From the initial definition, curriculum refers to information that students learn in a school setup during a coursework. Curriculum also relates to knowledge and skills the school systems seeks to inculcate in the students. It is often developed by different school programs and passed to students in a particular time period. From the definition of curriculum, it is evident that what should really be in the minds of the school administration and anybody interested in the welfare of students is what students need to have known by the time they are leaving the school. Such a question should also be a major concern of every curriculum theorist given that they are specialists in matters touching on the curriculum. The question of "what to teach students in school" not only concerns elementary schools but also applicable in other educational institutions such as colleges and universities.
In their book, Walker and Soltis discuss a wider perspective of questions touching on curriculum and what educators go through as relates to content and design of educational programs. As they discuss the basic issues touching on curriculum theory, a number of questions come up such as how people are structuring educational programs to satisfy particular interests, whether curriculum should just be a set of subjects or a learning experience that people have to go through, and factors to consider when designing a particular curriculum (Walker & Soltis, 2004) . The advent of curriculum theory is among the most notable events witnessed in the past. The idea of theorizing an initially ill-defined segment of educational study is an idea that needs support and appreciation. For theorization of curriculum to be successful and productive, educationists need to explore wide domains to determine possible ways of theorizing the activity. The purpose of curriculum theory is to examine and shape the existing educational curricula (Walker & Soltis, 2004). Many approaches can be used to explain the path of every curriculum theory such as educational, philosophical, psychological perspectives. The basic concern of theorists is to identify the key unit of curriculum to base a variety of conceptual systems. Curriculum theory also concerns the values, historical foundation of the curriculum, and the existing policy decisions.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The first curriculum theory is the social efficiency movement, whose publication occurred in 1918 and aimed to discuss concepts of industrial revolution and social efficiency as relates to their application in a class setup. The theorist associated with this curriculum theory is John Bobbit and had the opinion that the purpose of a curriculum should be to prepare students to face the world upon completion of their studies (Alsubaie, 2016) . He believed in the education that prepares one for adult life. In this regard, he stressed that the curriculum should involve a series of events not just teaching subjects in class. Other renowned theorists in support of this theory include Edward L. Thorndyke, also associated with experimental psychology, David Snedden, and Fredrick Tailor who also advanced the theory of scientific management (Beauchamp, 2009) . The theorists believed that education as an effective tool can control and better the society. The theory advocated for scientific evaluation of students and conducting IQ tests to determine the role they can play in the advancement of the society where they hail from. Such a process require the introduction of vocational programs and junior high schools to deal with a curriculum touching on specific life activities that are in line with each student’s likely societal role in the future (Drew & Michael, 2016) . The socially applicable curriculum was composed of small sections or duties that all together form a bigger component.
The other curriculum theory is the progressive reform movement, which was initiated in the 1870s by Francis Parker and John Dewey. Dewey has received much credit for advancing the theory. According to the theorists, the curriculum needs to be child driven and be in line with the current capacity level of the child. In trying to make people understand the relationship between students and the curriculum, the theorists described the curriculum as an orderly arrangement of previous experiences as well as a guide to future occurrences (Carl, 2009). The curriculum serves to provide direction, facilitate control, and prevent unnecessary wandering. In this sense, the theories meant that curriculum should be that which gives a reliable direction or path to prosperity or doing things that lead to prosperity. In retrospect, this theory holds that a child and a curriculum are two separate bodies that define one single process. The theory was based on four fundamental concepts: educational purposes that the school should aim to achieve, educational experiences determining the purposes, how to organize the educational experiences, and how to know if the purposes are attainable (Beauchamp, 2009) . The two theories are different from each other because they were formed based on different philosophical ideologies. The two sets of theorists belong in two different schools of thought and therefore portray a different set of arguments concerning the educational system and the curriculum in general.
However, the two curriculum theories have concepts that are much different from my initial definition of curriculum. The definition simply stated that curriculum encompasses skills or lessons learned in a particular coursework as provided for by the school program. On the contrary, the theorists prose a learning system whereby children are taught what is relevant in their lives in relation to their personality and abilities in life (Alsubaie, 2016) . According to the theories, the things that students learn in school should be those that complement their talents and roles they are likely to play in the society in the future (Boyle & Charles, 2015) . Learning among students should not just be a matter of teaching subjects to complete a coursework but rather introducing programs that are relevant to a particular learning environment (Drew & Michael, 2016) . Educationists should ensure that the curriculum used is flexible and can accommodate emerging learning dimensions and concepts.
Conclusion
Being the heart of any learning institution, curriculum forms an integral component of the education system and no institution can ever do without it. Because of its importance in the formal education system, it involves a dynamic process that changes according to the state of the society and the need to embrace change. On a broader sense other than just teaching subjects in a coursework, curriculum not only encompasses total learning experience of students in the learning institutions but also in the society as a whole. According to the curriculum theories, the curriculum should not just involve the teaching of common subjects but a wide integration of proper learning objectives that take care of societal needs. The curriculum involved should be that which shapes the child to become what he can do best in future upon completion of school. Educationists should always stay abreast with the changing needs of the students and society as a whole to ensure that the curriculum used is relevant.
References
Alsubaie, M. (2016). Curriculum Development: Teacher Involvement in Curriculum Development. Journal of Education and Practice, 7 (9), 106-107.
Beauchamp, G. (2009). Curriculum theory: Meaning, development, and use. 21 (1), 23-27.
Boyle, B., & Charles, M. (2015). Curriculum development: A guide for educators . Los Angeles : SAGE.
Carl, A. E. (2009). Teacher empowerment through curriculum development: Theory into
practice . Cape Town: Juta.
Drew, V., & Michael, M. (2016). Curriculum development through critical collaborative professional inquiry. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 1 (1), 92-106.
Walker, D. F., & Soltis, J. F. (2004). Curriculum and aims . New York: Teachers College Press.
