Developing the Curriculum: Improved Outcomes Through Systems Approaches [9 ed.] 0134800389, 9780134800387

Table of contents :
Cover
Title Page
Copyright Page
About the Authors
Preface
Brief Contents
Contents
Part I THE CURRICULUM: Theoretical Dimensions
Chapter 1 Curriculum and Instruction Defined
Conceptions of Curriculum
Curriculum Objectives or Standards
Relationship Between Curriculum and Instruction
Curriculum as a Discipline
Curriculum Specialists
Summary
Application
Reflection and Inquiry
Websites
References
Chapter 2 Principles of Curriculum Development
Clarification of Terms
Sources of Curriculum Principles
Types of Principles
Ten Axioms
Eight Concepts of Curriculum Construction
Summary
Application
Reflection and Inquiry
Websites
Suggested Readings
References
Part II CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: Role of Personnel
Chapter 3 Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, Multisector Process
Curriculum Decisions
Levels of Curriculum Development
Sectors of Development
Sectors Beyond the State
Summary
Application
Reflection and Inquiry
Websites
Suggested Readings
References
Chapter 4 Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension
The School and School District as a Unique Blend
Role of Curriculum Team Members
The Curriculum Specialist and the Team Process
The Change Process
Summary
Application
Reflection and Inquiry
Suggested Readings
References
Part III CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: Components of the Curriculum System Development Process
Chapter 5 Models for Curriculum System Development
Selecting Models
Models of Curriculum Development
Summary
Application
Reflection and Inquiry
Websites
References
Chapter 6 Philosophy and Aims of Education
Using the Proposed Models
Aims of Education: Mission or Purpose
Philosophies of Education
Formulating a Philosophy
Examples of Educational Philosophies
Summary
Application
Reflection and Inquiry
Websites
Suggested Readings
References
Chapter 7 Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making
Changing Expectations
Categories of Needs
A Classification Scheme
Needs of Students: Levels
Needs of Students: Types
Needs of Society: Levels
Needs of Society: Types
Needs Derived From the Subject Matter
Steps in the Needs Assessment Process
Summary
Application
Reflection and Inquiry
Websites
Suggested Reading
References
Chapter 8 Curriculum Goals or Overarching Ideas and Curriculum Objectives or Standards
Hierarchy of Curriculum System Components
Defining Curriculum Goals and Objectives
Constructing Statements of Curriculum Goals
Constructing Curriculum Objectives or Standards
Validating and Determining Priority of Curriculum Goals, Curriculum Objectives or Standards
Historical Perspective
Curriculum Documents and Artifacts
Curriculum Guides
Summary
Application
Reflection and Inquiry
Websites
Multimedia
References
Part IV CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION
Chapter 9 Instructional Goals OR Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets
Planning for Instruction
Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets Defined
Historical Perspective
Guidelines for Preparing Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets
Classification Systems
Writing Instructional Goals and Objectives
Validating and Determining Priority of Instructional Goals and Objectives
Summary
Application
Inquiry and Reflection
Websites
References
Chapter 10 Evidence Based Instruction
Instructional Models
Science of Instruction (SOI)
Science of Learning (SOL)
Organizing Instruction for Alignment with Standards
Teaching: Art or Science?
Summary
Application
Reflection and Inquiry
Websites
Podcast
Suggested Readings
References
Part V EVALUATION OF EFFECTIVENESS
Chapter 11 Evaluation of Instruction
Assessing Instruction
Collaborative Assessment Planning
Assessment
Stages of Planning for Evaluation
Norm‐Referenced Measurement and Criterion‐Referenced Measurement
Evaluation in Three Domains
Performance Based Assessment
Summary
Application
Reflection and Inquiry
Additional Resources
Websites
Suggested Readings
References
Chapter 12 Evaluation of the Curriculum
Purposes and Problems of Curriculum Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation Models
Standards for Evaluation
Summary
Application
Reflection and Inquiry
Websites
Suggested Readings
References
PART VI LOOKING FORWARD IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 13 Trends in Digital Curriculum and Instruction
Educational Technology
Digital Learning (Online Learning)
Personalized Learning
Netiquette
Summary
Application
Reflection and Inquiry
Websites
Suggested Reading
References
Credits
Name Index
Subject Index

Citation preview

A Problem-Based Approach to Implementing the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders FIFTH EDITION

Reginald Leon Green

Oliva  Gordon  Taylor

PRACTICING THE ART OF LEADERSHIP

DEVELOPING THE CURRICULUM Improved Outcomes Through Systems Approaches NINTH EDITION

What today’s educational leaders need to know, should be able to do, and how they should conduct themselves in leading schools that support the needs of all students.

This text continues to present success-proven practices, processes, and procedures grounded in theory, research, and the experiences of educators who are transforming underperforming schools into thriving educational learning communities. Invigorate learning with the Enhanced Pearson eText The Enhanced Pearson eText provides a rich, interactive learning environment designed to improve student mastery of content with the following multimedia features:

www.pearsonhighered.com

NINTH EDITION

• Embedded videos. Integrated educational leadership videos throughout the chapters illustrate key techniques, approaches, and theories. • Check Your Understanding quizzes. Exercises matched to chapter learning outcomes help readers assess their understanding and ensure that they master the learning outcomes. Exercises and suggested feedback are provided in the Enhanced Pearson eText. • End of Chapter Self-Check Assessments. Embedded assessments with feedback help students review new terms and concepts and encourage reflection and discussion of the issues of the chapter. These are presented within the Enhanced Pearson eText as interactive quizzes.

DEVELOPING THE CURRICULUM

Now aligned with the 2015 Professional Standards for Educational Leaders, formerly known as ISLLC Standards, this edition features opportunities for reflective practice through the use of scenarios depicting actual school issues, situations, and the behavior of practicing school leaders to help readers acquire knowledge and skills that can be used to build a solid framework for their own practice. The book’s focus on how to use the new 2015 Professional Standards for Educational Leaders helps educators develop teacher capacity, create professional learning communities, effectively manage organizational resources, construct appropriate organizational policies and systems, lead instructional change, and engage in other deep and meaningful work outside of the classroom and in the community.

William R. Gordon, II Rosemarye T. Taylor Peter F. Oliva

Ninth Edition

Developing the Curriculum Improved Outcomes Through Systems Approaches William R. Gordon II, Ed.D. Chief Operations Officer, Retired Florida Virtual School Orlando, Florida

Rosemarye T. Taylor, Ph.D. Professor, Educational Leadership University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida

Peter F. Oliva, Ph.D. Professor, Retired Florida International University Georgia Southern University

330 Hudson Street, NY NY 10013

Director and Publisher: Kevin Davis Executive Portfolio Manager: Julie Peters Managing Content Producer: Megan Moffo Content Producer: Faraz Sharique Ali Executive Product Marketing Manager: Christopher Barry Executive Field Marketing Manager: Krista Clark Manufacturing Buyer: Deidra Smith Cover Design: Carie Keller, Cenveo

Cover Art: DrAfter123/DigitalVision Vectors; Victor/ DigitalVision Vectors Editorial Production and Composition Services: SPi Global, Inc. Full-Service Project Manager: Sree Meenakshi.R ; SPi Global, Inc. Editorial Project Manager: Jessa May Dales, SPi Global, Inc. Text Font: TimesLTPro-Roman

Credits and acknowledgments borrowed from other sources and reproduced, with permission, in this textbook appear on appropriate page within text (or on page 279–280). Copyright © 2019, 2013, 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This publication is protected by copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. To obtain permission(s) to use material from this work, please visit http://www.pearsoned.com/permissions/. Unless otherwise indicated herein, any third-party trademarks, logos, or icons that may appear in this work are the property of their respective owners, and any references to third-party trademarks, logos, icons, or other trade dress are for demonstrative or descriptive purposes only. Such references are not intended to imply any sponsorship, endorsement, authorization, or promotion of Pearson’s products by the owners of such marks, or any relationship between the owner and Pearson Education, Inc., authors, licensees, or distributors. Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available on file at the Library of Congress.

1 17

ISBN-10:  0-13-480038-9 ISBN-13: 978-0-13-480038-7

In memory of Peter F. Oliva, whose rich academic career contributed to the development of curriculum leaders across the United States and globally. For my wife, Patty; our children, Whitney and Trey; and my mother and father, Marcelyn and William; and my sister, Pam; and my aunt, Mary. William R. Gordon, II For my son, Jay, and education leaders who have supported my continuous learning. Rosemarye T. Taylor

ABOUT THE AUTHORS William R. Gordon II has served as a teacher, instructional leader, and district-level executive leader in Florida. As both an elementary and high school principal, he became known for his deep understanding of curriculum and instruction, thought leadership, and systems approaches in the Orange County Public Schools (OCPS) school system. During his 11 year tenure as the principal of Winter Park High School, the school was named by the State of Florida as a “HighPerforming School” due to the school’s rigorous curriculum and outstanding student achievement. Additionally, U.S. News and World Report repeatedly ranked Winter Park High School in the top 1 percent of high schools in the nation. While in OCPS he became an area superintendent, where he was responsible for the curriculum, instruction and student and teacher performance in 29 diverse schools serving approximately 35,000 students. After serving in OCPS, he became the chief operations officer at Florida Virtual School (FLVS), the nation’s oldest and largest public online public school system. While serving as an executive leader at FLVS he established an Analysis, Assessment, and Accountability (AAA) division in the district. The AAA division established enterprise-wide data collection, data analysis, and predictive analytics as a leader in the online industry. Additionally, he engaged with online curriculum, instruction, and professional learning. In 2017, he was selected as a member of the third class of the Leadership Florida, Leadership in Education Program, which is funded by the Florida Education Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Florida Department of Education. This program is established to build a corpus of highly effective educators to improve student learning outcomes in the State of Florida. He has also served as an adjunct professor in the College of Education at the University of Central Florida.

Rosemarye T. Taylor has a rich background in teaching and leading in Georgia and Florida. She also served as national director of professional development for Scholastic, Inc. Since joining the faculty at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, she has become known for expertise in instructional and curricular leadership through use-inspired research that influences improved educator practice. She has published numerous articles, chapters, and books addressing the alignment of curriculum, instruction, classroom and standardized assessment, professional learning, and evaluation to result in improved learning outcomes. She has also led innovations at the school, school district, and university level to leverage technology and digital tools to improve literacy and learning across student populations. Currently, she is professor of educational leadership working with master’s degree and doctoral students, while continuing to actively support schools and school districts in their missions to serve all students.

iv

PREFACE The ninth edition of Developing the Curriculum: Improved Outcomes Through Systems Approaches continues to serve as a comprehensive analysis of systematic curriculum development to improve learner success. We are grateful to the readers who continue to use it to further the study of a ­continually evolving area in a time of standards implementation and accountability for student learning outcomes. In providing a comprehensive view of the field of curriculum development, by illuminating various historical and twenty-first century approaches to this field, we present ­evidence based content relevant to today’s curriculum specialists and instructional leaders in school districts and schools.

