ABSTRACT
In some ways, the very notion of ‘curriculum’ acts to discourage innovative thought. Curriculum is sometimes thought of as a body of knowledge to be delivered (‘scope and sequence’), or a set of activities to be enacted with students. Tied to specific objectives and concrete measures, curriculum in this view is an enactment of a syllabus. We will call this view of curriculum a ‘static’ view. This view of curriculum, essentially an industrial or productivity model, works well with students in those situations where our goal is to supply them with tools of thought. A gifted student ready for algebra in the fifth grade is served well by a ninth grade algebra course, taught from a fixed syllabus, within a predetermined time line, and resulting in a standardized test or assessment. A student who is ready to explore the axioms of Euclidean geometry does well with the traditional course in the subject. We can increase the depth of the course with new problems. We can supply such a course earlier than usual for the gifted student. We can increase the pace of the course so that the students master the material in a matter of weeks or days rather than months. But we still have a goal in mind: a specific set of theorems, structured by a predetermined set of techniques. Curriculum thus delivered sets the scene for innovation, but does not necessarily stimulate it. To develop innovative students, we must ask also: what is the next step? How do we provide educational situations for students to put their cognitive tools to work? That question is not easily addressed within the framework of traditional static curriculum. A new vision of what the term ‘curriculum’ means is required, which we will call ‘dynamic curriculum’.
