ECTPP302A - Understanding Curriculum and Program in Early Childhood

This essay provides a detailed analysis of the differences between 'curriculum' and 'program' within an educational context, particularly in early childhood education. It highlights that while the terms are often used interchangeably, they have distinct meanings: a program is the overall structure of a course or study, whereas the curriculum details the specific content and delivery methods within that program. The essay explores various curriculum approaches, including child-centered, knowledge-oriented, and societal perspectives, and emphasizes the importance of adapting programs to meet the evolving needs of learners and industries. The paper concludes by underscoring the need for educators to understand these differences to effectively design and implement learning experiences that foster student development and engagement. Desklib offers a platform to access this and similar solved assignments.

Running head: THE PROGRAM 1
The program
Student’s name:
Institution

THE PROGRAM 2
Introduction
In most cases majority fail to understand the difference between program and curriculum.
As a result, people tend to perceive that curriculum and program have the same meaning, which
is not correct. The relationship that exist between curriculum and program makes it difficult for
distinguish between the two concepts. Consequently, many times people use program in place of
curriculum or the reverse, thus, giving new meaning of each term. In the same context, it is
advisable that people should get clear meaning of both curriculum and program (Ozoliņš, 2013).
For that reason, it will be easy for them to employ such terms in the right context. From this
setting, it is detailed that both program and curriculum are used hand in conjunction to portray
the intended meaning in the right way (Platz and Arellano, 2011). However, when the words are
used individually in a single statement it is possible to use either the term in place of the other
(Kellett. 2011). Therefore, this paper is tailored to discuss in detail the difference between
program and curriculum and clarify the right context to use them by use of some examples
Do Curriculum and Program Mean the Same Thing?
By looking at the definition and application of the two concepts, it is evidenced that
curriculum and program have different meaning and applications. First, curriculum is detailed as
the content offered to a student by the program (Epstein, 2016). The content that a program has
to offer is determined externally by a department or body in charge and has the mandate to offer
the program to students. For a program to evolve successfully without any form of glitches, it has
to adapt to changes of curriculum brought about by the variation of demand and supply (PSC
National Alliance. (2012). some curriculums are driven by the industry. Therefore, it implies that
such content is designed not only for the knowledge gain but also for training professionals.
Additionally, to bring up industry and ready students, a curriculum should be flexible, and

THE PROGRAM 3
accommodate the changes whenever they arise. Curriculum not only implies the hard copy
materials that knowledge can be elicited but also how this knowledge is delivered to the learners
(Sund and Wickman, 2011). Further, it shows how they are able to consume the knowledge.
Basically, it is recommendable to state curriculum as a system that involves a collection of many
courses assigned to serve a sole purpose. This system would have features, such as calendar and
events.
On the other hand, a program is defined as a formality designed to deliver the training
process within a prolonged period incorporating numerous ways of how learning is delivered
such as online, custom texts or documents (Wyse, et al., 2014). A program can be used to
accomplish either a fixed schedule or that which has been self-placed. Moreover, study programs
are usually the threshold of a lucrative job with all the essential materials that come along with
platform. According to the research conducted by Sund & Wickman (2011) it is proven that, in
todays’ world, programs are just as much as the available opportunities in the market. However,
the programs are fluid in the sense that the content they bear has to be modified to fit market
requirements. Furthermore, in consideration of the regulation’s notion on program and
curriculum, The National Regulation, often use the word program while Early Years Learning
Framework (EYLF) mostly applies curriculum.
Based on the discussion, it is easy to depict the differences between curriculum and
program. Briefly in summary, a program is the various degree and diplomas available for study.
Curriculum however is the way these particular programs are delivered as well as the content
administered during the program period (Kellett. 2011). Correspondingly, it is arguably proven
that a number of programs have been introduced in various learning institutions over the recent
past years (Ikegami & Seyram Agbenyega, 2014). In the same viewpoint, curriculum on the