NEW TO THIS EDITION Although the same basic overall structure of previous editions remains in place; several changes have been made in updating this edition to make the text more current and applicable, both to instructors and students in a college or university setting and to curriculum specialists and instructional leaders in their practice. • William R. Gordon, II, a former practitioner leader in the field of education, shares his contemporary experience and knowledge of leading traditional and virtual education in this edition. With the passing of the original author, Peter F. Oliva, Dr. Gordon replaces him as the lead author. • Rosemarye T. Taylor, professor of educational leadership and former practitioner, is new to this edition bringing with her expertise in curriculum systems that include instruction, assessment, and evaluation. • About 35 percent new content has been added. While maintaining the rich historical perspective, topics like ESSA, digital directions, English Learners, science of learning, and standards based curriculum systems (instruction and assessment) have been added or expanded upon. Academic language and literature throughout the text has been updated to reflect twenty-first century curriculum system thinking. The Digital Curriculum chapter in the 8th edition has been updated to Trends in Digital Curriculum and Instruction which reflects trends and research in this dynamic area of educational curriculum, instruction, delivery, assessment, and data analysis. The concepts of innovative practices in digital and technological literacies are introduced and an analysis of areas such as online learning, blended learning, and mobile learning is provided. Additionally, an overview of how computer based assessments are being used to gather student performance data to inform curricular and instructional practices is presented. Furthermore, a new forum for free digital content, Open Education Resources, as well as a section on digital ethics, are featured. • Chapter 8 has been deleted and content has been infused throughout other chapters as appropriate. • Chapter 15 has been deleted and future directions in curriculum development, implementation, and assessment are infused as appropriate throughout the text and in the last chapter. • References now appear at the end of each chapter and are in APA 6th edition format to aid the reader by more easily situating authors and the time of their work. v

vi Preface

• Suggested Readings are before each Reference list at the end of each chapter and therefore, the Bibliography has been deleted. Like preceding editions, this book is intended to address the learning needs of graduate students in courses such as curriculum development, curriculum planning, curriculum and instruction, curriculum improvement, and instructional leadership. School district-level curriculum specialists, preservice and in-service curriculum coordinators, principals, assistant principals, curriculum resource teachers, department chairpersons, instructional team leaders, and grade-level leaders will benefit from this practical guide to curriculum development. The six sections of the book follow a particular sequence and have numerous examples of practices of actual schools and school districts. The text begins with an examination of the theoretical dimensions of curriculum development, reviews the various personnel who have the primary responsibility to develop the curriculum, and describes various models of curriculum development, including the Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development, which is designed to positively influence student learning outcomes in a time of standards. The process of curriculum development is examined from stating philosophical beliefs and broad aims of education to specifying curriculum and instructional goals and objectives, implementing curriculum and instruction, and evaluating instruction and the curriculum. The chapters are designed to provide in-depth information that relates to the cognitive objectives of the chapter. Each contains a great deal of information and suggestions as well as inquiry and reflection, along with applications that reinforce the objectives and extend the treatment of topics beyond the text. As in the past, we have tried to provide a synthesis of theory, research, and practice that is clear and readable. Furthermore, we have zealously researched and analyzed the content of this text to provide a quality learning experience for our readers. We acknowledge that we need more educators to take a leading role in the complex field of curriculum development. It is our goal to encourage and nurture such possibilities by providing a helpful teaching aid for those who are involved in the process of curriculum development.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors of this text wish to express their deep appreciation to all the people who have contributed to the writing and publishing of this and earlier editions. Insights of the teachers, administrators, students, and colleagues with whom we have worked and of those who have reviewed the text have helped to shape our thinking on the challenging process of curriculum development. We wish to especially thank Julie Peters, our editor, Faraz Sharique Ali, our content producer, and Jessa May Dales, our project manager for the assistance they provided us. Colton Tapoler assisted with the transitioning of notes and bibliography to references in APA format for each of the chapters. We appreciate his assistance with this tedious task.

BRIEF CONTENTS Part I

THE CURRICULUM: Theoretical Dimensions  1

Chapter 1 Chapter 2

Part II

Curriculum and Instruction Defined  2 Principles of Curriculum Development  18

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: Role of Personnel  47

Chapter 3 Chapter 4

Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, Multisector Process 48 Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension  71

Part III CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: Components of the Curriculum System Development Process  93 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8

Models for Curriculum System Development  94 Philosophy and Aims of Education  108 Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making  137 Curriculum Goals or Overarching Ideas and Curriculum Objectives or Standards  160

Part IV CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION  177 Chapter 9

Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets  178 Chapter 10 Evidence Based Instruction  197

Part V

EVALUATION OF EFFECTIVENESS  219

Chapter 11 Evaluation of Instruction  220 Chapter 12 Evaluation of the Curriculum  243

Part VI LOOKING FORWARD IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 261 Chapter 13 Trends in Digital Curriculum and Instruction  262

vii

CONTENTS Part I

THE CURRICULUM: Theoretical Dimensions  1

Chapter 1 CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION DEFINED  2 Conceptions of Curriculum  2 Curriculum Objectives or Standards  6 Relationship Between Curriculum and Instruction  8 Curriculum as a Discipline  11 Curriculum Specialists  14 Summary 15 • Application 16 •  Reflection and Inquiry 16 • Websites 16 •  References 16

Chapter 2 PRINCIPLES OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT  18 Clarification of Terms  18 Sources of Curriculum Principles  19 Types of Principles  20 Ten Axioms  21 Eight Concepts of Curriculum Construction  32 Summary 44 • Application 44 •  Reflection and Inquiry 44 • Websites 45 •  Suggested Readings 45 • References 45

Part II  CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: Role of

Personnel 47 Chapter 3 CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: A MULTILEVEL, MULTISECTOR PROCESS  48 Curriculum Decisions  48 Levels of Curriculum Development  50 Sectors of Development  60 Sectors Beyond the State  61 Summary 67 • Application 68 •  Reflection and Inquiry 68 • Websites 68 •  Suggested Readings 68 • References 69

Chapter 4 CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: THE HUMAN DIMENSION 71 viii

The School and School District as a Unique Blend  71 Role of Curriculum Team Members  72

Contents

The Curriculum Specialist and the Team Process  79 The Change Process  79 Summary 90 • Application 90 •  Reflection and Inquiry 91 • Suggested Readings 91 •  References 91

Part III CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: Components of the

Curriculum System Development Process  93 Chapter 5 MODELS FOR CURRICULUM SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT  94 Selecting Models  94 Models of Curriculum Development  95 Summary 106 • Application 106 •  Reflection and Inquiry 107 • Websites 107 • References 107

Chapter 6 PHILOSOPHY AND AIMS OF EDUCATION  108 Using the Proposed Models  108 Aims of Education: Mission or Purpose  109 Philosophies of Education  117 Formulating a Philosophy  129 Examples of Educational Philosophies  131 Summary 133 • Application 134 •  Reflection and Inquiry 134 • Websites 134 •  Suggested Readings 135 • References 135

Chapter 7 DATA AND EVIDENCE INFORMED DECISION MAKING 137 Changing Expectations  137 Categories of Needs  138 A Classification Scheme  139 Needs of Students: Levels  140 Needs of Students: Types  142 Needs of Society: Levels  144 Needs of Society: Types  148 Needs Derived From the Subject Matter  151 Steps in the Needs Assessment Process  156 Summary 156 • Application 157 •  Reflection and Inquiry 157 • Websites 157 •  Suggested Reading 157 • References 158

Chapter 8 CURRICULUM GOALS OR OVERARCHING IDEAS AND CURRICULUM OBJECTIVES OR STANDARDS  160 Hierarchy of Curriculum System Components  160 Defining Curriculum Goals and Objectives  161

ix

x Contents

Constructing Statements of Curriculum Goals  164 Constructing Curriculum Objectives or Standards  164 Validating and Determining Priority of Curriculum Goals, Curriculum Objectives or Standards  165 Historical Perspective  167 Curriculum Documents and Artifacts  169 Curriculum Guides  169 Summary 173 • Application 174 •  Reflection and Inquiry 174 • Websites 174 •  Multimedia 174 • References 175

Part IV CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION  177 Chapter 9 INSTRUCTIONAL GOALS OR ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES OR LEARNING TARGETS  178 Planning for Instruction  178 Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets Defined  179 Historical Perspective  180 Guidelines for Preparing Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets  183 Classification Systems  186 Writing Instructional Goals and Objectives  190 Validating and Determining Priority of Instructional Goals and Objectives 193 Summary 194 • Application 194 •  Reflection and Inquiry 194 • Websites 195 •  References 195

Chapter 10 EVIDENCE BASED INSTRUCTION  197 Instructional Models  197 Science of Instruction (SOI)  201 Science of Learning (SOL)  201 Organizing Instruction for Alignment with Standards  206 Teaching: Art or Science?  212 Summary 213 • Application 213 •  Reflection and Inquiry 214 • Websites 214 •  Podcast 214 • Suggested Readings 214 • References 215

Contents

Part V EVALUATION OF EFFECTIVENESS  219 Chapter 11 EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTION  220 Assessing Instruction  220 Collaborative Assessment Planning  220 Assessment 221 Stages of Planning for Evaluation  222 Norm-Referenced Measurement and Criterion-Referenced Measurement 225 Evaluation in Three Domains  227 Performance Based Assessment  232 Summary 239 • Application 239 •  Reflection and Inquiry  240  •  Additional Resources 240 •  Websites 240 • Suggested Readings 240 •  References 241

Chapter 12 EVALUATION OF THE CURRICULUM  243 Purposes and Problems of Curriculum Evaluation  243 Evaluation 246 Evaluation Models  247 Standards for Evaluation  256 Summary 256 • Application 257 •  Reflection and Inquiry 257 • Websites 257 •  Suggested Readings 258 •  References 258

PART VI  LOOKING FORWARD IN

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT  261 Chapter 13 TRENDS IN DIGITAL CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION 262 Educational Technology  262 Digital Learning (Online Learning)  266 Personalized Learning  269 Netiquette 274 Summary 276 • Application 276 •  Reflection and Inquiry 276 • Websites 276 •  Suggested Reading 277 • References 277 Credits  279 Name Index  281 Subject Index  284

xi

This page intentionally left blank

A01_OLIV0387_09_SE_FM.indd 1

3/21/18 8:28 PM

PART

 I

The Curriculum Theoretical Dimensions Chapter 1

Curriculum and Instruction Defined

Chapter 2

Principles of Curriculum Development

1

CHAPTER

1

Curriculum and Instruction Defined Learning Outcomes

CONCEPTIONS OF CURRICULUM

After studying this chapter, you should be able to: 1. Define curriculum for your context. 2. Distinguish between curriculum and instruction. 3. Explain the ways curriculum can be considered a discipline. 4. Create or select a model showing the relationship between curriculum and instruction supported with evidence.

