Abstract
The concept of curriculum has long been recognised as one of the most contested and conceptually complex constructs within curriculum studies. Unlike natural phenomena, curriculum does not exist independently of human interpretation and cultural context. Rather, it is a socially constructed concept shaped by philosophical assumptions, educational ideologies, policy frameworks, and pedagogical practices. Scholars have noted that the term curriculum carries multiple meanings, depending on theoretical orientation and contextual interpretation. This conceptual plurality is captured metaphorically in what Smith (1984) called the Humpty Dumpty dilemma, drawing on Lewis Carroll’s character who asserts that words mean whatever the speaker chooses them to mean. In curriculum discourse this dilemma reflects the persistent challenge that curriculum is interpreted differently by scholars, policymakers, and practitioners. Despite this theoretical richness, curriculum is often understood in educational practice in a narrow and technical sense, typically reduced to policy documents, syllabi, or prescribed content which teachers must deliver. Such reductionist understandings can limit teachers’ professional agency and obscure the dynamic nature of curriculum as lived pedagogical practice.
Within the South African education system the complexity surrounding the concept of curriculum is further intensified by a history of significant curriculum reform and policy transformation. Since the democratic transition, multiple curriculum frameworks have been introduced, each reflecting shifting educational priorities and societal expectations. These developments have placed teachers in a central position as interpreters and implementers of curriculum within diverse and often unequal educational contexts. Consequently, teacher education programmes carry a critical responsibility to develop future teachers’ capacity to engage thoughtfully and critically with curriculum. However, research suggests that many pre-service teachers initially approach curriculum primarily as a prescriptive policy framework rather than as a dynamic process of teaching and learning. Against this background, the present study explores how pre-service teachers conceptualise the notion of curriculum and how their understanding may evolve through targeted engagement with curriculum theory within a teacher education programme.
The purpose of the article was to investigate the conceptualisations of curriculum among second-year pre-service teachers enrolled in a Bachelor of Education programme at a higher education institution. More specifically, the study sought to examine how these students initially understand the concept of curriculum and how their understanding changes following a structured learning intervention within a curriculum studies module. The study therefore aimed to contribute to the broader discourse on curriculum understanding within teacher education by examining the processes through which students’ conceptual frameworks develop when they engage with theoretical perspectives and reflective learning activities.
The article was theoretically informed by two complementary frameworks drawn from the field of curriculum studies. The first framework was Eisner’s (2012) typology of five basic orientations to curriculum. Eisner identifies five dominant ways in which curriculum can be conceptualised, namely academic rationalism, technical rationality, personal relevance, social adaptation and reconstruction, and the development of cognitive processes. These orientations reflect different philosophical assumptions about the nature of knowledge, the purpose of education, and the role of teachers within curriculum practice. By distinguishing between these orientations, Eisner’s framework provides a useful conceptual map through which diverse curriculum perspectives can be understood and compared. In this study, Eisner’s orientations served as an organising framework for categorising and interpreting students’ responses.
To deepen the analysis, the study also drew on Dillon’s (2009) formulation of five core curriculum questions, which function as a normative and analytical lens for examining curriculum thinking. Dillon argues that every curriculum decision implicitly addresses five fundamental questions: what should be taught, who should decide what is taught, how it should be taught, to whom it should be taught, and for what purpose it should be taught. These questions foreground the epistemological, pedagogical and ethical dimensions of curriculum deliberation and highlight the importance of reflective professional judgement in curriculum practice. In the context of this study, Dillon’s questions were used to interpret how students’ responses reflected underlying assumptions about knowledge, authority, pedagogy, and educational purpose.
The study employed a qualitative research design situated within an interpretivist paradigm. An interpretivist approach was considered appropriate because the study sought to explore participants’ subjective interpretations and meaning-making processes regarding the concept of curriculum. Rather than measuring predefined variables, the research aimed to understand how students construct meaning around the concept of curriculum and how these meanings shift through engagement with theoretical ideas and pedagogical dialogue. The participants were second-year pre-service teachers enrolled in Foundation Phase and Intermediate Phase teacher education programmes at a private higher education institution. The accessible population included seventy students registered for a curriculum studies module, of whom thirty-one voluntarily participated in the study after providing informed consent.