THE PROGRAM 4
existing programs has also been changed and new curriculums have also been established into
the various programs. Therefore, having distinguished between the two notions, it is advisable to
use each idea at its right context rather than applying the terms in place of the other.
Moreover, with the clear clarification of the differences between curriculum and
program, the paper narrows down to discuss the program and various types of curriculum
involved (Kellett. 2011). To fulfill the ascending need of a dynamic society, a comprehensive
plan has to be put into place to accomplish the training program (Şenay İlik & Sarı, 2017). As it
is already known, the plan is the curriculum, and it comes in different approaches and orientation
to be discussed in this article. Any program could include a curriculum that is oriented as child-
centered, knowledge oriented, and societal.
Furthermore, curriculum approach could be idealism whereby only ideas have any
reality. Platz and Arellano (2011) argue that knowledge as a whole begins as a perception of
categorized phenomena. Further, knowledge in itself is the system of ideas or wisdom of the past
heroes. When a child is born, he or she learns from the environment around, but still go to school
to sharpen the mind and become intellectually enlightened (Kluczniok, Anders, Sechtig &
Rossbach, 2016). Another approach of curriculum among many others is realism.
Correspondingly, it bases its arguments on the reality of the observation. On realism, it is
believed that goodness is found in the laws of nature.
Services that are provided to the children during a program must employ accepted
learning strategies. Such erudition schemes should ensure that knowledge and skills delivered
through ways that appreciate learning context (Dockett and Einarsdottir. 2010). When children
are growing, they develop needs and interests that should be addressed during learning program
(Dee & Heineman (2016). In addition, a program should take into consideration individual

THE PROGRAM 5
difference. The Educational instructor is required to develop a program that reflects on the
developing stages of a child.
To supplement, a curriculum should integrate the events that are experienced by the
children in the learning environment. By doing so, the children’s education will be improved
through interaction with environment (Sund & Wickman, 2011). To clarify, knowledge should
not only mean transmission of facts but also construction of such validities. A structured
education program fosters the learning outcomes. Therefore, it is believed that a well panned
program enhances participation of pupils which in turn helps in learning new skill (Claessens &
Garrett (2014). Similarly, it is necessary to pay attention to children and provide diverse
opportunities to enable them to share their ideas. The objective of curriculum is to keep records
of children’s experience and learning result (Wyse, et al., 2014).
The similarity between a program and a curriculum is that both use social interaction to
establish the children’s knowledge. The learning program demands an educator to assist the
learners to develop problem-solving skills in their daily activities (Sund and Wickman, 2011).
The base of student’s interest guides the development of a program as a social ackground that
brings participants together to share their experiences. According to Ozoliņš (2013), it is agreed
that involvement of a teacher in a learning progresses, leads to optimistic results at the end of a
learning program. In the same platform, socio-cultural diversity impacts curriculum
development. The social constructivism theory postulates that for a positive learning outcome to
be achieved, examination and discovery should be applied in a program. For that reason, learners
should be taught to solve problems by use of trial and error strategy as proven by Wyse,
Hayward, Livingston & Higgins (2014). Moreover, students should be allowed to present their

THE PROGRAM 6
ideas rather than averring facts. Since a learning program, involve the act of delivering content
(Wyse, et al., 2014).
While implementing a program, teachers should embrace the idea of shared control. For
instance, the content of the curriculum is effective when adults take part in playing (O’Connor,
Blewitt, Nolan & Skouteris (2018). Additionally, it is necessary for an instructor to take part in
conversation on the child’s activities. As a result, it will enable the child to create ideas and share
them with confidence. The curriculum requires instructors to use statements that tend to
encourage students to employ descriptive language. Supplementary, it enables the learners to
reflect on their daily activities (PSC National Alliance, 2012). A program should allow children
to learn from the experience of other learners through interaction (Hedefalk, Almqvist &
Östman, 2015). The use of intentional teaching fosters student learning outcome. Curriculum
should generate a conducive set up that provides sufficient learning materials.
In addition, the learning environment should create opportunities that enable children to
make their own choices, creative thinking and apply problem solving strategies (Mihyeon, Cross,
& Cross, 2017). Students should be given an opportunity to ask questions and be provided with
models to enhance problem solving. A variety of activities can be involved in a program such as,
singing, modelling, painting and use of technology that assists children in new knowledge
development. Before a curriculum is established, instructors should understand how children
interpret information (Almqvist & Östman, 2015). Reinforcement of strategies should be
employed to encourage a particular behavior. Group learning is part of a curriculum. The
participants in curriculum development negotiate the content to be included in a program.