Gaius Julius Caesar and his cohorts of the first century BC had no idea that the oval track on which the Roman chariots raced would bequeath a word used almost daily by educators 21 centuries later. The track—the curriculum—is a major focus of today’s educational leaders as they seek to create and implement the curriculum that best aligns with the needs of students and to increase successful student learning outcomes on the accountability metrics that apply in their unique contexts. It is important to note the pragmatic implications of curriculum in serving the students’ needs and in making progress with student learning as measured officially, which may be different requirements. Curriculum theorists recognize that theory and practice are not necessarily separate and should be connected (Wright, 2000). In fact, Wright discusses how curriculum theorists are wrestling with the inclusion of curriculum in non-traditional learning environments, such as museums, community centers, and in various locales which may be virtual or real. Theorists are also considering the technological opportunities for learning that are reflected in changes in brick and mortar schools, virtual schools, and in curriculum development, implementation, and evaluation (Wright, 2000). These and other contemporary curriculum concepts are addressed throughout chapters in this text. Various definitions of curriculum have been generated since as long ago as 1976, when Dwayne Huebner (1976) ascribed ambiguity and a lack of precision to the term curriculum (p. 156). In 1988, Madeleine R. Grumet (1988) labeled curriculum a “field of utter confusion” (p. 4). At the turn of the twenty-first century Arthur W. Foshay (2000) attributed a lack of specificity to the curriculum (p. xv). Indeed, curriculum seems at times analogous to the blind men’s elephant. It is the pachyderm’s trunk to some; its thick legs to others; its pterodactyl-like flopping ears to some people; its massive, rough sides to other persons; and its ropelike tail to still others. Herbert K. Kliebard (1998) observed that “what we call the American curriculum is actually an assemblage of competing doctrines and practices” (p. 21).

2



Chapter 1  •  Curriculum and Instruction Defined

Until the development and various implementations of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in the United States (US), curriculum was thought to be the written plan provided by the local education agency (LEA) or even by the state education agency (SEA). In 2010 the CCSS or a variation had been implemented in 45 states making curriculum across the US more alike than previously (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010). However, as an observer of teachers the authors note that in every school and in individual classrooms (virtual or traditional), the real curriculum is the interpretation of the curriculum through instruction. What an observer immediately perceives is that the interactions between the teachers and students (instructional learning experiences) actually provides evidence of the real curriculum. Because of the practical implementations or interpretations of the official curriculum by the teachers through their instruction with students, curriculum and instruction cannot be completely separated. Officially, curriculum is the what and instruction is the how. Professional Licensure and Curriculum State professional licensure or certification governance documents set professional standards for educators. These requirements, whether in statute, rule, or policy, compound the problem of defining curriculum because few professionals can become licensed or certified in curriculum. Whereas most education professionals in preparatory programs take courses of one type or another called curriculum, there is generally not a certifiable field labeled curriculum. Professionals are typically licensed or certified in areas such as educational leadership, counseling, school psychology, elementary education, or secondary education content areas. But in curriculum per se? Not as a rule, although courses in the field of curriculum are often required for most education areas, including educational leadership. Nevertheless, numbers of curriculum specialists, coordinators, developers, digital designers, supervisors, consultants, and even professors of curriculum can be identified. These curriculum specialists, many of whom may hold licensure or certification in one or more fields, cannot customarily hang on the wall a certificate that shows that they are certified in a field called curriculum. Though a certifiable field of specialization called curriculum may be lacking, the word itself is treated as if it had tangible substance, for it can undergo a substantial variety of processes. Curriculum—or its plural, curricula or curriculums (depending on the user’s penchant or abhorrence for the Latin)—is built, planned, designed, and constructed. It is improved, revised, and evaluated based on the implementation’s learning outcomes or change in results on accountability metrics. Like muscles that are developed to become stronger and provide more power, the curriculum is developed. It is also organized, structured, and restructured, and, like a misdirected child, reformed. With considerable ingenuity, the curriculum planner can mold, shape, and tailor the official curriculum. However, with the implementation of CCSS and its variations across the states, the public school curriculum may be perceived to have become less creative and more straightforward with defined and expected student learning outcomes across many states. Charter school, for profit school, and private or independent school curriculums may have more flexibility as they have different accountability measures than their public school counterparts. Interpretations of Curriculum The amorphous nature of the word curriculum has given rise over the years to many interpretations. Depending on their philosophical beliefs, persons have conveyed these interpretations. • Curriculum is that which is taught in school. • Curriculum is a set of subjects or content areas.

3

4

Part I  •  The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

• • • • •

Curriculum is a program or course of study. Curriculum is a set of materials and resources. Curriculum is a sequence of courses. Curriculum is a set of performance standards. Curriculum is everything that goes on both academic, social, and otherwise, inside and outside of classes. • Curriculum is that which is officially taught both inside of school and outside of school. • Curriculum is everything that is planned by school personnel. • Curriculum is a series of experiences undergone by learners in school. In the foregoing definitions, you can see that curriculum can be conceived in a narrow way as the official curriculum of the standards that are to be taught in specific grade levels and content areas or the unofficial or hidden curriculum of the other experiences that students have in school, both during instruction and beyond instruction. The implications for instructional leaders to be drawn from the differing conceptions of curriculum can vary considerably. The instructional leader who accepts the definition of curriculum as standards to be learned, faces a much simpler task than the school leaders who take responsibility for experiences of the learner both inside the classrooms and beyond, maybe even to what is learned outside of school. Historical Conceptions of Curriculum A variety of nuances are perceived when professional educators define curriculum. Trace how a number of writers between the early twentieth and early twenty-first centuries conceptualized curriculum. Franklin Bobbitt (1918), one of the earliest writers on curriculum, perceived curriculum as: that series of things which children and youth must do and experience by way of developing abilities to do the things well that make up the affairs of adult life; and to be in all respects what adults should be. (Bobbitt, 1918, p. 42)

Hollis L. Caswell and Doak S. Campbell (1935) viewed curriculum not as a group of courses but as “all the experiences children have under the guidance of teachers” (p. 66). Ralph W. Tyler’s (1949) writings pointed the way to “educational objectives” that “represent the kinds of changes in behavior that an educational institution seeks to bring about in its students” (p. 6). Hilda Taba (1962), in a discussion of criteria for providing sets of learning opportunities for curriculum development, said, “A curriculum is a plan for learning” (p. 11). She defined curriculum by listing its elements. Taba (1962, p. 10) explained that every curriculum globally contains common elements, such as goals and objectives, and distinct content selections and organizational approaches that inform styles of learning and teaching, concluding with an assessment methodology to determine whether the objectives were met. A different approach to defining curriculum was taken by Robert M. Gagné (1967, p. 21), who wove together subject matter (content), the statement of ends (terminal objectives), sequencing of content, and preassessment of entry skills required of students when they begin the study of the content. Mauritz Johnson Jr (1967), agreed basically with Gagné (1967) when he defined curriculum as a “structured series of intended learning outcomes,” (p. 130). Johnson perceived curriculum as “the output of a ‘curriculum development system’ and as an input into an ‘instructional system’” (p. 133). Albert I. Oliver (1977) equated curriculum with the educational program and divided it into four basic elements: “(1) the program of studies, (2) the program of experiences, (3) the program



Chapter 1  •  Curriculum and Instruction Defined

of services, and (4) the hidden curriculum,” (p. 8). The programs of studies, experiences, and services are readily apparent. To these elements Oliver added the concept of a hidden curriculum, which encompasses values promoted by the school, differing emphases given by different teachers within the same subject areas, the degree of enthusiasm of teachers, and the physical and social climate of the school. J. Galen Saylor, William M. Alexander, and Arthur J. Lewis (1981) offered this definition: “We define curriculum as a plan for providing sets of learning opportunities for persons to be educated,” (p. 8–9). As the years progress you will notice a broadening of some conceptions of the school curriculum. Geneva Gay (1990), writing on desegregating the curriculum, offered a more expansive interpretation of curriculum: “If we are to achieve equally, we must broaden our conception to include the entire culture of the school—not just subject matter content” (pp. 61–62). Expressing the view that the word “‘curriculum’ has come to mean only a course of study,” D. Jean Clandinin and F. Michael Connelly (1992) held curriculum to be no less than “a course of life” led by teachers as curriculum makers (p. 393). Ronald C. Doll (1996) defined the curriculum of a school as: “the formal and informal content and process by which learners gain knowledge and understanding, develop skills, and alter attitudes, appreciations, and values under the auspices of that school” (p. 15). Departing from a definition of curriculum as “school materials,” William F. Pinar, William M. Reynolds, Patrick Slattery, and Peter M. Taubman (1996) described curriculum as “symbolic representation,” (p. 16). These authors said: Curriculum understood as symbolic representation refers to those institutional and discursive practices, structures, images, and experiences that can be identified and analyzed in various ways, i.e., politically, racially, autobiographically, phenomenologically, theologically, internationally, and in terms of gender and deconstruction. (Pinar et al., 1996, p. 16)

Have definitions changed in writings of the early twenty-first century? Examine a few. Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins (2004) considered curriculum as “a plan for action or written document that includes strategies for achieving desired goals or ends,” (p. 10). Emphasizing the role of curriculum in the continuing growth of learning and learners, Daniel Tanner and Laurel N. Tanner (2007) proposed the following definition: “The authors regard curriculum as that reconstruction of knowledge and experience that enables the learner to grow in exercising intelligent control of subsequent knowledge and experience” (p. 99). Jon Wiles and Joseph Bondi (2007) also saw “the curriculum as a desired goal or set of values that can be activated through a development process culminating in experiences for students” (p. 5). James McKiernan (2008) saw curriculum “concerned with what is planned, implemented, learned, evaluated, and researched in schools at all levels of education” (p. 4). Regarding the various interpretations of curriculum, Peter Hlebowitsh (2005) commented, “When we begin to think about the curriculum as a strictly professional and school-based term, a number of different interpretive slants on what comprises the curriculum comes into play” (p. 1). Definitions by Purposes, Contexts, and Strategies Differences in substance of definitions of curriculum, while they exist, are not as great or as common as differences in the components that the curriculum theorists include in their conceptions of the term. Some theorists elaborate more while others combine elements of both curriculum and instruction, a problem that will be examined later in this chapter. Others find a definition of

5

6

Part I  •  The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

curriculum in (a) purposes or goals of the curriculum, (b) contexts within which the curriculum is found, (c) instructional strategies used, or (d) standards to be learned. PURPOSES.  The search for a definition of curriculum is clouded when the theoretician responds

to the term, not in the context of what curriculum is, but in what it does or should do—that is, its purpose. On the purposes of the curriculum varying statements can be found and confusing. An example is when curriculum is conceptualized. The statement: Curriculum is the development of reflective thinking on the part of the learner, is not concrete. The same statement could be stated more specifically: The purpose of the curriculum is the development of reflective thinking on the part of the learner. A statement of what the curriculum is meant to achieve does little to help us sharpen a definition of curriculum and clarifying and specifying the purpose of the curriculum is a wise move for curriculum developers. CONTEXTS.  Definitions of curriculum sometimes state the settings within which it takes shape.

