As our readings
have shifted from what to how, there is alot to think about in
regard to the procedures and development of curriculum. Reading The Tyler Rationale for making
curriculum is reminiscent of the thousands of daily lesson plans that I have
written which began with, “Students will be able to……., by
demonstrating…..”. The framework of The
Tyler Rationale has stood the test of time because it is not a manual for
curriculum construction, “but rather, is a way of viewing, analyzing, and
interpreting” a school or educational institution’s program (W&S, pg. 57). Tyler stipulates that developing a curriculum
must be organized around four fundamental questions (W&S, pg. 58). His focus is on the how of curriculum creation, and not the what of the curriculum. Do you agree with Tyler that these four
questions should be fundamental in developing all curriculum, or do you
envision another framework or different elements that should be included? Do
you think that Tyler’s framework in some ways can limit an inexperienced or
beginning teacher’s instructional practices into a more step-by-step guide,
thus limiting some of the 21st century domains that we know should
be recognized such as, collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking? Do you
believe as Tyler does that objectives must be stated in a way where they
“specify precisely and unambiguously” what is supposed to be learned? (W&S,
pg. 59)
In contrast to the rationalized concepts and theory of
Tyler, Schwab employs a practical approach and argues curriculum does not
require theory, but rather the focus of curriculum should be to create a moral
community (W&S, pg. 62). Eisner’s
emphasis for curriculum creation is one where “problem-solving and expressive
objectives lead to purpose” (W&S, pg. 62).
Should beliefs be the focus of curriculum planning rather than
objectives? Whose perspective of
curriculum development do you see yourself aligning with, and why?
In regard to the emancipation theorists, such as Freire, do
you believe that one of the aims of education should be to raise critical
consciousness and provide procedures for implementation within curriculum?
(W&S, pg. 66). Apple argues that
“knowledge is a form of cultural capital” (W&S, pg. 73), and urges
curriculum planners to create awareness of both moral and political
ideals. Do you agree with Apple’s
perspective or do you believe that moral and political views should be limited
within schooling?
Nodding gives additional insight into learning objectives as
she sites Hirsch’s aim and goal guides with his lesson on identifying rivers,
which in turn is reflective of “cultural literacy” (N, pg. 41). I believe the missing link for many teachers
(myself included at times) is the lack of connectedness to a bigger
concept. Nodding calls it “ends-in
view”, where the student needs to be conscious of the overarching goal that
connects the learning to the big picture of the subject or content that is
being taught. The “Why are we studying
this?” or “Why is this relevant to my understanding of the world?” Do you
believe this is an important element that is missing in current
curriculum?
Nodding also discusses how curriculum in middle school and
high school should not require all students to take the same core courses. Do
you believe education should accommodate for individual differences and
interests in middle school? Should students that have no interest or talent in
pursuing higher level math courses, chemistry/physics courses, or foreign
language classes be required to fulfill those subject requirements?
Last, but not least, is Nodding’s chapter on ecological cosmopolitanism.
She discusses inclusion within curriculum of subject matter such as naturalists,
ecology, and mindfulness toward the environment contributing to a universal
curriculum. I must admit this took me back to my university schooling days in
Berkeley back in the 1970’s. Her
explanation of how to implement the teaching of geography and biology that
matters was engaging. Her perspective on
what educators need to do to create mindful critical thinkers within ecological
cosmopolitanism was intriguing. I’m
curious what your thoughts were after reading this chapter? Do you see a place for these types of topics
in school curriculum? I look forward to
our “conversations” this week. I’ll try
not to monologue.
