Artifact 1A: Curriculum and Instruction
Philosophy
of Curriculum
University
of Kansas
Curriculum
and Teaching 709
Dr.
Della Anderson
April
30th, 2021
Abstract
In my first full year of
teaching and my first semester of graduate coursework, I have gained a new,
everchanging perspective on the world of curriculum design and implementation. This
paper will demonstrate my new understanding of the development and historical
context behind major curricular movements, differing schools of thoughts, as
well as my ability to recognize educational philosophers and their unique
contributions to the profession. The first part of the paper will summarize and
expand upon my previous studies comparing Herbert Kliebard and Jerome Bruner
with added insight. Consequently, the second portion will detail my recent
condemnation of standardized tests and the finale will detail the building
blocks of the melting pot has become my personal curriculum philosophy. I hope
to present a viewpoint that is clear, distinct, and evidenced by research and
practice.
Comparing
Herbert Kliebard and Jerome Bruner: Then and Now
In similarity, both Kliebard and Bruner saw school
curriculum as a means of preparing students for well-rounded characterhood and
citizenship as opposed to a dry run for laboring or soldiering. Bruner
exemplifies this philosophy through socio-constructivist language acquisition
theory and spiral curriculum, a nontraditional model of learning that revisits
topics in ascension of increased complexity after review. He was an avid
supporter of analyzing what it means to be human and relied upon the schematic
experiences of students to design this framework. Herbert Kliebard was
resistant to social efficiency models and teaching styles that ignored social
and historical context in curriculum design. Both educators reject the role of
institutionalized education as a preparatory establishment for skilled or
unskilled labor, and rather focuses on the artistic and cognitive history of
human learning. Bruner advocates somewhat for teachers to act as guides and
moderators, whereas Kliebard promotes the role of teachers as active life
guides. Both philosophers agreed that education should be formative rather than
strictly empirical, but the approach differs in part.
Kliebard
developed three schools of thought that resemble many of the ideals later
outlined by Jerome Bruner: developmentalism, humanism, and social meliorism. Humanism
became a predictor of the modern-day school subject arrangement and Kliebard
was able to foresee the rise of standardization in assessment. Social meliorism
advocates for practice of positive societal change through schools and has been
seen in modern day school associations helmed by service projects. Both
philosophers were correct in expecting that popular curriculum would continue
to be easily measurable by numerical data and both indicated that this may be
detrimental to our students. Bruner felt that using grades or other outside
markers as motivation for students was wrong and generally did not accurately
reflect the learning progress of a student. Kliebard tangentially suggests that
learning progress does not occur linearly and therefore cannot be evaluated by
traditional means. He notes that the model of public schooling and language
used stems from movements by Bobbitt and Charters nearly one hundred years ago
(Kliebard 2009). In truth, both men continue to influence the organization of
curriculum well into the technological era of schooling with more similarities
than differences.
My
summary is brief, and my findings have remained relatively non-static. The work
of these two educators complements each other in earnest in conjunction instead
of acting as combative credos. I have however been able to observe their doctrines
in practice more intensely. My school district is pushing towards a STEAM-based
curriculum that will integrate more skills into the day’s learning that in the
past was reserved for clubs, trade schools, or internships and include working with
medical technology, robotics, and computer engineering/programming. Differing
from the common STEM initiative, this program will offer the same opportunities
to those interested in the arts. These courses will comprise elements of media
production, sound engineering, and architecture. The goal of this
implementation is to expand the horizons of students to consider what lies
beyond pencil and paper education in a brick and mortar school. I have been
able to align my knowledge of Bruner’s own vision for the curriculum of the
future and his humanist perspective. Our school will also become more closely adapted
to concepts first explored through the Montessori method. One could argue that
many of these will programs will simply accelerate students’ push towards
workforce habits and competence. While almost all of these programs will touch
upon professional preparation, the goal is to expose and encourage students to gain
knowledge and practice that is not typically available to their other school
counterparts and orient them to solve real-world problems. Bruner considered
himself as much of a scientist as an educator. He once said, “There is good
reason to inquire about creativity, a reason beyond practicality, for
practicality is not a reason but a justification after the fact. The reason is
the ancient search of the humanist for the excellence of man: the next creative
act may bring man to a new dignity” (Bruner 1962, pg. 207).
As
a social studies teacher, I see myself integrating Kliebard’s facets of social
meliorism often. We discuss current events every day and try to brainstorm
solutions or practice learning the process of debate. While civics is no longer
part of the 8th grade curriculum, I try my best to prepare my
students for their role as the future leaders of our country. I also try to
consider what sort of character values I am imprinting on them and whether they
are for the better.
