Whereas last week we focused on how teachers are the curricular-instructional gatekeepers within their classrooms, this week we focus on our curriculum as determined by larger factors in society. Since the question to be addressed in this module is "How should curriculum be generated?", I will attempt to answer that question by referring to this week's readings by RW Tyler from his book Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. In addition, I will connect our discussion to the NY Times article How Christian Were the Founders by Russell Shorto. I believe that in order to address how curriculum should be generated, we need to examine the culture that a group of people is generating. Is our culture equitable and responsible? If so, then naturally a curriculum will spring forth that reflects those values. If our culture is unequal and backwards, then the likelihood of the emergence an enlightened curriculum is lower. I wonder to what extent the quality of a culture has to do with the quality of the curriculum that culture produces for its young people, and whether this effect - our quality - eclipses more intentional factors, like the consultation of experts in the different fields of content.
I have been concerned about the direction we're headed as a culture for the past two years, as the economy has recovered and we began to speed up on our path in the wrong direction. I'm more concerned now reading about how curriculum is generated for the schools in Texas. Look at the ease with which we moved into a war in Libya, and the difficulty we have in passing a reasonable budget. I worry about the speed with which a culture can change, and the manner in which large and troubling changes can arise as a sum of many small, hard-to-detect changes in our culture. I believe we're in the midst of this type of change now. A member of the Texas Board of Education said that “The philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next.” Is the corollary of that statement also true - is the philosophy of the government in one generation the philosophy of the classroom in the next? I think that the regressive activist movement in Texas is evidence of such. It appears that Texas does something very wrong. Initially I thought that politicizing curriculum was a bad idea. The I looked up the definition of politics on Wikipedia: "... a process by which groups of people make collective decisions."There isn't much to disagree with there. So I need to be more precise in my assertion. Perhaps instead of politicizing, I mean polarizing. Here is the forward to the NCSCOS. Feel free to read the forward. Overall it is communicates a sound and fair process of generating a curriculum.
Learning is a two-way process. RW Tyler writes in Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction that two students in the same class can have totally different learning experiences. I found most of Tyler’s writing to be simple, but true. His words feel familiar to me, as if I knew these things all along. For example, Tyler wrote “If an objective is for student's to develop problem-solving skills, this cannot be achieved unless a student is given the opportunity to solve problems.” Well, of course! But I’m not sure that I knew this with such precision. Students must solve problems, and to apply my knowledge of how learning occurs from John Dewey’s The Child and the Curriculum, these problems should be relevant and on the life-terms of the learner.
Teaching is a subtle, but subtly powerful job. In his 2011 State of the Union Address, Barack Obama said, “In South Korea, teachers are known as “nation builders.” Here in America, it’s time we treated the people who educate our children with the same level of respect.” I have started to think of the work we do as that of building a real world for students. Our values and worlds as educators collectively become those of our students. Tyler writes about how this is done: “The teacher's method of controlling the learning experience is through the manipulation of the environment in such a way as to set up stimulating situations.” Thus, a teacher is not teaching if he or she is not setting up stimulating situations. How many teachers who lecture - myself included, as well as many of my great college professors - are setting up a stimulating atmosphere? Some teachers who lecture are teaching. And, other teachers who setup group activities are not. To broaden the role, a teacher is someone who manipulates the environment in a way to set up stimulating situations. I think there are teachers everywhere, such as on our podcasts (Radiolab, This American Life, Planet Money), and our television shows (The Daily Show, Anderson Cooper, the Big Bang Theory).