When theoreticians speak of an essentialist curriculum, a student-centered curriculum, or a reconstructionist curriculum, they are invoking two characteristics of the curriculum at the same time—purpose and context. For example, an essentialistic curriculum is designed to transmit the cultural heritage to students in the organized disciplines, and to prepare them for the future. This curriculum arises from a special philosophical context of the essentialist school of philosophy. A learner-centered curriculum clearly reveals its orientation: the learner, who is the primary focus of the progressive school of philosophy. The development of the individual learner in all aspects of growth may be inferred, but the plans for that development vary considerably from school to school. The curriculum of a school following re-constructionist philosophical beliefs aims to educate in such a way that learners will be capable of solving some of society’s pressing problems and, therefore, change society for the better. STRATEGIES.  While purpose and context are sometimes offered as definitions of curriculum, an

additional complexity arises when the theoretician equates curriculum with instructional strategy. Some theoreticians isolate certain instructional variables, such as processes, strategies, or techniques, and then proceed to equate them with curriculum. The curriculum as a problem-solving process illustrates an attempt to define curriculum in terms of an instructional process—problemsolving techniques, the scientific method, or reflective thinking. The curriculum as personalized learning, perhaps delivered digitally or online is a system by which learners encounter curricular content through a mode of instruction. Neither purpose, nor context, nor strategy provides a clear basis for defining curriculum.

CURRICULUM OBJECTIVES OR STANDARDS Among prominent conceptions of curriculum is the classification of curriculum as curriculum objectives or standards to be learned or mastered. This text will use both terms of curriculum objective and standards synonymously, as well as other traditional based academic language and standards based academic language, due to some educational organizations using one or the other or both. Originally, the term used was performance or behavioral objective. Tyler’s advocacy in mid-twentieth century was for educational objectives to be written in behavioral terms. W. James Popham and Eva L. Baker (1970) held that “Curriculum is all the planned learning outcomes for which the school is responsible,” (p. 48). In designing the curriculum, planners would cast these learning outcomes or objectives in operational or behavioral terms.



Chapter 1  •  Curriculum and Instruction Defined

The behavioral objectives may also be called performance or operational objectives and in effect are instructional objectives. According to the proponents of behavioral objectives, a compilation of all the behavioral objectives of all the programs and learning experiences of the school would constitute the curriculum. The curriculum would then be the sum of all instructional objectives. You will encounter in this text an approach that distinguishes curriculum goals (overarching ideas) and curriculum objectives (standards) from instructional goals (essential questions, big ideas) and objectives (learning targets). You will see later that standards are derived from overarching ideas and aims of education (mission or purpose), and learning targets are derived from essential questions or big ideas and from overarching ideas and standards. Both standards and learning targets can be stated in behavioral terms. To assist you with the multiple and changing terms related to the curriculum system that includes curriculum, instruction, and assessment, Table 1.1 is provided. Table 1.1, Traditional versus Standards Based Academic Language, shows the alignment between the more traditional terms and terms that apply in the standards based environment. These terms may be helpful as you continue to read this text. Some advocates of behavioral objectives seem comfortable with the notion that once the expected learning outcomes (learning targets) are clearly specified, the curriculum has been defined. From that point on instruction takes over. This view of curriculum as specification of standards or objectives is quite different from the big concept of the curriculum as a plan, a program, or a sequence of courses. In this text, the official curriculum is perceived as a plan or program for all the experiences that the learner encounters under the instructional leadership of the school or school district. This official curriculum includes the curriculum objectives or standards that students are expected to master within a specific grade level or content area, and are often those for which educators are held accountable through various metrics. As curriculum is presented within the text, think about the official curriculum and not all the extensions or experiences that students may have while moving through their schooling or education. In practice, the official curriculum consists of a number of plans, in written form and of varying scope, that delineate the intended student learning outcomes. The curriculum, therefore, may be a unit, a course, a sequence of courses, the school’s or school district’s entire program of studies—and may be encountered inside or outside of class or school when led by the personnel of the school.

TABLE 1.1  Traditional versus Standards Based Academic Language Traditional Academic Language

Standards Based Academic Language

Aims

Mission or purpose

Curriculum goals

Overarching idea

Curriculum objectives

Standards

Instructional goals

Essential question (big idea)

Instructional objectives

Learning targets (short-term measurable outcomes)

Measures

Success criteria (evidence)

Assessments/tests

Formative assessments (informal or formal check on progress towards standard, goal, or learning target to inform instruction) Summative assessment (measure of progress toward proficiency on a standard, goal, or learning target)

7

8

Part I  •  The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION The search to clarify the meaning of curriculum reveals uncertainty about the distinctions between curriculum and instruction and their relationship to each other. Simplistically, curriculum can be viewed as that which is taught, and instruction as the means used to teach that which is taught. Even more simply, curriculum can be conceived as the “what,” or intentions and instruction as the “how,” or means. You may think of the curriculum as a program, a plan, content, and learning experiences, whereas you may characterize instruction as pedagogy, methods, delivery mode, strategies, and implementation. Historically, distinguishing instruction from curriculum, Johnson (1967) defined instruction as “the interaction between a teaching agent and one or more individuals intending to learn” (p. 138). James B. Macdonald and Robert R. Leeper (1965) viewed curricular activity as the production of plans for further action, and instruction as the putting of plans into operation. Thus, according to MacDonald and Leeper, curriculum planning precedes instruction, a premise with which this text is aligned (McDonald & Leeper, 1965, pp. 5–6). In the course of planning for either the curriculum or instruction, decisions are made. Decisions about the curriculum relate to plans or programs and thus are programmatic. Whereas, those decisions made about instruction (and thereby implementation) are methodological and pedagogical. Both curriculum and instruction are subsystems of a larger system of education. Models of the Curriculum–Instruction Relationship Definitions of the two terms are valuable but can obscure the interdependence of these two systems. That the relationship between the what and the how of education is not easily determined can be seen in several different models of this relationship. For lack of better terminology, academic language for these models are: (a) dualistic model, (b) interlocking model, (c) concentric model, and (d) cyclical model. Each curriculum–instruction model has its champions who espouse it in part or in whole, and in theory or in practice. DUALISTIC MODEL.  Figure 1.1 depicts the dualistic model. Curriculum is on one side and instruction on the other and they remain separate. Between the two entities lies a great abyss. What takes place in the classroom seems to have little relationship to the master plan of curriculum or learning intentions. The curriculum developers or designers do not engage with the instructors. Discussions of curriculum are divorced from their practical classroom implementations. Under this model the curriculum and the instruction may each change without significantly affecting one another. FIGURE 1.1

The Dualistic Model

Curriculum

Instruction



Chapter 1  •  Curriculum and Instruction Defined

A

Curriculum

FIGURE 1.2

B

Instruction

Instruction

The Interlocking Model

Curriculum

INTERLOCKING MODEL.  When curriculum and instruction are shown as systems entwined, an interlocking relationship exists. No particular significance is given to the position of instruction or curriculum in either of the versions of this model presented in Figure 1.2. The same relationship is implied no matter which element appears on the left or the right. These models clearly demonstrate an integrated relationship between these two entities. The separation of one from the other would impact effectiveness of both. Curriculum developers would find it difficult to regard instruction as paramount to curriculum and to determine teaching methods before program development. Nevertheless, some instructors may proceed as if instruction is primary by dispensing with advance planning of instruction based on the curriculum and by letting curriculum develop as learning proceeds in the classroom. CONCENTRIC MODELS.  The preceding models of the relationship between curriculum and

instruction reveal varying degrees of independence, from complete detachment to an interlocking relationship. Mutual dependence is the key feature of concentric models. Two conceptions of the curriculum–instruction relationship that show one as the subsystem of the other can be seen in Figure 1.3. Variations A and B both convey the idea that one of the entities occupies a superordinate position while the other is subordinate. Concentric model A makes instruction a subsystem of curriculum, which is itself a subsystem of the whole system of education. Concentric model B subsumes curriculum within the subsystem instruction. A clear hierarchical relationship is in both these models. Curriculum ranks above instruction in model A and instruction is predominant in model B. In model A, instruction A

B

Curriculum

Instruction

Instruction

Curriculum

9

FIGURE 1.3

The Concentric Model

10

Part I  •  The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

is a very dependent portion of the entity curriculum. Model B makes curriculum subservient to and a derivative of the more global instruction. CYCLICAL MODEL.  The cyclical conception of the curriculum–instruction relationship is a simplified systems model that stresses the essential element of feedback. Curriculum and instruction are separate entities with a continuing circular relationship. Curriculum makes a continuous impact on instruction and vice versa; instruction has impact on curriculum. This relationship can be schematically represented as in Figure 1.4, The Cyclical Model implies that instructional decisions are made after curricular decisions, which in turn are revised after student learning outcomes are evaluated. This process is continuous, repetitious, and never-ending. The evaluation of instructional effectiveness affects the next round of curricular decision making, which again affects instructional implementation. While curriculum and instruction are diagrammed as separate entities, with this model they are not to be conceived as separate entities but as part of a sphere—a circle that revolves, causing continuous adaptations and improvements of both entities, based on learning outcome metrics. FIGURE 1.4

The Cyclical Model

Curriculum

Instruction

COMMON BELIEFS.  As research findings add new insights on teaching and learning and as new

ideas are developed, beliefs about curriculum and instruction also undergo transformation. The “rightness” or “wrongness” of concepts such as curriculum and instruction cannot be established by an individual or even by a group. One index of “correctness” might be the prevailing informed opinion at a particular stage in history—a rather pragmatic but nevertheless a viable and defensible position. Most theoreticians today appear to agree with the following comments. • Curriculum and instruction are related but different. • Curriculum and instruction are interlocking and interdependent. • Curriculum and instruction may be studied and analyzed as separate entities but cannot function in isolation from one another. Problems may be posed by the dualistic conceptual model of the relationship between curriculum and instruction, with its separation of the two entities. With creation of the CCSS and each state’s specific implementation or variation in standards, there is a trend towards the concentric model that makes instruction a subsystem of curriculum with the curriculum standards being the driver. This is the case in many public school districts. Some curriculum developers and designers are comfortable with an interlocking model because it shows a close relationship between the two entities with the feedback loop that includes metrics of student learning outcomes to inform revisions. Given the accountability for student learning outcomes of teachers and administrators, it may be that the cyclical model has advantages. With simplicity and clarity of the importance



Chapter 1  •  Curriculum and Instruction Defined

of continuous improvement of both curriculum and instruction informed by feedback (data and evidence), this model may hold the most promise for practitioners in roles that include or relate to curriculum development and design.

