Curriculum and Instruction

Curriculum is basically “what” is taught while instruction is “how” this what is taught.
Curriculum may be regarded as a program, plan, a sequence of courses, learning experiences
whereas the instruction suggest the methods, implementation and presentation of what is in
the curriculum (Olive, 2009). Johnson (as cited in Olive, 2009) defines the instruction as the
interaction between someone who does the teaching job and the one or ones whose aim is to
learn while the curriculum is more related to the planning of the educational programs for
schooling. In other words, it is a product of a team which may include all bodies of the
institution involved in the process of the teaching or learning (Toombs & Tierney, 1993).
What is more, another concern is the decision making process of both instructional and
curriculum designs. The instructional decision process may also address to the issues of “what
works” through the needs assessment whereas the curriculum making involves more
philosophical aspects or values as well (Reigeluth, 1999). After all, they are regarded as
concepts which interdependently or interchangeably interact with each other; even to some,
interrelations between these two are so strong that it makes more sense to combine both of
them (Reigeluth, 1999) while to some (Kelly, 2009; Hewitt, 2006 ) defining the curriculum in
close association with instruction narrows the concept of curriculum. As for the universities
standing at this point, while some converge both under the name of curriculum and instruction
departments, some universities separate them and creates instructional department leaving
curriculum studies out (Ross, 2006). Overall, however, it tends to give the idea that they are
related in a way, but the approaches to “what extent” issue changes, therefore it is important
to outline the different models to this issue (models are adapted from Olive, 2009).
At first, dualistic model offers that curriculum and instruction stand by themselves
without having a great influence on one another. According to this model, the actions taken
place in the classroom greatly differs from or even ignores the plans available in the
curriculum. Retrospectively, the curriculum planners tend to ignore the agents in the schools
and, in turn, what happens in the classroom is taken place under the control of the teachers
(Olive, 2009). As also Pinar (2004) mentions, since the school personnel have little influence
on the curriculum making and instruction and learning are quantified in the test scores, the
curriculum is ignored by them and the schooling process splits the curriculum from
instruction. This matter may be an issue in Turkish educational context as well, which is
centralized and standardized test based that is been criticizing for the curriculum’s irrelevance
to the tests taken place.
 As for interlocking model, instruction and curriculum are interwoven and neither one
of them perfectly dominates each other. Neither objectives nor teaching methods are given the
whole importance but they are interrelated. They have common features and these common
features drive the schooling process along with each one’s distinctive features.
When it comes to concentric model, it is an issue of including one in another’s area as
a subsystem. This may be occurred in two ways. Either instruction may have the predominant
role or the curriculum. For instance, the teaching methods wholly direct the curriculum or the
objectives wholly direct the teaching methods. This may raise many questions because as
McKernan (2008) suggests, in education, the process of curriculum making or instruction
should be included in the whole unity due to potential lack of teacher development issues. The
unity (according to him, the separation as well) does not yield to produce healthy results.
The last model to be discussed is the cyclical model where the instruction and
curriculum do not have a common room but separately affect each other lending feedback to
each concept in a continuous manner. The evaluation of one has an effect on designing the
other. Therefore one revises the other in a sense.
Finally, it can be concluded that all models should have its place in the minds of the
educators without lending an idea of rightness or wrongness. As Olive (2009) underlines, it is
felt that the separation of the curriculum and instruction without leaving no common ground
may harm the schooling process. The other point is the concentric one which seems
complicated and be open to many divergent beliefs. However, such detergency again is
potentially conducive to an unclear picture of the relationship. Most educators favour either
interlocking model or cyclical one since they offer a close relationship having an influence in
one another.
 References
Hewitt, T.H. (2006). Understanding and shaping curriculum: What we teach and why.
California: SAGE Publications.
Kelly, A.V. (2009). The curriculum: Theory and practice (6th edition). London: SAGE
Publications.
Pinar, W.F. (2004). What is curriculum theory?. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Instructional- design theories and models: A new paradigm of
instructional theory. New York: Rouledge.
Ross, E.W. (2006). Curriculum: Purposes, problems and possibilities. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
McKernan, J. (2008). Curriculum and imagination: Process, theory, pedagogy, and action
research. New York: Routledge.
Oliva, P.F. (2009). Developing the curriculum. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Toombs, W. E. & Tierney, W. G. (1993). Curriculum definitions and reference points.

Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8(3), 175- 195.