Data were collected through a structured forum activity conducted on the Moodle learning management system. The activity formed part of a contact session designed both as a learning experience and as an opportunity for data generation. The pedagogical design of the session followed a three-phase structure consisting of an entry phase, an engagement phase, and a reflective phase. During the entry phase, students were asked to articulate their personal understanding of the term curriculum in their own words and to respond to the posts of at least two peers. This activity allowed the researcher to capture students’ initial conceptualisations and encouraged dialogue among participants. Before the contact session students were also required to engage with prescribed readings and multimedia resources addressing various perspectives on curriculum theory.
During the engagement phase an interactive contact session was facilitated in which students discussed the concept of curriculum and explored different theoretical perspectives. The session included guided discussion, questioning and reflection aimed at challenging and expanding students’ initial assumptions. Through these activities, students were introduced to the idea that curriculum is not limited to policy documents but encompasses a range of experiences, interactions and pedagogical processes. The reflective phase required students to revisit their original forum post and provide a revised description of curriculum after the learning session. Students were also asked to reflect explicitly on how and why their understanding had changed. This reflective process encouraged metacognitive awareness and allowed the researcher to examine shifts in conceptual understanding.
The data were analysed using a thematic approach guided by the conceptual frameworks described earlier. Eisner’s curriculum orientations were used as an organising structure to identify patterns in students’ responses, while Dillon’s core curriculum questions provided an interpretive lens for examining the assumptions underlying students’ conceptualisations. This dual analytical approach enabled the researcher to explore both the content of students’ definitions and the deeper normative assumptions embedded within them.
The findings reveal a clear shift in students’ understanding of curriculum following the learning intervention. In their initial responses, the majority of participants described curriculum in narrow and technical terms. A curriculum was typically characterised as a formal document, a structured plan, or a set of guidelines issued by educational authorities. Students often emphasised the role of the Department of Education in determining what should be taught and when it should be taught. These responses reflect a predominantly technical orientation to curriculum in which teaching is viewed primarily as the transmission of predetermined knowledge within a structured framework.
Following the learning session, however, students’ conceptualisations of curriculum became noticeably broader and more nuanced. Many participants began to describe a curriculum not only as a document but also as a process involving interactions, experiences and contextual interpretation. Students increasingly recognised that curriculum includes the development of skills, values, and critical thinking alongside academic knowledge. They also acknowledged that teachers play an important role in interpreting and adapting a curriculum within specific classroom contexts. These responses suggest a movement toward more process-oriented and socially responsive conceptions of curriculum aligned with theoretical perspectives associated with scholars such as Stenhouse, Freire, and Dewey.
The findings illustrate how engagement with curriculum theory can contribute to more sophisticated understandings of curriculum among pre-service teachers. The study shows that even a relatively short pedagogical intervention can stimulate meaningful conceptual shifts when students reflect critically on their assumptions and engage with diverse theoretical perspectives. In this sense the study highlights the importance of integrating theoretical reflection and dialogue within teacher education programmes.
The study contributes to the field of curriculum studies in several ways. Theoretically, it reinforces the argument that teachers should be understood as active curriculum agents rather than passive implementers of policy. Empirically, it provides evidence of how pre-service teachers’ conceptualisations of curriculum can evolve through structured engagement with curriculum theory. Conceptually, the study emphasises the need for ongoing dialogue about curriculum within teacher education and higher education institutions more broadly.
In conclusion, the article illustrates how the Humpty Dumpty dilemma of curriculum is reflected in the initial understandings of pre-service teachers, who often interpret curriculum in narrow and prescriptive terms. However, the findings also demonstrate that engagement with theoretical perspectives and reflective learning activities can foster more complex and dynamic conceptualisations of curriculum.
By developing a deeper understanding of curriculum as a contextual and interpretive practice, pre-service teachers may be better equipped to exercise professional judgement and to respond meaningfully to the diverse realities of contemporary classrooms. Importantly, this shift also underscores the need for the cultivation of a continuous curriculum culture (CCC) in which curriculum engagement is not viewed as a one-off acquisition of knowledge, but as an ongoing, reflective and collaborative practice. Such a culture supports the sustained development of curriculum literacy and positions teachers as active interpreters and co-constructors of curricula within their specific contexts.
Keywords: curriculum; curriculum literacy; higher education; pre-service teachers; teacher education programmes
- This article’s featured image was created by Mohamad Salam and obtained from Pexels.