Thanks for getting us started, Barbara. Concerning the shift from the why to the how of curriculum development, I think that Tyler’s rationale for four fundamental questions can serve as the dominant model, even in the 21st century. I do not think that such a model is a must, however. As much as I dislike what I imagine to be Rousseau's Emile narrative (I say imagine because I’ve only read Walker & Soltis’s short summary), I can see the inverse order of Tyler’s questions serving as a model, one where the overarching aim is determined by initial experience. I’m still pondering how the Emilie model would work for becoming literate, however. It seems to me that literacy is a social construct - we all get the same surface message from Robinson Crusoe because we agree that certain letters represent certain sounds. I’d like to read Emile, if only to answer the question, “Was it really Robinson Crusoe that he was reading?” In light of such an extreme example like Emile and Walker & Soltis’s “Freedom and Learning” case study, I think that Tyler’s rationale represents the most efficient model for formal schooling. I do think that strictly operating based on his four fundamental questions (and in that order) can be comforting for new teachers. I agree with Walker & Soltis (2009) that, “Beginning teachers are usually content to follow curriculum plans prepared by others”. (p. 4) Tyler’s rationale, I believe, can also limit some of the more progressive aims mentioned in Noddings, especially for teachers who starting teaching with absolutely zero training, like myself. Before January of this year, I had only once, in nearly ten years of teaching, written goals on the board for students to see (and I was not in the habit of writing-down a formal lesson plan, either). Shameful, right? On one hand, I think that not knowing the “rules” helps one to think more “outside the box” and adapt easily to students needs. On the other hand, it’s also good to have structure and avoid reacting to every whim and whine from students.
ReplyDeleteI would most closely align myself with Schwab’s approach to curriculum development. I base my choice on Schwab’s argument that, “Merits of competing theories are to be weighed for their applicability and usefulness”. (Walker & Soltis, 2009, p. 61). I see Schwab, Eisner, Freire, and Apple’s respective approaches to curriculum as necessary deviations from Tyler’s rationale. This is not meant to say that one is better than the other, but rather that one may fit a community or subject matter more appropriately. I can see Freire’s approach being applied to north Tulsa communities, where spent my childhood. North Tulsa is a large part of Tulsa, but there are no grocery stores (unless we count gas stations), no hospitals (just a clinic or two). The closest Walmart is twenty minutes south of the neighborhood where I grew-up. That’s pretty far, considering one can traverse Tulsa, east to west or north to south in just 30 minutes on the highway. I think generations have been indoctrinated to believe that certain parts are supposed to desolate, but a Freirian approach might push teens, at least, to question their current situation and seek improvement. I would say that Tyler’s approach is a template that can be applied to diverse communities, but the order of the four fundamentals depends greatly on situation. Could a more traditional behavioral approach to curriculum development work in the favelas of northeast Brazil? Could a Freirian approach work in some of the wealthiest Oklahoma school districts?
Hey Gang,
ReplyDeleteWell on the Tyler discussion I feel that the first 3 are definitely apparent in each different theorist that was presented in the readings this week, although not necessarily in order. After reading about Tyler and then the questions that were posed by Walker and Soltis about could you think of a curriculum or even series of lessons without using this framework in some sense, I was immediately like NO.... however after reading Schwab and Frerie and then later in Noddings thoughts on the ecological cosmopolitanism I see the 4th "how can we determine whether these purposes are being attained" more difficult to address when the curriculum is focused purley on differentation of the student or on bigger picture solutions when we are trying to bring awareness to our students. Like Barbara stated above I am too much programed to "the student will be able to...." and I am not sure how to assess awareness? Or for those who let each student learn somewhat independently... then is the overall assessment a larger more grande topic that everyone will encounter, then they each encounter it through their own process? Reggie above stated that Schwab, Eisner, Freire and Apple were necessary deviations but I don't see them so much as deviations but rather "rearrangements"... however I could be totally wrong!
As far as Barbara's question of Noddings and the "bigger concept" from above, I too often fall into the lets get these objectives done and often lose the bigger concept. I personally agree with Noddings that we should be concisous of the overarching goal, that there should be connectedness. I also love the idea of Noddings chapter 7 I could teach a lot of mathematics around the basis of all the things actually going on in our world! After reading the last chapter I was inspired by her lessons and ideas but then a little depressed about the Earth.... it reminded me of a novel I read a while back called Zoo... that got me thinking if this made a link to a purely fictional novel in my mind how could I use literature and math together. I think it is similar to Vygotsky scaffolding and schema, when we or students can make connections then we are way more likely to remember and be able to build on what the prior knowledge we already have.
