Volume : 5, Issue : 3, MAR 2019

PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN NEPAL

DR. RAJENDRA KUMAR SHAH

Abstract

Philosophy is essential for the development of any kind of curriculum. Curriculum objectives, content, classroom delivery, and evaluation process are determined on the basis of philosophical bases. Without philosophy, educators will have no direction as to what and how to organize and implement whatever we are trying to achieve within the school system. It is an established fact that our philosophy influences and do to a large extent determines our educational decisions, choices and alternatives. This is because curriculum consists of the totality of the environment that the school creates in order to stimulate and guide the wholesome growth and development of the children. This however, could not have been made possible without philosophy. Philosophy provides the starting point in curriculum development as it reflects on the total needs of the children, environment, schools and the society. From this, philosophy becomes the source of the development of curriculum. The major aim of the present article is to propose a philosophical foundation for the curriculum development in Nepal. Thus, this study is of descriptive nature and based on the In-depth Desk Review (IDR). In this study, published books, library documents, research reports, articles as well as online documents have been taken as samples and as a data collection tools. In the reviewing process, major challenges of the Western and drawbacks of the Eastern philosophy have been sought. On the basis the findings, a model of philosophy for the curriculum development was developed. Result of the present reveals that a combination of the Vedic and Buddhist philosophy could be a philosophical bases for the curriculum development process in Nepal.

Keywords

Article : Download PDF

Cite This Article

Article No : 14

Number of Downloads : 243

References

  1. Adler, Mortimer J. (1982). The Paideia Proposal: An Educational Manifesto. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  2. Alistair, R. (2000). Curriculum: Construction and Critique. London: Falmer press.
  3. Blackburn, S. (1996). Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  4. Brandt, R. S. and Tyler, R. W. (1983). Goals and Objectives in F. W. English, ed., Fundamental Curriculum Decisions. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  5. Coyne, M. D., Kame’enui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (2007). Effective Teaching Strategies that Accommodate Diverse Learners. (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
  6. Dewey, J. (1916) Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan.
  7. Doll, R. C. (1986) Curriculum Improvement: Decision-making and Process, 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  8. Fleener, J.M. (2002). Curriculum dynamics: Recreating heart. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
  9. Ekanem, S. A. (2005). A Philosophy of Education for Technological Development in Nigeria. A Doctoral (Ph. D) Dissertation, University of Calabar, Nigeria.
  10. Ekanem, S. A. (2013). Science and Human Nature: A Complex Dynamics of Reality. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 2, May 2013, Pp.389-400.
  11. Ekanem, S. A. and Ekefre, E. N. (2013). Education and Religious Intolerance in Nigeria: The Need for Essencism as a philosophy. Journal of Educational and Social Research, Vol. 3, No 2 May 2013, Pp. 303-310.
  12. Fullan, M. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
  13. Goodlad, J. I. (1979). What schools for. Bloomington. In Ph. D Delta Kappa Educational Foundation Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A Place Called School, New York: McGraw-His
  14. Gutek, G. L. (2004). Philosophical and ideological voices in education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  15. Heslep, R. (1997). Philosophical Thinking in Educational Practice. London: Greenwood Publishing.
  16. Holy Bible (1989). Authorized King James Version. China: World Publishing.
  17. Hornby, A. S. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. New York: Oxford University Press.
  18. Hopkins, L. T. (1941). Interaction: The Democratic Process. Boston: D. C. Health.
  19. Ornstein, A. C. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in curriculum (5th ed.) (pp. 2-9). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
  20. Ornstein, A. C. (2011). Philosophy as a basis for curriculum decisions. In A. C. Ornstein, E.F. Pajak, & S.B. Ornstein, A. C. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in curriculum (5th ed.) (pp. 2-9). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
  21. Ornstein, A. C. (2011). Philosophy as a basis for curriculum decisions. In A. C. Ornstein, E.F. Pajak, & S.B. Ornstein, A. and Hunkins, F. (1998). Curriculum: Foundations, principle and issues. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  22. Ornstein, A. and Hunkins, F. (1998). Curriculum: Foundations, principle and issues. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  23. Ornstein, A. C., & Levine, D. U. (2003). Foundations of education (8th ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
  24. Ozmon, H. A., & Craver, S. M. (2003). Philosophical foundations of education (7th ed.). New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
  25. Sicinska, E., Jeruszka-Bielak, M., Roszkowski, W., Brzozowska, A., Jarosz, M., Raats, M. M. (2018). How is the process of setting micronutrients recommendations reflected in nutrition policies in Poland? The case study of folate. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine, 25(1), 82-86. https://doi.org/10.5604/12321966.1230670
  26. Shubert, W.H. (1985). Portrayal: The curriculum field. In W. H. Shubert, Curriculum: perspective, paradigm, and possibility (pp. 25-34). New York, NY: MacMillan.
  27. Smith, B. O., Stanley, W. O., and shores, J. H. (1957). Fundamental of Curriculum. New York: World book.
  28. Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. New York: Harcourt Brace
  29. Tanner, E. and Tanner, L. (1980). Curriculum Development: Theory into Practice. New York: Macmillan Publishing
  30. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction Chicago: University of Chicago Press.