CURRICULUM AS A DISCIPLINE In spite of its elusive character, curriculum is a discipline or a major field of study in higher education and curriculum is then both a field within which people work and a discipline to be taught. Graduate and undergraduate students may take courses in curriculum development, curriculum theory, curriculum evaluation, secondary school curriculum, elementary school curriculum, middle school curriculum, community college curriculum, and—on fewer occasions— university curriculum. The Characteristics of a Discipline To arrive at a decision as to whether an area of study is a discipline, the question might be raised, “What are the characteristics of a discipline?” If the characteristics of a discipline can be spelled out, it can be determined whether or not curriculum is a discipline. PRINCIPLES.  Any discipline worthy of study has an organized set of theoretical constructs or

principles that governs it. Certainly, the field of curriculum has developed a significant set of principles, tried and untried, proven and unproven, many of which are appropriately the subjects of discussion in this text. Balance in the curriculum, discussed in Chapter 2, is a construct or concept. Curriculum itself is a construct or concept, a verbalization of an extremely complex idea or set of ideas. Using the constructs of balance and curriculum, a principal can be derived that stated in simple terms, says, “A curriculum that provides maximum opportunities for learners incorporates the concept of balance.” Sequencing of courses, behavioral objectives, integrated studies, and multiculturalism are examples of constructs incorporated into one or more curriculum principles. A major characteristic of any theoretical principle is its capacity for being generalized and applied in more than one situation. Were curriculum theories but one-shot solutions to specific problems, it would be difficult to defend the concept of curriculum as a discipline. The principles of curriculum theory are often successful efforts to establish rules that can be repeated in similar situations and under similar conditions. Generally, the concept of balance should be incorporated into every curriculum. However, controversy may arise over a principle that might be stated as, The first step in curriculum planning is the specification of behavioral objectives. Though some maintain this principle has become universal practice and therefore might be labeled “truth,” it has been tried and accepted by many educators, rejected by some, and tried and abandoned by others; therefore, it cannot be applied consistently. KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS.  Any discipline encompasses a body of knowledge and skills perti-

nent to that discipline. The field of curriculum has adapted and borrowed content from a number of pure and derived disciplines. Figure 1.5 schematically shows areas from which the field of curriculum has borrowed constructs, principles, knowledge, and skills. Selection of content for study by students, for example, cannot be done without referring to the disciplines of sociology, psychology, and specific core content like mathematics. Organization of the curriculum depends on knowledge from organizational theory and instructional leadership, which are aspects of school

11

12

Part I  •  The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

FIGURE 1.5

Sources of the Curriculum Field

Instruction

Systems theory

Technology

Communication

Evaluation

Sociology

History Curriculum

Psychology

Philosophy

Subject areas

Supervision Management

Organizational theory

leadership. The fields of communications, supervision, systems, instructional technology, and digital design are called on in the process of curriculum development. Knowledge from many fields is selected and adapted by the professionals within the curriculum field. The learner-centered curriculum as a concept draws heavily on what is known about learning, growth, and development (psychology and biology), on philosophy (particularly from one school of philosophy, progressivism), and on sociology. The essentialist curriculum borrows from the areas of philosophy, psychology, and sociology, as well as the academic disciplines. You might ask whether the field of curriculum contributes any knowledge of its own to that borrowed from other disciplines. Certainly, a good deal of thinking and research is going on in the name of curriculum. New curricular ideas are being generated continuously, such as those emerging from social and political theories related to multi-culturalism and culturally relevant curriculum and pedagogy (Wright, 2000). New ideas, whether they be character education, technical education, or Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education, borrow heavily from other disciplines. As those who study educational leadership you will be familiar with an example from the field of social psychology. Generally accepted is the notion that a curriculum changes only when the people affected have changed. This principle, drawn from the field of social psychology and



Chapter 1  •  Curriculum and Instruction Defined

applied in the field of curriculum development, was perhaps most dramatically demonstrated by the Western Electric research studies conducted in the 1930s (Popham & Baker, 1970). In the Hawthorne Plant of Western Electric in Chicago researchers discovered that factory employees assembling telephone relays were more productive when they were consulted and made to feel of value to the organization. Making the employees feel important resulted in greater productivity than manipulating the physical environment (e.g., lighting in the factory). The feeling of being important to the research studies also created its own aura, the so-called Hawthorne Effect, named for the Hawthorne Plant of Western Electric. Because the feeling of being valued can in itself contribute to motivation and productivity, this effect is one that researchers may discount, for it can obscure the hypothesized or real causes for change. However, the educational leader who is aware of the Hawthorne Effect may take advantage of it to motivate students to engage in learning and teachers to engage in collaboration to improve effectiveness. An instructional leader is the person who acts as a catalyst or agent for bringing about change in effectiveness of teachers and improvement in student learning outcomes by focusing on the creation of an environment with the priority of learning (Hattie, 2009). How does the instructional leader do this? He or she makes use of knowledge and skills from a number of fields: communication theory, leadership theory, organizational theory, psychology of groups, research, and other areas. How does the instructional leader help teachers to carry out the change once they have subscribed to it? He or she applies principles and skills from leadership, professional learning, knowledge of the structure of disciplines, and from other areas. Consequently, the field of curriculum requires the use of an amalgamation of knowledge and skills from many disciplines. That curriculum theory and practice are derived from other disciplines does not in any way diminish the importance of the field. The observation of its derived nature simply characterizes its essence. Curriculum’s synthesis of elements from many fields in some ways makes it both a demanding and an exciting arena in which to work. In a cyclical fashion, the derived discipline of curriculum in turn makes its own potent impact on the disciplines from which it is derived. Through curricular research, experimentation, and application, content areas are modified; learning theories are corroborated, revised, or rejected; leadership and supervisory techniques are implemented or changed; and philosophical positions are examined. THEORETICIANS AND PRACTITIONERS.  A discipline has its theoreticians and its practitioners. Certainly, the field of curriculum has an array of people laboring in its name. Mention has already been made of some of the titles they go by: developers, digital designers, consultants, coordinators, directors, and professors of curriculum, to name but a few. This text will include them under the generic title of curriculum specialist. Curriculum specialists make a number of distinctive contributions to their field. Specialists know the types of curricula that have worked in the past, under what conditions, and with whom success resulted. Since continuous improvement is expected, specialists must be well grounded in the historical development of the curriculum and must possess the capacity to use that knowledge to help practitioners avoid historical pitfalls. Curriculum specialists generate or help to generate new curriculum concepts. In this capacity specialists draw on the past and conceive new arrangements, adaptations of existing approaches, or completely new approaches. Alternative forms of schools, for example, are newer arrangements and approaches for the same general goal of education. While curriculum specialists are engaging in the process of thinking beyond what is already known, hoping to bring to light new theories; perhaps more curriculum specialists are more likely

13

14

Part I  •  The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

to be experts in application of theory and research. These experts know the techniques of curriculum development that are most likely to result in higher achievement on the part of learners. They are familiar with variations in the organizational patterns. Such experts must be not only knowledgeable but also open to research-based innovations that give promise of bringing about higher achievement in learners.

CURRICULUM SPECIALISTS Curriculum specialists often make a unique contribution by creatively transforming theory and knowledge into practice. Through their efforts a new approach, at first experimental, gradually becomes a widespread practice after data gathering, analysis, and revision until the approach yields satisfactory results. As students of the discipline of curriculum, they also examine and reexamine theory and knowledge from their field and related fields. Awareness of past successes and failures elsewhere helps those who work in the field of curriculum to chart directions for their own curricula. Curriculum specialists are in the best position to stimulate research on curricular problems. Specialists carry out and encourage study of curricular problems, comparisons of plans and programs, results of new patterns of curriculum organization, and the histories of curriculum experiments, to indicate but a few areas of research. Specialists encourage the use of results of research to continue efforts to improve the curriculum. While classroom teachers daily concern themselves with problems of curriculum and instruction, the curriculum specialist is charged with the task of providing leadership to administrators and teachers. Since there are many different types of specialists in many different locations, you will find it difficult to generalize on their roles. Some curriculum specialists are generalists whose roles may be limited to leadership in curricular or programmatic planning or whose roles may also encompass instructional planning and decision making. Some curriculum specialists confine themselves to certain grade levels or content areas, such as elementary, middle, or secondary school; community college; special education; reading, science; early childhood; and any content area that may be taught. What can be observed is that the roles the curriculum leader plays are shaped by the supervising administrator, the school or school district needs, and by the specialist himself or herself. At varying times, the curriculum specialist must be: • • • • • • • •

a digital designer, a human relations expert, a theoretician, a data analyst, a subject matter expert, an evaluator, a researcher, and an instructor.

Curriculum Supervisors An additional clarification should be made at this point that is, the relationship between the roles of persons designated as curriculum specialists and those persons who are called curriculum supervisors. Depending upon the context the titles may be synonymous.