I think that “rearrangements” works as a descriptor as well, Alana. If thought of as a continuum, from Tyler to Freire, I see an evolution from implicit values to explicit values. James Popham, according to Walker & Soltis, seems to value the teacher as the center of knowledge, or as Schiro puts it, “those who disseminate the truth...discovered by the scholars”. (2013, p. 4) Freire seems to promote discovery of the truth for a particular community by way of dialogue and collaboration, instead of top-down dissemination.
DeleteSpeaking of collaboration, I’m enjoying the Noddings read. Referring to Barbara’s earlier question,I think that curriculum development should begin with an admission of overarching aims, instead of the minutiae of goals and objectives. I agree that we teachers should “zoom-out” from time to time to keep the “ends-in-view”. I’ll be so bold as to say that people who propose shortsighted reforms like Goals 2000 and NCLB are not the least bit interested in “peace and prosperity”, as expressed by Noddings (2013, p. 40), on a national level, much less for a global community.
I agree with Noddings that critical thinking skills are lacking among today’s students, based on the work of incoming freshmen I meet. I do not blame them, or look down upon them; as a late 1990s high school grad, I think I was subject to some pre-NCLB movements as well. Setting concepts in context of a real-world situation would, I believe, only heighten students’ problem-solving skills and interests. I would want middle school children to be exposed to as many subject areas as possible, and I would agree with allowing them to focus on particular areas of interests or high aptitude. Would it be seen as problematic, though, if a vast majority of eighth-graders all chose to focus on becoming music-engineers (which are not the same as classical musicians, I’d like to add)?
Lastly, I appreciate Noddings statements concerning good teachers and balance: “Even something as simple as “drill” is too often overused or discarded entirely” (p. 50) She later writes, “drill can be employed reasonably. It can even be restful to simply practice a well-defined skill and stop thinking”. (p. 50) Can a good teacher agree with E.D. Hirsch and Noddings? I believe so, as long as “drill” is not used to “kill” the enthusiasm in the classroom. I can see “drill” as a necessary tool for music majors, for the purpose of yielding beautiful aias and scale passages in Mozart. I’ve also seen and heard pianists turn into robots at the keyboard, free from emotion or historical context of the piece they were playing. Let’s not “drill” a passage in a Bach prelude in the same way we would a Beethoven sonata. A brief history lesson in the middle of the piano lesson would reveal that one of the two intentionally limited musical dynamics while the other purposely overstated dynamics. It’s the teacher’s responsibility, I would say, to stretch and balance the discipline(s).
In reading back through the posts and my notes, I keep getting stuck on Kliebard (pg. 70 Walker and Soltis)who argued against Tyler's screens (schools statement of educational philosiphy and what is known about psychology of learning p. 58)and instead stated one must ultimately choose in the light of "one's own values" not by an objective yardstick. The problem I have is how free is "one's own values"? I mean if I felt a curriculum was hurting a student, or I was told to embrass a student, I think that all our "own values" would have red flags raised, however my more personal values may not completely align with the teacher next door. What over arching authority decides who's "own values" are ok and are there lines that cannot be crossed? For example if the teacher next door didn't believe in saluting the flag, is it ok to discuss why she has those feelings and bring in the side of freedom of speech (or lack there of), is it ok for the teacher not to let other students salute if its her own value?
