Thus, the two settings where the notion of a curriculum did persist were Scotland and the United States.
In the United States, the development of a structure for the curriculum, in administrative and managerial terms, proceeded rapidly. However, the concept of what the realm of curriculum might be became highly diffused, and two consequences persist.
1. The curriculum as a concept, as a discrete idea, was almost without boundaries. It could mean anything from the “bundle” of programs an institution offered, to the individual experience of a particular student.
2. Systematic description, that is, an orderly, technical terminology that enhanced insights on practice and linked ideas to application, had not developed. Often faculty at work on the curriculum had to invent their own labels to describe what they did.
1. The word can connote either formal structural arrangements or the substance of what is being taught (split in definition). Most faculty would side with the notion that “the structural aspects of the curriculum had much less to do with the quality…quality instead was more importantly linked to matters of substance.”
In sum, application of the concept of “curriculum” spread in the United States, but it did not achieve the refined meaning, precise definition, or consensus among professors that standards of professional practice normally require.
1. The concept of the curriculum as a plan for learning is well developed based on a comprehensive analysis of the literature on the subject. Further field research among faculty led back to the course as the fundamental component of such a plan, not the curriculum.
3. The concept of system has been extended to consider the curriculum as a major subsystem of the university, thus opening analysis of inputs and outcomes. This approach can be characterized as “systemic curricular planning.”
One great asset of the concept of