Chapter 1  •  Curriculum and Instruction Defined

15

In this text, a curriculum supervisor is perceived as a specialist who works in three domains: instructional development; curriculum development; and teacher professional learning (Macdonald & Leeper, 1965). When the supervisor works in the first two domains, he or she is an instructional/curriculum specialist or is often referred to as an “instructional supervisor or coordinator” (Macdonald & Leeper, 1965, pp. 5–6). Thus, the curriculum specialist is a supervisor, one with more limited responsibilities than a general supervisor, like a principal. Both the curriculum specialist and the supervisor fulfill similar roles when they work with teachers in curriculum development and instructional development, but the curriculum specialist is not primarily concerned with such activities as evaluating teachers, which are more properly responsibilities of the general supervisors. Role Variations As with so many jobs in the field of education, difficulty arises in attempting to draw firm lines that apply under all conditions and in all situations. To understand more fully the roles and functions of educational personnel, examine local practice. Teachers, curriculum specialists, and supervisors all engage in activities to improve both curriculum and instruction. At times, their roles are different and at other times their roles are similar. These personnel, all specialists in their own right, frequently trade places to accomplish the task of improvement in learning outcomes. Sometimes they are one and the same person—the teacher who is his or her own curriculum specialist and supervisor. Whatever the structure of leadership for the improvement of curriculum and instruction, all teachers and all specialists must ultimately participate in this challenging task. Because curriculum and instruction are the heart of schooling, all personnel participate in the improvement of curricular offerings and how these offerings are implemented. Chapter 3 will describe roles of personnel involved in curriculum development, including teachers, students, department chairs, lead teachers, team leaders, grade coordinators, administrators, curriculum specialists, digital designers, supervisors, and stakeholders.

Summary Curriculum and instruction are viewed as separate but dependent concepts. Curriculum is defined in a variety of ways by theoreticians. This text follows the concept of curriculum as a plan or program for the learning experiences that the learner encounters under the direction of the school. Curriculum is guided by the objectives and standards adopted by the school, school district, or educational organization. Instruction is perceived in these pages as the means for making the curriculum operational, that is, the techniques that teachers use to make the curriculum accessible to the learners. In short, curriculum is program and instruction is method. A number of models showing the relationship between curriculum and instruction have been

discussed. While all models have their strengths and weaknesses, the cyclical model seems to have particular merit for its emphasis on the reciprocity between curriculum and instruction. Planning should begin with the programmatic, that is, with curriculum decisions, rather than with instructional decisions. Appropriate planning begins with the broad aims of education and proceeds through a continuum that leads to the most detailed objectives of instruction. Curriculum is perceived as a discipline, albeit a derived one that borrows concepts and principles from many disciplines. Many practitioners work in the field of curriculum, including specialists who make a career

16

Part I  •  The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

of curriculum planning, development, and research. Teachers, curriculum specialists, and instructional supervisors share leadership responsibilities in efforts to develop the curriculum.

As a discipline, curriculum possesses (a) an organized set of principles, (b) a body of knowledge and skills for which training is needed, and (c) its theoreticians and practitioners.

Application 1. Identify the foundations upon which your state, school district, or organization based its curriculum. Investigate the influences of this curriculum and their expertise in education, leadership, and learning. 2. Unlike many entities that are held up as examples for the US to emulate in terms of student

learning, there is not a national curriculum. Ascertain how one of the highly achieving countries globally develops and implements a unified curriculum. Compare the variables involved in the US and the country of your selection.

Reflection and Inquiry 1. Review the curriculum for a grade or course in an education organization. From the review determine how the education organization defines curriculum. What changes in the definition are needed to influence development of more meaningful learning experiences for the students?

2. Think about the knowledge and skills needed to be an effective curriculum specialist. Develop criteria for the selection of an effective curriculum specialist based on the knowledge and skills you selected.

Websites Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: ascd.org National Association of Elementary School Principals: naesp.org

National Association of Secondary School Principals: principals.org National Governors Association: nga.org Association for Middle Level Education: amle.org

References Bobbitt, F. (1918). The curriculum. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Caswell, H. L., & Campbell, D. S. (1935). Curriculum development. New York, NY: American Book. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. W. Jackson, Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research Association. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Supplemental information for Appendix A of common core state standards for English language arts and literacy: New research on text complexity. Washington, DC: National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers. Doll, R. C. (1996). Instructor's manual with tests for: Curriculum improvement: Decision making and process. (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Foshay, A. W. (2000). The curriculum: Purpose, substance, practice (p. xv). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gagné, R. M. (1967). Curriculum research and the promotion of learning, in AERA Monograph Series on Evaluation: Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation. No. 1, p. 21. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Gay, G. (1990). Achieving educational equality through curriculum desegregation. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(1), 61–62. Grumet, M. R. (1988). Bitter milk: Women and teaching. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge. Hlebowitsh, P. S. (2005). Designing the curriculum. ­Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Huebner, D. (1976). The moribund curriculum field: Its wake and our work. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(2), 156. Johnson, Jr., M. (1967 April). Definitions and models in curriculum theory. Educational Theory, 17(2), 127–141. Macdonald, J. B., & Leeper, R. R. (1965). Theories of instruction. Arlington, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. McKiernan, J. (2008). Curriculum and imagination: Process theory, pedagogy and action research. London, England: Routledge.

Chapter 1  •  Curriculum and Instruction Defined

17

Oliver, A. I. (1977). Curriculum improvement: A guide to ­problems, principles, and process. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2004). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1996). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New York, NY: P. Lang. Popham, W. J., & Baker, E. L. (1970). Systematic instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Saylor, J. G., Alexander, W. M., & Lewis, A. J. (1981). Curriculum planning for better teaching and learning. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development; Theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World. Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. N. (2007). Curriculum development: Theory into practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. (2007). Curriculum development: A guide to practice. (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: ­Merrill/Prentice Hall. Wright, H. K. (2000, June–July). Nailing Jell-O to the wall: Pinpointing aspects of state-of-the-art curriculum theorizing. Educational Researcher, 29(5), 4–13.

CHAPTER 

2

Principles of Curriculum Development Learning Outcomes

CLARIFICATION OF TERMS

After studying this chapter, you should be able to: 1. Describe the 10 axioms for curriculum development discussed in this chapter. 2. Illustrate the ways the curriculum is influenced by changes in society. 3. Describe limitations affecting curriculum changes in a school district and the limitations within which a curriculum specialist functions. 4. Apply the eight concepts of curriculum construction.

The institution of education was created to serve the needs of society and the institution responds or should respond to community and societal issues. A curriculum that is responsive to the needs of the current environment is sought by curriculum developers in their context. Some situations that have influenced curricular changes are poverty, employment needs, homelessness, environmental problems, crime, drug addiction, health issues, natural disasters, climate change, decreasing natural resources, intercultural and international conflicts, the military, and industrial hazards of nuclear power. At the same time, as societal issues influence curriculum, developers also learn to apply, adapt, and adjust to the growing number of technological tools that are present in educational institutions. Because of societal changes education leaders, including curriculum specialists, attend to expectations such as: • adequate mastery of standards, particularly language arts and mathematics, • emotional and physical health, • college or career ready, • practical arts of personal finance, economics, and consumerism, • respect and tolerance for diverse perspectives and cooperation with others whose perspectives vary from one’s own, • appreciation for the arts through exposure to the various forms, • preservation of the environment, and • examination of the history to include causes, courses, and consequences from various perspectives. If the curriculum is perceived as a plan for the learning experiences under the direction of the school, its purpose is to be a vehicle that includes the depth, breadth, and order of those experiences. This process of providing the vehicle and keeping it running smoothly is commonly known as curriculum development, which includes (a) curriculum planning, the preliminary phase when decisions are made and actions taken to establish curriculum plans that teachers will implement through their instruction with students; (b) curriculum

18



Chapter  2  •  Principles of Curriculum Development

implementation, the translation of plans into action or the instruction provided by teachers; and (c) curriculum evaluation, those intermediate and final phases of development in which student learning outcomes are assessed and the viability of the curriculum’s implementation by the teacher are analyzed. On occasion, curriculum revision is used to refer to the process for making changes in an existing curriculum or to the changes themselves, and is substituted for curriculum development or curriculum improvement. You will return to the distinctions among curriculum planning, implementation, and evaluation when models of curriculum development are diagrammed and discussed in Chapter 5. Through the process of curriculum development, you can discover new ways for providing more effective student learning experiences. Successful curriculum developers continuously strive to find research based approaches for more efficient and effective means to improve student learning outcomes.

SOURCES OF CURRICULUM PRINCIPLES Principles serve as guidelines to direct the activity of persons working in a particular area. Curriculum principles are derived from many sources: (a) empirical data; (b) experimental data; (c) the folklore of curriculum, composed of unsubstantiated beliefs and attitudes; and (d) common sense. In an age of science and technology, the attitude often prevails that all principles must be scientifically derived from the results of research. Yet, even folklore and common sense can have their use. For example, the scientist has discovered that some truths underlie ancient folk remedies for human maladies and that old wives’ tales are not always the ravings of demented witches. While a garland of garlic hung around the neck may or may not fend off vampires, and asafetida on the end of a fishing line may or may not lure fish onto the hook, the aloe plant does yield a soothing ointment for burns, and the peppermint herb has reportedly relieved many a stomachache. Common sense, which is often distrusted, combines folklore, generalizations based on observation, and learning discovered through experimentation with intuition and reasoned argument. It can function not only as a source of curriculum principles, but as a methodology as well. For example, in discussing the language of curriculum more than four decades ago, Joseph J. Schwab (1970) proposed a commonsense process he called “deliberation” to deal with curriculum problems. Minimizing the search for theoretical constructs and principles, his method depends more on practical solutions to specific problems. Schwab pointed out the pitfalls of relying on theory alone. He rejected “the pursuit of global principles and comprehensive patterns, the search for stable sequences and invariant elements, the construction of taxonomies of supposedly fixed or recurrent kinds” and recommended instead “three other modes of operation . . . the practical, the quasi-practical, and the eclectic” (Schwab, 1970, p. 2). When curriculum planning is based on deliberation, judgment and common sense are applied to decision making. Some professional educators have faulted the application of common sense or judgment as a methodology, so imbued are they with a scientific approach to problem solving. In 1918, Franklin Bobbitt took note of scientific methodology in curriculum making, citing the application of measurement and evaluation techniques, diagnosis of problems, and prescription of remedies (Bobbitt, 1918). Later, Arthur W. Combs (1965) was moved to warn against too great a reliance on science for the solution of all educational problems. Whereas science may help us find solutions to some problems, not all answers to educational problems of the day can be solved using a scientific approach. Certainly, empirical data and other evidences are preferred over unsupported arguments. But there are times when, empirical data are absent or

19

20

Part I  •  The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

empirical data do not tell the entire story and, curriculum specialists must rely on observational data, student work samples and other evidences to explain the empirical data, along with intuition and experience to support changes. Unless a principle is established that is irrefutable due to objective data, some degree of judgment must be brought into play. Whenever judgment comes into the picture, the potential for controversy arises. Consequently, some of the principles for curriculum development provoke controversy, while others are generally accepted as reasonable guidelines. Controversy occurs often due to differing values and philosophical orientations of curriculum specialists as it does from lack of empirical data for making decisions. Michael W. Apple (2008) directed us “to pay particular attention to the fact that the ways in which curriculum planning and selection are done, how curricula are taught and evaluated, and who is and should be involved are not isolated phenomena. Instead, they are best understood relationally, as intricately connected to the realities, good and bad, of the societies in which they exist” (p. 25).