ReplyDeleteAlana, I too pondered over Kliebard's comments (W&S, pg. 70). What doesn't sit quite right with me in regard to Tyler's Rationale is each "objective is in harmony with the school's general philosophy" (W&S, pg. 58). Who set's the vision for the school's general philosophy? I think every teacher's values are shown in some facet within their teaching. I think (or hope) most teachers are passionate about what they teach, and with that passion comes a set of values that are embedded in the teaching and methods of instruction, and will not always align with a school's philosophy or ideal aims. I think if a teacher didn't believe in saluting the flag, there would be issues from the administration and district, but those are the conversations that I would personally like to see occur more in our classrooms. I believe it is those types of conversations that will create critical thinkers to weigh in on different perspectives, and to reason out the outcomes before making judgements. Curriculum should avail itself to debate. I believe that school is where students need to learn how to listen, think, reason, ponder, and then assert opinions based on many perspectives and experiences. I agree with Michael Apple when he asserts that teachers learn to fit within the system and assume a "proper role in relation to authority" (pg. 72), but I do believe that most teachers find a balance between the role that is expected within the system, and their role as an educator that is reflective of their own personal values. Do you feel that you reflect your values within your school system, and at the same time balance those within the school's philosophy? Are you cognizant of the balance that you have created, or are you cognizant of the imbalance? Based on your answer, what theorist does that align with?
DeleteBarbara,
DeleteNow that I am at the college level it is so different because really as long as I teach a few very loosely written overall objectives I can basically teach how I like and to what depth I feel a topic should be covered. I feel that when I taught public school this freedom was much more "managed." I feel that the school's philosophy and mission statement were overall great and I could definitely get on the band wagon.... however when it came to carrying out goals that met the aim of the mission statement I did not always agree. I feel that I handled this with a very "hidden curriculum" agenda. I guess one could say I knew how to play the system? I put my daily objectives on the board each day and we would "touch" that objective, then we would investigate and discuss mathematics, we would do computations but that was just a mere piece. Then a couple of weeks before EOI testing I would give my students a packet of review questions and make sure they could answer every in my opinion "low" level question. My pass rate was exceptional so I was never really questioned or bothered... but like I said I played the system, I knew the principal, superintendent, school board wanted that A+ rating I did my part.... but then I also taught what and how I believed best for my students. So I guess I would be considered like Apple in that regard, but I like Eisner & Noddings too... I feel (and so many mathematicians would disagree) not the need or importance for students to memorize formulas (possibly common ones used all the time)... but in reality if they ever need the equation of a circle they can look it up... I want them to know what to do with it, what do the parts mean, and more importantly if I don't know how can I find out? What tools are necessary to learn to be able to "teach" your self? I see this as a tool parents often end up with out of self-preservation. For example I know and remember what nouns and verbs are, but if my kids need help with iterations, onomatopoeia, personification, etc... I have to know the proper tools of how to remember these things and then how to explain to my children. To me teaching is way beyond, math or English, it is creating that "selfness" and in today's technological society I believe we can ask and push our students to greater depths of knowledge than just basic facts.
I agree that value is embedded in most curriculum development. What makes Tyler’s rationale so longstanding is what I would call it’s near-neutral stance on value. Are Tyler’s four fundamental questions not indicative of a teacher-centered curriculum? I would imagine that Tyler sees knowledge has having a central point of origin based on the order of the questions. I was not sold on the value-free claim, so I was relieved to read about Kliebard’s assessment of Tyler’s rationale. I also agree with Kliebard that it [Tyler’s rationale] should not be a universal model of curriculum.