At the conclusion of this course, my personal thoughts and understanding of these two integral philosophers has not changed dramatically, but I am now able to make connections that I previously could not and have more confidence in my application of the research and theory I have gained throughout. I interpret this knowledge less as a passing requirement and more as a tool to be added to my teacher handbook and mental capacity.
The 21st Century Pitfall of Standardization
in Curriculum and Assessment
High-stakes
testing is detrimental to our school system and using it as a driving force of
dictating our class curriculum is unfair to both students and teachers. The
Department of Education promotes standardized tests as an opportunity in “advancing
educational equity, using student learning data to target supports for students
with the greatest needs and providing parents and guardians information on how
their children are doing” (2021, pg. 1).
The
idea that a one-time, multiple choice test is a fair indicator of the values
set forth through federal and state standards is unreasonable. These tests are
advertised as a herald of educational egalitarianism, but research indicates
that this might not be the case. Socio-economically disadvantaged students
score significantly below their peers. The standardized assessment often covers
material that the state may expect to be learned at home, and SES students
often have little access to study materials or even basic nutrition (Poulson
& Hewson, 2014). While improving, standardized tests often hold a minority
bias by utilizing prompts that are culturally and classically designed from the
white perspective (Jencks & Phillips, 2016). English language learners are
also at a disadvantage whether the test is conducted on paper, electronically,
or orally. It is nearly impossible to assess the progress of content-area
knowledge acquisition in this type of student through a singular, standardized
test (Thakkar, 2013).
State
testing has however shown some benefits to schools. For example, economically
underprivileged schools have received federal funds to help improve their chances
of achieving equity. Since the passage of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act,
math and reading achievement at the middle school level had increased
significantly as measured by the National Association of Educational Progress
(U.S. Department of Education, 2006). The gap between wealthy institutions and
those at risk has also shrunk on a national scale.
While
my personal opinion on standardized testing has not changed since the passage
of my second response paper, I do have a better understanding of the concept,
its execution, and the counterpoint to it. I have also now had the chance to
proctor them! I realized my issue is not so much the mandated assessment
itself, but the high-stakes nature of standardized tests. Graduation tests are
still required for Ohio students in high school. State tests have an incredible
amount of weight attached to them for teachers, schools, and administration at
the middle school level. Teachers and admin are both evaluated partially on the
results of the state test, for which there are an abundance of unrelated
factors that could negative impact the results. When I proctored, I had a
student who admitted to hating the test and finished in 20 minutes. How can you
justify punishing an educator for this? It’s unfair.
As
always, I suggest a compromise in key regards. If the state must collect this
data, I suggest that it be differentiated and authentic. I would like to see
student portfolios collected or a type of exam that goes beyond bubble-circling
multiple choice. While I believe that this would be more correct, I realize
that it would likely destroy the integral purpose of the test: to collect data
as quickly and simply as possible. A varied assessment would disrupt the quick
comparison between schools and standards that the government is trying to make.
I have also since considered the fact that this process is likely a partial
power grab effort to bring education under the closer scrutiny of the American
government. Because I believe that the test is not very representative of
student knowledge gained, I also believe more strongly that the test should not
be used to guide the construction of academic curriculum. I think teachers and
schools should have a greater hand in identifying the needs and gaps of their
approach by subject and adjust accordingly without the meddling of an invisible
force. It is my hope that the strange and sudden shift of implementation caused
by the COVID-19 pandemic will force the ODE to reconsider how they use
high-stakes testing to assess students and identify what should be taught. This
approach has quickly become a concept that seems outdated!
My curriculum philosophy is a set amalgamation of the content I absorbed throughout the course and the trial and error of my own teaching experience. My approach is balanced and tends to emphasize content-area activities and demonstrative assessment over the question-response format. I am not an advocator of high-stakes weighted tests or multiple choice responses, and you will see this reflected below. My goal is to prepare my students for critical thinking roles and civics understanding while maintaining my responsibility to the school’s mission. “Too often, curricular changes flow downward from policy makers to administrators to teachers without an opportunity for dialogue among these levels” (Herman, 2004, pg. 149).
My 8th grade social studies class follows a format that is constructed consistently, but in varying contexts. Each class begins with a current events discussion and debate. We talk about relevant social, economical, and global issues that are happening in our community, country, and world. First, I explain the issue and if it has a partisan rhetoric to it then I explain both sides of the topic and allow any student the chance to weigh in and specifically tell me why. They can choose to give reasoning for their reaction to it or try to explain what they think led to an event. I place value on this exercise because it keeps students informed, helps them relate the present to past history, learn new terminology, and practice debate skills. Next, we proceed with the lesson.