TYPES OF PRINCIPLES Curriculum principles may be viewed as whole truths, partial truths, or hypotheses. Though all function as operating principles, they are distinguished by their known effectiveness or by degree of risk. It is important to understand these differences before examining the major guiding principles for curriculum development. Whole Truths Whole truths are either obvious facts or concepts proved through experimentation, and they are usually accepted without challenge. For example, few will dispute that it is easier for students to master an advanced subject matter as a rule, only after they have developed the prerequisite knowledge or skills. From this principle come the practices of preassessment of entry skills and sequencing of content. Partial Truths Partial truths are based on limited data and can apply to some, many, or most situations, but they are not always universal. For example, some educators assert that student achievement is higher when students are grouped homogeneously for instruction. While some learners may achieve better results when placed in groups of like ability or achievement level, others may not. The practice of homogeneous or ability grouping may be successful with some students for certain purposes but not with others. Homogeneous grouping may permit schools to achieve certain goals of education, such as mastery of content, but prevent them from achieving other goals, such as enabling students to learn to live and work with persons of differing levels of ability. Partial truths are not half-truths containing falsehoods, but they are not applicable to every situation and do not provide all perspectives. Hypotheses Finally, some principles are neither whole nor partial truths but are hypotheses or tentative working assumptions. Curriculum specialists base these ideas on their best judgments, available research, folklore, and common sense. As one example, for many years teachers and administrators have discussed optimum class size and school size for the best learning outcomes. Educators have advocated class sizes of as few as 25 students in high school classes and fewer in elementary classes. They have been less certain as to how many students should be in a single school. Figures used



Chapter  2  •  Principles of Curriculum Development

as recommendations for class and school size are but estimates based on best judgments. School planners have reasoned that for purposes of economy and efficiency, class and school sizes can be too small. They also know from intuition or experience that class and school sizes can grow so large as to create situations that reduce educational productivity. However, the research delivers no magic number that will guarantee success in every course, classroom, and school since each situation is a unique context. While practice based on whole truth is desirable, the use of partial truths and the application of hypotheses contribute to the development of the field. Growth would be stymied if the field waited until all truths were discovered before any changes were made. Judgments, folklore, and common sense make the curriculum arena a venue for creative and purposeful development and study to achieve the best learning plans for each individual context.

TEN AXIOMS Instead of thinking of curriculum in terms of whole truths and partial truths, since so many of the principles to which practitioners subscribe have not been fully tested, think of axioms or theorems. As students of mathematics know well, both axioms and theorems serve the field well. They offer guidelines that establish a frame of reference for those seeking ways of operating and resolving problems. Several generally accepted axioms that apply to the curriculum field might serve to guide efforts of curriculum specialists. Inevitability of Change AXIOM 1.  Change is both inevitable and necessary, for it is through change that life forms grow and develop. Human institutions, like human beings themselves, grow and develop in proportion to their ability to respond to change and adapt to changing conditions. Society and its institutions continuously encounter problems to which they must respond or perish. Forrest W. Parkay, Eric J. Anctil, and the late Glen T. Hass (2006) called attention to the following major contemporary problems facing society, all of which remain continuing issues:

• • • • • • • • •

changing values and cultural diversity, changing values and morality, family, Microelectronics Revolution, changing world of work, equal rights, crime and violence, lack of purpose and meaning, and global interdependence. (Hass, 2006 pp. 52–57) To these you might add:

• • • • •

regional wars and the threat of nuclear war, national and international economic conditions, international natural disasters and conditions, national and international health needs, and global warming and ecological disasters.

The public school, one of society’s fundamental institutions, faces a plethora of contemporary challenges, some of which threaten its traditional existence. By citing only the inadequate

21

22

Part I  •  The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

financing of public schools; growth and intense competition from both secular and sectarian private schools; political support for tax credits and vouchers that may be used at any school public, private, or parochial; growth of public charter schools, both nonprofit and for-profit; and the increase in home schooling to illustrate the scope of challenges confronting the public school. These challenges have developed due to the dissatisfaction of community members and politicians with the learning outcomes of some students and the response of entrepreneurs who see an opportunity to address an education consumer need. Curriculum change in response to contemporary challenges must be foremost in the minds of curriculum developers of public schools. Curriculum as a Product of Its Time AXIOM 2.  The second axiom is a corollary of the first. Quite simply, a school curriculum not

only reflects but also is a product of its time or historical context. Though it may seem to some that the curriculum is moving slowly it has really undergone more transformations than the number of disguises assumed by a skilled master change artist. Prior to the advent of television, the Internet, and other electronic media, curriculum change came relatively slowly; in fact, it sometimes took decades. Today—due to ever-changing technology—news, opinions, and ideas flash instantaneously across the country, indeed across the world, through cell phone, Internet, and television. The world of film contributes its own take on public education as evidenced by the 2010 documentary, Waiting for Superman, which highlighted problems in American education, (Guggenheim, 2010). However, it did not take decades for thousands of schools throughout the country to put into practice and, in some cases, later abandon team teaching, instructional television, discovery learning, values clarification, behavioral objectives, computer literacy, and curriculum mapping—to mention only a few curricular innovations. Clearly, the curriculum responds to and is changed by social forces, philosophical positions, psychological principles, accumulating knowledge, and educational leadership at its moment in history. Changes in society—such as, the increased diversity of the US, the rapid growth of technology and expectation to leverage digital tools, and the need for health education—clearly influence curriculum development. You will note the pervasive effects of social forces when programs and issues are discussed in Chapter 9. The impact of the rapid accumulation of knowledge may be one of the more dramatic illustrations of forces affecting the curriculum. Certainly, some adaptations in the school’s program ought to be made as a result of discoveries of lifesaving vaccines and medications and bioengineered body parts; inventions such as artificial intelligence, digital devices, robotics; and scientific accomplishments such as the moon landings, the Mars flights, the Galileo probes, the Cassini and Genesis missions, the Hubble and Kepler Space Telescopes, and shuttles to and from the space station; and other land, sea, and space explorations. The presence of persuasive educational groups and individuals has been responsible for the adoption of curricular innovations at given moments in history, and in numerous cases caused permanent and continuing curriculum change. The effects of A Nation at Risk by the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, are illustrations of the impact persuasive groups have on the curriculum. You may even point to individuals over the course of history, speaking either for themselves or for groups that they represented, who can be credited (or blamed, depending on one’s perspective) for changes that have come about in the curriculum. Who can calculate the impact on education, for example, that Benjamin Franklin made in the eighteenth century when he established a school called the Academy which later became the University of Pennsylvania? Or the impact Horace Mann made when he fathered the Common School movement in the nineteenth century



Chapter  2  •  Principles of Curriculum Development

23

which led to free public education? What would the progressive education movement of the early twentieth century have been without John Dewey, William H. Kilpatrick, and Boyd Bode? How many secondary schools in the late 1950s and early 1960s “Conantized” their programs on the recommendations of James B. Conant, the former president of Harvard University? What impact has Maria Montessori had on elementary school programs? What responses of the curriculum in the latter half of the twentieth century can be traced to the teachings of Jean Piaget and of B. F. Skinner? What changes will come about as a result of recommendations made by Mortimer J. Adler, Ernest L. Boyer, John I. Goodlad, and Theodore R. Sizer? Table 2.1 illustrates the effects of several forces during periods of history on both the curriculum and instruction. In the barest skeletal form, American educational history has five periods: 1650–1750, 1750–1850, 1850–1950, 1950–2000, and 2000 to the present. Some of the curricular and instructional responses to the philosophical, psychological, and sociological forces of their

TABLE 2.1  Historical View of Forces Affecting Curriculum and Instruction Period

Forces

Curricular Responses

Instructional Responses

1650– 1750

Philosophy Essentialism Psychology Faculty psychology—“mind as a muscle” Sociology Theocracy–Calvinist Male chauvinism Agrarian society Rich-poor dichotomy

Latin Grammar School for boys The Bible The three R’s Classical curriculum Preparation to be a citizen

Strict discipline Rote learning Use of sectarian materials Mental discipline

1750– 1850

Philosophy Essentialism Utilitarianism Psychology Faculty psychology Sociology Industrial Revolution Westward movement Rise of middle class Increased urbanization Local tax-supported schools Progressivism

Academy Education for girls Instruction in English Natural history World languages plus three R’s and classical curriculum Private kindergartens

Mental discipline Recitation Strict discipline Some practical applications Rote learning

1850–1925: High schools

Practical applications Problem-solving

1925–1950: learner-centered curriculum Experimentalism

Attention to whole child

1850 to Philosophy 1950 Essentialism Progressivism Psychology Behavioristic Experimental Gestalt Perceptual Centralized, then de-centralized control Consolidation of schools

24

Part I  •  The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

TABLE 2.1  (Continued) Period

Forces

Curricular Responses

Instructional Responses

Sociology Settling the West

Life adjustment

Individualized Instruction

Mechanized society Open enrollment community/state colleges Urbanization Immigration End of US draft, volunteer military Civil rights, equal rights Big business Big labor Changes in family structure Cold War and its end

1950–2000 Career education Open-space education Basic skills Alternative schooling Choice: magnet schools, charter schools, vouchers, home schools Private education options Middle schools Vocational education

Environmental problems Diminishing resources Rapid growth of technology Space exploration Public demand for school accountability Unemployment Drug and alcohol abuse Crime Homelessness Racial tensions/ethnic conflicts Civil rights Persons with disabilities Aging population Religious differences World democratic movements Economic crises Global warming Health needs Globalization International tensions, conflicts, and crises Terrorism Nontraditional philanthropists Distrust of government Assessable research Meta-analysis research