THE PROGRAM 7
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is evident that a curriculum involves the content required by a program
to deliver to students. It is clear that a peripheral body that is permitted to develop a program for
students in an institution develops a curriculum. Consequently, curriculum is not an independent
body but constitute of the program. Moreover, it is evident that the curriculum is the plan and
deliverables that make up the program. The various approaches applied to programs are
considerably changing with advancement in the applicable industries. Therefore, it would be
wise to have an acceptance plan of the newly introduced programs. New opportunities are
developed with the changing curriculums and consistently the programs. Curriculum involves the
interactions, experiences, routines and events in an environment developed to assist in learning.
Children program for instance, has been noted to be the knowledge delivered to children before
the first grade of school.

THE PROGRAM 8
Reference
Claessens, A., & Garrett, R. (2014). The Role of Early Childhood Settings For 4–5-Year-Old
Children in Early Academic Skills and Later Achievement in Australia. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 29(4), 550-561.
Dee, J. R., & Heineman, W. A. (2016). Understanding the Organizational Context of Academic
Program Development. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2015(168), 9-35.
Dockett. S., & Einarsdottir. J., (2010). Researching with Children. Every Child, 16(4), 34-35.
Epstein, A. S. (2016). All about HighScope – FAQs [Online]. Available at
https://secure.highscope.org/Content.asp?ContentId=291 [accessed 30 May 2018]
Hedefalk, M., Almqvist, J., & Östman, L. (2015). Education for Sustainable Development in
Early Childhood Education: A Review of The Research Literature. Environmental
Education Research, 21(7), 975-990
Ikegami, K., & Seyram Agbenyega, J. (2014). Exploring Educators' Perspectives: How Does
Learning Through 'Happiness' Promote Quality Early Childhood Education? Australasian
Journal of Early Childhood, 39(3), 46-55.
Kellett. M., (2011). Researching with and for Children and Young People. Centre for Children
and young People Background Briefing Series, no. 5. Lismore: Centre for Children and
Young People, Southern Cross University.
Kluczniok, K., Anders, Y., Sechtig, J., & Rossbach, H. (2016). Influences of An Academically
Oriented Preschool Curriculum on The Development of Children – Are There Negative
Consequences for The Children's Socio-Emotional Competencies? Early Child
Development & Care, 186(1), 117-139.
Mihyeon, K., Cross, J., & Cross, T. (2017). Program Development for Disadvantaged High-
Ability Students. Gifted Child Today, 40(2), 87-95.
O’Connor, A., Blewitt, C., Nolan, A., & Skouteris, H. (2018). Using Intervention Mapping for
Child Development and Wellbeing Programs in Early Childhood Education and Care
Settings. Evaluation & Program Planning, 6857-63.
Ozoliņš, J. (2013). The Body and The Place of Physical Activity in Education: Some Classical
Perspectives. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 45(9), 892-907.
Platz, D., & Arellano, J. (2011). Time Tested Early Childhood Theories and Practices.
Education, 132(1), 54-63
PSC National Alliance. (2012). Making sense of ‘intentional teaching’. Children’s Services
Central [Online]. Available at http://www.cscentral.org.au/Resources/intentional-
teaching-web.pdf [accessed 30 May 2018]

THE PROGRAM 9
Şenay İlik, Ş., & Sarı, H. (2017). The Training Program for Individualized Education Programs
(Imps): Its Effect on How Inclusive Education Teachers Perceive Their Competencies in
Devising Imps.
Sund, P., & Wickman, P. (2011). Socialization Content in Schools and Education for Sustainable
Development – II. A Study of Students’ Apprehension of Teachers’ Companion
Meanings In ESD. Environmental Education Research, 17(5), 625-649.
Wyse, D., Hayward, L., Livingston, K., & Higgins, S. (2014). Creating Curricula: Aims,
Knowledge, And Control a Special Edition of The Curriculum Journal. Curriculum
Journal, 25(1), 2-6. Doi:10.1080/09585176.2014.