Our
social studies classes have been shrunk to 35-minute periods, so I often try to
make quick use of our time while making sure that the concept is not rushed. I
will introduce the topic with a prompt that allows students to imagine what
might happen based on our lesson from the previous day. What do they think the
natural progression of history will look like based on their schema? I present
the content through various stimulation phases to reach learners who absorb
information best visually, auditorily, or kinesthetically. I try to integrate
this in respect to Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. As opposed to
the common view that people are either intelligent or not, Gardner suggests
modalities of intelligence and the differentiation needed to foster them. These
candidate intelligences include: Linguistic, Logical/Mathematical, Spatial,
Bodily-Kinesthetic, Musical, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, and Naturalist
(1983). I assess students informally through their responses to short answer
questions and knowledge checks. In history, I tend to be focused more on the
influence and impact of events than the memorization of facts, á la Herbert
Kliebard.
Finally,
students are usually assessed on their understanding of the lesson with an open-ended
essay. This essay can include drawings or diagrams if necessitated or
preferred. This essay will judge students’ ability to reflect on what they
learned to form an opinion. For example, we will learn about the politicians
featured on dollar money and each student will consider whether they are worthy
and who they might replace them with. Students are expected to outline what
accomplishments and missteps the politician made and who they might replace
them with. This is an example, but usually students will see events from both
perspectives and form an opinion that cites the reference materials or lesson
makeup in a meaningful way. I believe that my daily schedule gives an accurate
depiction of my core curriculum values and mission as a social studies teacher.
The
challenges I face in practicing my beliefs include the need for numerical and clear-cut
data outlined in my concerns above. Part of the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System
rubric is the requirement that summative assessment be measurable. I have been
able to bypass by grading essays through a rubric of my own, but I fear that a
different observer or administration would dock me for this because it does not
fit the cookie-cutter template. The other challenge I face is broadcasting learning
goals to inquisitive parents. Many of my assignments are critical thinking
activities, and parents are typically used to students filling in dates or
answering specifically found questions for homework. In this way, many feel
that they are unqualified to help their children because they really on the
memorization-based social studies education they received in middle school. I
have done my best to keep parents informed through newsletters and help guides
but sometimes parents do not involve themselves in a student’s educational
progress until it becomes unavoidable. While I am always altering my approach,
I hope to overcome these challenges without removing the key benefits of my methodology.
The
modern theorists from the course whose ideals I most closely associate with are
Wayne Au, Elliot Eisner, and Peter Hlebowitsh. Elliot Eisner encouraged me to
continue my high use of content-area activities and media. His work also
reminds me to consider what connections students can make to their outside life
and how my class may benefit them. Hlebowitsh’s papers justified my belief that
balance is key and that not every student can benefit from the same practice
equally. And Wayne Au changed my perspective to better understand the business
of the educational institution and how to use my role as a teacher to be as equitable
as possible in providing learning opportunities for my students. His work
reminds me to always consider the behind-the-scenes aspects of success in the
profession. My philosophy is a melting pot of history and progress outlined by
the backbone thinkers that are featured in the C&T program with a focus in
differentiation, application, and inspiration. “The ultimate aim of education
is to enable individuals to become the architects of their own education and
through that process to continually reinvent themselves” (Eisner 1965, pg. 7).
References
Accessibility
for OHIO'S state tests. (2021, February 19). Retrieved April 01, 2021, from http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Testing/Accommodations-on-State-Assessments
Eisner, E.
W. (1965). Curriculum Ideas in a Time of Crisis. Art Education, 18(7),
7. https://doi.org/10.2307/3190712.
Gardner,
H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York Basic Books.
Herman, J. (2004). The effects of testing on instruction. In S. Fuhrman & R. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 141-166). New York, NY: Teacher's College Press.
James, H. E. O., & Bruner, J. S. (1962). On Knowing: Essays for the Left Hand. British Journal of Educational Studies, 11(2), 207. https://doi.org/10.2307/3119384
Jencks,
C., & Phillips, M. (2016, July 28). The black-white test Score Gap: Why it
persists and what can be done. Retrieved April 02, 2021, from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-black-white-test-score-gap-why-it-persists-and-what-can-be-done/
Kliebard, H. (2009). The rise of scientific curriculum making and its aftermath. In D. Flinders & S. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader, 3rd ed. (pp. 52-61). New York, NY: Routledge.
Poulson, J., & Hewson, K. (2014). Standardized testing: Fair or not? Retrieved March 30, 2021, from https://www.uleth.ca/teachingcentre/standardized-testing-fair-or-not
Thakkar, D. (2012, November 30). The relationship between english language learners’ language proficiency and standardized test scores. Retrieved April 03, 2021, from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED553015
Comments
Post a Comment