Eisner (1985:62) critically discusses five basic orientations for the curriculum, namely the development of the cognitive process, academic rationalism, personal relevance, social adaptation and reconstruction, and the curriculum as technology. These orientations are fundamental to understanding and determining the goals and content of the curriculum system, the role of the teacher and the assessment criteria. This means that any design of a curriculum system depends on what is to be learned, how it is to be learned and why it is to be learned (goals, purposes, values and content). Curriculum design and development is incomplete if the role of the educator is not defined. And the criterion for evaluating the teaching and learning process completes the existence of a curriculum system. In this publication, the objectives and contents, the role of the educator and the assessment criteria (the curriculum) are examined from the perspective of academic rationalism as one of the five basic orientations of curriculum to consolidate and challenge the focus of the proposed curriculum system called Personalised Education Curriculum System (PECS).

Herschbach (1989) describes academic rationalism as an orientation that conceptualises the curriculum as distinct subjects or disciplines. This perspective is the most common pattern of curriculum design and has its origins in the seven liberal arts of the classical curriculum. Hurst and Peters (1974: 198-198) define it as an orientation that emphasises the responsibility of schools to share with students the intellectual fruits of those who have gone before them. This includes not only the concepts, generalisations and methods of academic disciplines, but also the works of art that have survived the test of time. For those who embrace this curricular orientation, education means being initiated into or informed about the ways of thinking that these disciplines represent.

The summary of this definition and description points to the comprehensive need to study the existing facts about society. For example, the economic and political events of the past should be provided to the students in the form of a curriculum system for the present generation so that they can shape the new economic and political trends of the current society from the facts. In short, the curriculum is developed from the historical events that are worth revisiting to create new knowledge for a better society. For this reason, Erekson (1992) argues that the rationality of curriculum from the perspective of academic rationalism is to develop a structured organisational pattern that transmits knowledge and involves students in the creation of new knowledge. And it is clear that the newly created knowledge should be preserved for the next generation to use in developing their own new knowledge, which could be called “sustainable academic knowledge”

McNeil, (1981) argues that from a theoretical point of view, academic rationalists believe that the curriculum should equip the mind with objective knowledge that can be tested by empirical evidence and reasoning. Hirst (1974) claims that the development of the mind from a rational perspective is achieved through mastery of the basic structure of knowledge, logical relations, meaning and criteria for judging and evaluating truth. This argument advocates an independent reconstruction of knowledge and promotes students as independent thinkers and interpreters of academic material. If this is the case, it becomes clear that quality and effective assessment is not based on memorising facts but on applying the knowledge acquired. Within the academic-rational curriculum system, assessments are still part of the learning process because students do not have to memorise facts, but assessment is based on the application of facts to demonstrate an individual understanding of the academic material. It is reasonable to assume that the view presented here will only become a reality

if students are properly taught the basics in primary school by familiarising them with the various areas of study that promote rational education. Students will then grow in this independent reconstructive education to the tertiary level of their educational journey, which will eventually make them rational thinking citizens of society.

The above considerations show how important it is for primary students to be exposed to a variety of subjects of study in order to discover personal interests and skills that are informed by a sense of academic independence and self-confidence. This also shows how difficult it is to develop a curriculum system. It is also clear that no stone should be left unturned in designing the curriculum system. Therefore, a knowledgeable team of wise curriculum developers should be formed before even embarking on curriculum development. This will help in creating a relevant, effective and quality curriculum system. A quality curriculum system will be closely aligned with academic rationality. In line with this, Erikson (1992) argues that the curriculum should help students acquire the necessary techniques to analyse and interpret what thinkers of the past have said about socio-economic and political issues. In this way, students can develop the ability to critically discuss these social issues in order to formulate new knowledge needed for the time and the future. This will never be possible unless a proper foundation is laid at the grassroots level of education to ensure the production of formulators of new knowledge.

It is for this very reason that Xaba (2020), in his plea for PECS, suggests that primary education should be the discovery centre where students are exposed to a variety of fields to determine their personal interests. Eisner, (1985:67) also argues that academic rationalism holds that students should be introduced to basic areas of study because exposure to different disciplines helps to identify interests and aptitudes. This argument goes hand in hand with the need to introduce a curriculum system aligned to academic rationalism that declares high schools as vocationally oriented schools so that students find relevance and interest in school. Xaba, (2020) argues that secondary schools should be structured as academies for different professions. When students reach Grade 8, they should be divided into school divisions (vocational academies) that offer relevant curricula for the realisation of students’ passions and life goals.

It is precisely for these reasons that the Personalised Education Curriculum System (PECS) was designed as a curriculum system guided by academic rationalism and focused on rebuilding societies, starting with South Africa. PECS was developed to be at the forefront of curriculum relevance issues. Just like the birth of postmodernism, PECS is the product of dissatisfaction with the modernist curriculum system in South Africa. PECS is meant to rescue learners from the monstrous curriculum that fails to implement progressivism and provide differentiated learning that suits all learners. Just like progressivism in the past, PECS is a disruptive curriculum system designed to end the confusion around the inconsistencies of the curriculum. PECS is clearly geared towards the 50% pass rate. PECS strives to restore the value and dignity of our education system by aligning it with the needs of society. PECS aims to give students the opportunity to gain an insight into the world of work during their time at school. This makes PECS unique and highly relevant in inspiring the education community of our country, South Africa and Africa as a whole. And we believe that the education system can be improved in this way.

Know more about PECS: https://simnandisolutions.co.za/personalized-education/. Please answer these 3 questions and submit them: https://simnandisolutions.co.za/pecs.

– Questionnaires

Cite this publication: XABA, S.S. (2023). The academic rationalism oriented curriculum system. https://simnandisolutions.co.za/post/.

Bibliography

Hirst, P.H. & Peters, R.S. (1974). The curriculum. Chapter in Eisner, E.W.& Vallance, E. Conflicting conceptions of curriculum. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.

Erikson,T. 1992. Technology Education from the Academic Rationalist Theoretical Perspective. Journal of Technology Education, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp, 6-14.

Herschbach, D. (1989). Conceptualizing curriculum change. Journal of Epsilon Pi Tau, 55 (1), 19-28.

Eisner,E.(1985). Five basic orientations to the curriculum. In E. Eisner, The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (pp. 61-86). New York: Mcmillian Publishing.

Xaba, (2020). Basic education level is a discovery centre, but not secondary school. https://simnandisolutions.co.za/2020/08/20/basic-education-level-is-a-discovery-centre-but- secondary-school-is-not/. Date of Access: 11 May 2023