DeleteConcerning whether I reflect the values of my academic institution, I would say yes, I do but not at the expense of the teachable moments that Noddings mentions in chapter four. In my subject area, world language education, one of the goals is to get students to speak in the target language as soon as possible, and that includes day one of classes. I’ve found, however, that if I take some time, at the start of a semester, to disarm students of their skepticism and baggage from prior Spanish class experiences, I can usually start each class in the target language from about the 3rd week to the end of the semester. I place high priority on the collective goal (between all Spanish instructors at Rose State) to reduce language learning anxiety. A personal aim that I have for all of my classes, however, is critical thinking. I agree with Noddings statement that, “A major element in critical thinking is self-understanding”. (p. 100) The hope is that students will be able to understand how they learn, so that they can learn as many languages as they want. In this sense, I seem to align more with Eisner, who, according to Walker and Soltis, holds that, “a design model should provide not a formula, but tools that open more sophisticated deliberation about curriculum…”. (p. 62)
I personally found Walker and Soltis Chapter 7 very interesting. I have heard of "reform" movements No Child Left Behind and others for years but I guess I never really thought of where they came from. Walker and Soltis state "reforms challenge the established procedures for making curriculum decisions, which are normally made by local school boards, acting on recommendations from administrators usually formulated by committees of teachers and parents" (p. 90). I was able to gleam a little insight from this in the mathematics standard writing committee for the new Oklahoma Math Standards. I think the committee did an outstanding job and I would defend our decisions to anyone, however "who" decided I was qualified to be on the committee... and a few Pk-12 teachers were involved in writing but again what qualified them from others? Now I do know that countless efforts were made to get input from teachers, parents, administrators, etc. across the state. Then some of our best efforts were compromised by state government officials... I know countless revisions that took place on their part. This isn't a "national reform" but pretty significant state wide for mathematics... so since I did not see Walker and Soltis "ideal" procedures for curriculum decisions... has anyone witnessed this really playing out in a school district or state?
ReplyDeleteJust a side note (monologue) but I think it is interesting, my grandfather is 90 years old and I have had many conservations about education with him. He has told me countless stories of having to memorize lines each week in school (sometimes out of the bible even though it was a public school), and memorizing facts... he still knows every president and years they were in office, among other things. He has asked me before "do you still do the New Math in schools" and I use to not have any idea what he was talking about but he would tell me how he went to the elementary school where my mom went every night for weeks for "New Math" tutoring so that he could help her at home.... sorry for the story but this chapter just reminded me so much of him! He often states the things he has seen in his life time and will ask me and my daughters what we think we will see in ours... it really tied in the notion of reform and Nodding’s last chapter of ecological cosmopolitism together for me... I want to make/teach a curriculum that is going to impact generations to come in a positive way, one that will help the individual become a productive happy member of society in a society that is worth living in.
Reggie, after reading your post on Schwab, I went back and reread that section in Walker & Soltis (pg. 62). Schwab's emphasis is on a curriculum centered around one that creates and is created by a moral community. It is noted that Schwab's curriculum is in contrast to one based on objectives such as Tyler's curriculum. I can't help but think that any curriculum must incorporate elements and features of many different theories; Tyler's Rationale for clear objectives, Schwab's fostering of a moral community, Freire's concern for stimulating critical consciousness through dialogue, and Nodding's consideration for an education to include individual fulfillment, solving problems of the world, and fostering creativity. Reggie, when you drew the correlation to North Tulsa benefiting from a Freire model of curriculum, it made me think that a curriculum focused on only one perspective would not meet the needs of all in a community. Perhaps that's the point of what we need to see. There is not one perfect, right or wrong curriculum, but there must be curriculum that will meet the needs of all members of its community. What are your thoughts?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that, by presenting varying views of curriculum, including historical accounts of unsuccessful curriculum reforms, Walker and Soltis want to agree with Noddings that there is no right or wrong curriculum. I believe that each would agree that there are right and wrong applications of curriculum.
ReplyDeleteI am sincerely enjoying the Noddings read, but I want to challenge myself and ask the following question: Is Noddings’ idea of ecological cosmopolitanism as an aim realistic and attainable for all teachers in all socioeconomic situations? I have the impression that Noddings is, with open arms, welcoming of criticism of a what a traditionalist mind might call a “pie in the sky” set of aims. The conversation will have at least been started. According to Walker and Soltis, R.S. Peters argues that, “ideal aims are not necessary, that we can teach without them”. (p. 13) While Noddings seems to disagree with Peters, I imagine that she would find some consolation in viewing ideal aims, as Walker and Soltis put it, as merely “a matter of proceedings in a just, or free, or democratic way as educators” (p. 18). I believe that Noddings is well aware that her ecological cosmopolitanism approach is so bold in the face of Common Core, Race to the Top, NCLB, etc., that she would concede an assessment like Peters’ - as a starting point.