerging. What can be said in this regard is that most experts appear to agree with the following three premises: (a) Curriculum and instruction are related but different; (b) curriculum and instruction are interlocking and interdependent; and

(c) curriculum and instruction maybe studied and analyzed as separate, but they cannot function in isolation. We are fairly confident that the readers ofSchool Science andMathematics admit to a significant interdependent relationship between curriculum and instruction.