CURRICULUM

CURRICULUM

1. Angulo (1994): Curriculum as meanings in tension

   • CURRICULUM (Angulo) → can be grouped as Curriculum as Content → or as Curriculum as Planning (prescription/plan) → or as Curriculum as Interactive Reality (what actually happens in teaching–learning)
     • Curriculum as Content
       • → focuses on “what counts as valuable knowledge” → includes explicit / hidden / null curriculum (what is included, implicitly taught, or excluded)
     • Curriculum as Planning
       • → prescribes objectives/learning results and organizes schooling processes → risks becoming a purely technical issue when reduced to taxonomies/objectives
     • Curriculum as Interactive Reality
       • → emphasizes the gap between intentions and actual classroom life

2. Casarini (1999): Curriculum as a project that becomes practice (dialectical)

   • CURRICULUM (Casarini) → is operationalized through Design + Development + Evaluation (inseparable, not linear)
     • Design (Curricular Design)
       • → is the project that integrates general intentions/purposes + plan of studies → functions as a guiding representation (blueprint) for action
     • Development (Curriculum Development)
       • → is putting the project into practice → serves to feedback/adjust/ratify the curriculum
     • Formal vs. Real Curriculum (dialectic)
       • → shows a “tension” between what is planned (formal) and what is enacted (real) → is shaped by institutional complexity and educational policy (implementation is political)

3. Avendaño & Parada (2013): Curriculum for the Knowledge Society (culture + cognition)

   • CURRICULUM (Avendaño & Parada) → has the main function of cultural reproduction as the basis of cognition
     • Knowledge Society
       • → demands curriculum adaptation to: • information management and cognitive development • sociocultural and political formation (identity + positioning)
     • Curriculum (as proposed characteristics)
       • → should be a set of formation processes (not only a study plan) → must be contextualized, flexible, and coherent with school strategic direction and learners’ needs

4. Linking Curriculum to Mathematics and the Knowledge Society

   • CURRICULUM → organizes what counts as mathematical knowledge (concepts, methods, practices, values) → and shapes how learners develop cognitive tools for a knowledge society:
   • Mathematics within curriculum → acts as a cultural tool for interpreting reality (models, representations, argumentation) → supports information management (data, uncertainty, quantitative reasoning) → enables problem solving and decision-making in complex contexts (society + technology) → requires alignment between: • planned intentions (standards, competencies, goals) • enacted practice (classroom tasks, mediation, assessment) which mirrors the intention–reality tension highlighted by Angulo and the formal–real dialectic described by Casarini

5. Convergences and Differences (Comparative Nodes) Convergences (shared ideas)

   • Convergences (shared ideas)
     • All three
       • → treat curriculum as more than a list of topics → connect curriculum to culture/society (explicitly in Avendaño; implicitly through knowledge selection and schooling purposes in Angulo and Casarini)
     • Angulo + Casarini
       • → highlight the gap/tension between intended curriculum and lived/enacted curriculum
     • Casarini + Avendaño
       • → stress curriculum as a process, needing adjustment to context (institutional/strategic direction; knowledge society changes)
   • Differences (distinct emphases)
     • Angulo
       • → focuses on conceptual/semantic “uses” of curriculum (content vs plan vs interactive reality) and warns about reduction to technical objectives
     • Casarini
       • → focuses on curriculum-making as institutional decision-making: design–development–evaluation, and the political nature of implementation
     • Avendaño & Parada
       • → focus on the curriculum’s role in the knowledge society, grounding it in culture → cognition → information management, and calling for contextualized, flexible formation processes