More than thirty years ago, Herbert Kliebard focused the attention of contemporary curriculum theorists on the descriptive power of metaphor as an aid to re-imagining curriculum. In his "Metaphorical roots of curriculum design," Herbert Kliebard characterizes curriculum through three metaphoric descriptors: production, travel, and growth.
Production is described as a curricular form in which "the student is the raw material which will be transformed into a finished and useful product under the control of a highly skilled technician" (p. 84).
Through Kliebard's metaphor of travel, the educational experience is seen as a journey of discovery for the learner. Both the nature of the road and the nature of the learner are considered in determining the course of the experience. As guide and companion, the educator is concerned less with a need to "anticipate the exact nature of the effect on the traveler" and more with providing a journey "as rich, as fascinating, and as memorable as possible" (p. 85).
Finally, the metaphor of growth describes the learner as a member of a community of plants growing in a greenhouse. Here, the educator acts as gardener, taking responsibility for the development of each plant according to specific individualized needs.
According Ornstein and Hunkins (2004), there are four theories camps which are traditionalist, empiricists, reconceptualists, and postmodernists. Curriculum metaphors under these two camps are curriculum as experience, curriculum as understanding, curriculum as reconceptualising, curriculum as hybridizing, curriculum as evolving, and curriculum as re-constructing.
I recognize the importance of understanding the concept of metaphor to shape my professional practices. However, I also realize that I can’t use the metaphors under one camp only. I should apply my reflective thinking to look on my own teaching practice through all those views. The influence of politics, economics, social and cultural factors shapes my curriculum view and restrains me as a teacher under the metaphors curriculum as content, subject matter, or cultural reproduction. I don’t want to be trapped in this condition, I will encourage myself to use my own metaphor of curriculum as a guide to create meaningful learning experiences for my students through there own experiences. Curriculum as a tree will be powerful metaphor for me to stimulate my students as imaginative thinker who could participate for social reconstruction in my society.
Curriculum as a Tree
The roots are the general learner outcomes. They support the tree, pulling nourishment out of the soil and transporting it to the rest of the tree, are permanent and only occasionally changed. Trees are only occasionally root pruned, usually because of major changes in the environment.
The branches are the various programs and parts of programs, including subject curriculums. They branch into smaller branches, like the content standards, critical objectives, etc. Branches are regularly pruned to improve the shape of the tree, removed damaged parts, etc., (based on continuous evaluation) but the branches must always be connected with the roots.
The tree goes through cycles, with leaves (students and teachers) growing and then leaving.
Leaves provide energy to the tree through photosynthesis - turning sunlight (ideas and innovations) into nutrients (lessons, activities, materials) that produce growth (learning). You can tell a lot about the health of the tree by looking at the condition of the leaves.
The health of the tree is affected by the climate and the people who own it (values, community support, resources).
Trees come in different species that have specific characteristics (curriculum visions) that show up in the shape of the branches and leaves. Trees are living organisms - they grow and change and respond to the environment. Trees can also be destroyed by outside forces (lightning, etc.), can be repaired by tree surgery, or chopped down and built into something else. Healthy habitats demand a variety of trees.