But stimulating students is of course not enough. Students must feel good about what they’re learning. This is a sign that a teacher is doing something correct. Tyler also writes that the same learning experience will produce many different outcomes. This last bit reminds me of what Dewey wrote about the purpose of curriculum: to serve as a goal for teachers and students, and not something that every student can or should achieve. The curriculum is a reminder of what is possible for our students.Learning experiences should encourage critical thinking (Tyler writes of “skill in thinking” which I believe means the same thing), be helpful in acquiring content (Tyler: information), be helpful in developing social attitudes, and be helpful in developing interests. I love the idea of integrating the curriculum better. Tyler writes that vertical organization is different grade-level organization of the same class; that is, science classes in the 9th grade should be part and parcel of the curriculum that has a science class in the 12th. Horizontal organization is same grade-level organization of different classes; the way that a student’s schedule meshes and benefits a student’s whole experience in school each semester. Let’s be honest: do we put any thought into the horizontal organization of a student’s curriculum, beyond the consideration of how much energy a student will need to spend on homework? I appreciate when an experience is planned for me that makes sense as a whole; for example, when I attend a staff meeting that has an interesting beginning, middle and end, that respects my need to relax and listen, and to communicate, and that feeds me snacks. I’m kidding about the last part. But to what extent do we consider how complete and unfragmented is our student’s learning experiences? To what extent do we respect their natural intelligence, and ability to organize their minds and lives, in the structure of their horizontal curriculum? I think very little, which means there is a lot of ways we can improve the curriculum in this area.
Tyler then writes that continuity, sequence, and integration are important in organizing educational experiences. In terms of the vertical organization of the curriculum, continuity is important. Thus, the themes that ought to permeate the Science curriculum are the scientific method, teaching students how science builds knowledge based upon testable hypothesis. I joke that students learn the term carnivore in elementary and middle school, and once again in our 10th grade Biology class. When they take Biology again in college, they’ll most likely encounter it in their introductory and Ecology courses. When does continuity become repetition? I think when themes become specific, the curriculum can become pedantic. Integration refers more to the horizontal organization of experiences that transfer between grade-level classes. For instance, the critical thinking that students learn in their document-based questions (DBQs) certainly helps them in developing hypothesis in Biology. Finally, sequence refers to building upon experiences. When students learn in elementary school that they turn in assignments complete and on time, they’re able to coordinate with peers in Middle and High school on complicated group work. Later in their lives, these skills should empower students to work successfully in diverse workplaces.
When creating a curriculum, Tyler suggests that major elements are identified. He then asks if there are better ways to organize material, instead of according to historical dates. He suggests organizing by breadth, range, or specificity. Whatever is determined, Tyler insists that teachers test it to see if it works. It’s in this next section that I see traces of Tyler in my school and curriculum today. Tyler says evaluation is necessary to determine the success of the learning experience. Teachers appraise behaviors, and teachers must appraise these behaviors multiple times. Interestingly to me, Tyler writes that any valid evidence of the behaviors that are desired is appropriate. I wonder how this impacts or relate to grading, because in my class, a student’s grade is a product of the number of points they earned divided by those points possible. I have students who demonstrate the desired behavior - they understand the content, and they communicate their understanding to me - but their grades are awful. I am working to serve these students, so that my grading procedures and their different learning styles and experiences can draw closer together, and they will earn a better grade. Tyler writes that paper and pencil tests are important, but so too are observations, as well as an interview and questionnaire.
To return to the question, how should curriculum be generated, my short response is, from the top down and with ample space for modification. Like how John Dewey defined curricular goals for students as those things students may achieve, I believe the same applies to those who generate curriculum at the district, state, or national level. This curriculum should serve as a symbol for what schools and teachers might cover; and if a school or teacher has a unique need within or without that standard curriculum, as Professor Greenwalt wrote in his introduction about the ordering of the curriculum, must reserve that right. Teachers must be empowered to lead and make decisions as professional educators. Police officers reserve the right, based upon their judgement and training, to kill a person who threatens themselves or others. Certainly teachers must reserve the right to administer and guide students through the curriculum.
Finally, take a look at an interesting post by "Science Teacher Doyle" on creating science curriculum at the elementary level, where he writes, "There's a lot of awful stuff out there. It's eye-catching, and well produced, and quite entertaining, but it's awful.
