ABSTRACT
The problem of reconceptualizing our study of schooling can be partially illustrated in the basic etymology of curriculum. The word curriculum derives from the Latin word currere, which means to run, and refers to a course (or race-chariot). The implications of etymology are that curriculum is thereby defined as a course to be followed, or most significantly, presented. As Barrow (1984) notes ‘as far as etymology goes, therefore, the curriculum should be understood to be “the presented content” for study’.1 Social context and construction by this view is relatively unproblematic, for by etymological implication, the power of ‘reality-definition’ is placed firmly in the hands of those who ‘draw up’ and define the course. The bond between curriculum and prescription then was forged early; it has survived and strengthened over time. Part of the strengthening of this bond has been the emergence of sequential patterns of learning to define and operationalize the curriculum as prescribed.