2000–Present Standards based curriculum Digital schools (primary tool) Virtual schools Bullying/character education Environmental education Multicultural education Global education Health education Community schools Sexuality education Adult education Literacy education Bilingual education Consumer education Cultural literacy (core knowledge) Community service International Baccalaureate Advanced placement Technological education Public prekindergarten and kindergarten College and career ready International comparisons Private funded development

Instructional differentiation for groups Mediated instruction Education for self-discipline Achievement testing Effective teaching models Cooperative learning Whole language

Use of community resources Online distance instruction Integrated and interdisciplinary Accountability assessments Personalized instruction Single-gender classes and schools Inquiry and thinking Evidence supported writing and response Culturally responsive pedagogy English learner education Intervention and acceleration Extended school day Influence by private entity funding High effect size strategies

time are shown in the table. Periods are not distinctly separate and you will see that these forces and responses often overlap from one period to the next. Table 2.1 can continually be refined by adding other elements, but this skeletal description serves to illustrate that a curriculum is the product of its time or, as James B. Macdonald (1971)



Chapter  2  •  Principles of Curriculum Development

noted, “any reforms in institutional setting . . . are intricately related to multiple social processes and set in the context of a general cultural ethos” (pp. 98–99). Carol A. Mullen (2007) observed, “Predictions based on what students will need to know and be able to do continue to form the basis of curriculum planning today” (p. 18). Consequently, the curriculum planner is wise to identify and strategize to address forces that impinge on the schools at the local, state, national, and even international levels. Concurrent Changes AXIOM 3.  Curriculum changes made at an earlier period can exist concurrently with newer cur-

riculum changes at a later period of time. The classical curriculum of the Latin Grammar School was continued in the Academy, despite the reluctance of Benjamin Franklin. Even the first high school, established in Boston in 1821, was known as the English Classical School. It was not until three years later that the English Classical School became the English High School. Curriculum revision rarely starts and ends abruptly. Changes coexist and overlap for long periods of time. Ordinarily, curricular developments are phased in gradually and phased out the same way. Because competing forces and responses occur at different periods of time and continue to exist, curriculum development becomes a frustrating, yet challenging task. Differing philosophical positions on the nature of humankind, the destiny of the human race, good and evil, and the purposes of education have existed at every period of history. The powerful schools of essentialism and progressive thought continually strive to capture the allegiance of the profession and the public. The college preparatory curriculum, for example, vies with the career and technical curriculum for primacy. Instructional strategies that are targeted at the development of the intellect compete with strategies for treating the child in body, mind, and spirit. Even the discredited tenets of faculty psychology (mind as a muscle, mental discipline) linger in school practices. The competing responses to changing conditions have almost mandated an eclecticism, especially in the public schools. Curriculum developers select the best responses from previous times or modify them for future times based on the best available research or external mandates. Except at the most trivial level, either/or choices are almost impossible to make in complex social areas such as education. Yet, some people continue to look for and argue for either/or solutions. To some, instruction will suffer if all teachers do not post daily learning expectations for student viewing and monitoring by administrators. To others, the growth of preadolescents will be stunted unless they are educated in a school with the middle school philosophy. Some elementary school administrators seek to provide a quality education with teaching teams. Others hold firmly to the traditional self-contained classroom. Public sentiment in early twenty-first century America has identified state and national standards to be assessed, although the countries with which we aspire to achieve at a comparative level do not have such mandated accountability, such as Finland, Iceland, and Japan. Several themes are repeated through history. Critics have, for example, lambasted the schools periodically for what they conceive as failure to stress fundamental subject matter (Parkay, Anctil, & Hass, 2006). The history of curriculum development is filled not only with illustrations of recurrent philosophical themes, such as the subject-matter cacophony, but also with recurrent and cyclical curricular responses. Many of our schools have changed from an essentialistic to a progressive curriculum and back again. They have progressed from the cafeteria style high school curriculums of the 1970s to reduction of the curriculum to the measured standards in the early twenty-first century, to the realization that students are motivated to learn and stay in school by

25

26

Part I  •  The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

the arts, physical experiences, career and technical education, and other beyond the core courses. Further more, students learn various content through electives such as those mentioned. Can a student become an artist without understanding relationships in composition of the media or chemistry? Can a student in an engineering course not address reading, writing, mathematics, science, and high-level thinking? Schools have moved from self-contained to open space to self-contained; elementary schools have shifted from self-contained to nongraded/multigraded to self-contained; schools have taught the old mathematics, then the new mathematics, and afterward reverted to a previous form, or more recently to inquiry mathematics; they have followed the phonics method of teaching reading, changed to look/say methods, and whole language, and then back to phonics-based for primary grades understanding that students are measured in vocabulary and comprehension, not in word calling. The late 1900s saw a rise in world language offerings. However, a survey conducted by the Center for Applied Linguistics revealed a decline in number of elementary and middle schools offering world languages between its last survey in 1997 and 2008. Signaling once again the effect of social, political, and cultural needs on the curriculum, Arabic grew in those schools offering foreign languages whereas French, German, and Russian declined, (Rhodes & Pufhal, n.d.) On the other hand, some schools, particularly the essentialistic, have remained unchanged and continue to offer Latin, while social transformations have swirled around them. As Spanish speaking families have immigrated to the US, Spanish language instruction has adjusted to have special courses for native Spanish speakers as their needs often vary from the native English learner taking Spanish as a second or world language. The schools of the early days in America stressed basic skills taught in strict expectations of discipline, even to the point that students may have been required to stand to address the teacher. The early twentieth-century schools went beyond basic skills—some would say away from basic skills—to concern for students’ diverse needs and interests in a more inclusive environment. Schools of the present emphasize grade level proficiency for reading, mathematics, and other specific areas or courses that may be measured in specific contexts and grades such as Biology, Algebra 1, U.S. History, etc. While the climate and cultures of schools may have changed and are more inclusive and valuing of differences, respect for the adults and other students in the school is expected. In some school districts, there are even school board policies, which may be called codes of conduct that have as their purposes consistency in expectations of responses to certain misbehaviors. As curricular themes are often recapitulated, some teachers and curriculum developers are disposed to maintain the status quo, concluding that their current mode of operation, while it may be out of favor now, will be in style again sometime in the future. “Why change when we are probably going to eventually change back?” they ask. When the status quo no longer serves the needs of the learners or of society, the maintenance of the status quo is inexcusable, for it prohibits accomplishment of the ethical expectation of serving the students in the most efficacious and informed manner. Even if prior responses return later, they should result from a re-examination of the forces of that time. Thus, the re-emergence of prior responses will be new responses, not old in the sense of being unchanging and unchangeable. To illustrate, in The Art and Science of Teaching: A Framework for Effective Instruction, Robert J. Marzano (2007) communicates that Madeline Hunter’s elements of lesson design continue to be sound today as a framework for lesson construction (Hunter, 1984; Marzano, 2007, p. 181). Through the influence of Hunter, and then Marzano and his contemporaries, this lesson design model continues to be an expectation for many teachers in the US. In fact, it may even be part of teachers’ formal annual evaluation system.



Chapter  2  •  Principles of Curriculum Development

Change in People AXIOM 4.  Curriculum change results from changes in people. Thus, curriculum developers should begin with an attempt to change the people who must ultimately effect curriculum change. This effort implies involving people in the process of curriculum development to gain their commitment to change. Experience over a long period of time has demonstrated that top down approaches do not work well as a rule. Not until the subordinates have internalized the changes and accepted them as their own can the changes be effective and long lasting. Many school personnel lack commitment because they are denied this involvement in change and their contributions to change have been deprecated. The importance of effecting change in people has been stressed by curriculum experts for many years and was noted by Alice Miel (1946):

To change the curriculum of the school is to change the factors interacting to shape the curriculum. In each instance, this means bringing about changes in people—in their desires, beliefs, and attitudes, in their knowledge and skill. Even changes in the physical environment, to the extent that they can be made at all, are dependent upon changes in the persons who have some control over that environment. In short, the nature of curriculum change should be seen for what it really is—a type of social change, change in people, not mere change on paper. (Miel, 1946, p. 10)

This axiom may be interpreted incorrectly to mean that 100 percent commitment of all affected parties must be achieved before a curriculum change can be implemented. Is it possible to obtain 100 percent consensus on any issue in education? Somewhere between a simple majority and universal agreement would appear to be a reasonable expectation. Involvement of persons affected in the process itself will succeed in garnering support even from those who may not be in total agreement with the final curricular product. The curriculum developer should ensure that all persons have an opportunity to contribute to a proposed change before it is too far along. No persons should be involved in a less than authentic process whereby teachers and others are brought into the planning process when it is a foregone conclusion that the curriculum change will be implemented whether the participants accept it or not. The “curriculum leader or specialist knows best” attitude will not serve well in either development and design nor in implementation with fidelity. If an innovative and forwardthinking curriculum is developed, without strategic involvement of those who will implement it and a preparation process for implementation with fidelity, then the effort to revise the curriculum may be wasted. Human capital is a scarce resource and therefore, others’ time and school district funds should be respected with authentic involvement in the curriculum development and implementation process to achieve intended outcomes. Teachers, administrators, and stakeholders desire to be empowered, which enables them to exercise a degree of control over what happens in their schools. For further discussion of empowerment, see Chapter 4, which expands on the process for instituting and effecting curriculum change. Collaborative Endeavor AXIOM 5.  Curriculum change is effected as a result of collaborative endeavor on the part of groups. Although an individual teacher working in isolation might conceivably, and sometimes actually does, effect changes in the curriculum by himself or herself, large and fundamental changes are brought about as a result of group decision making. Numerous authorities over the years have underscored the group nature of curriculum development. George J. Posner and

27

28

Part I  •  The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

Alan N. Rudnitsky (2006) affirmed that “Curriculum development is typically done by teams of people working together on a common project” (p. 13). Several groups or constituencies are involved in curriculum development in differing roles and with differing intensities. Students and other stakeholders often, though perhaps not as frequently as might be desired, join forces with educational personnel in the complex job of planning a curriculum. Teachers and curriculum specialists constitute the professional core of planners. These professionally prepared persons carry the weight of curriculum development. They work together under the direction of the school and school district administrators whose task is to facilitate the curriculum development efforts at all stages of the process. Students enter the process of curriculum development as direct recipients of benefits that result from curriculum change, and parents are brought in as the persons most vitally concerned with the welfare of their own students and the community. It is common for students and stakeholders to be invited to participate in the process of curriculum planning. Some school districts go beyond parents of children in their schools and seek representation from the total community, parents and nonparents alike. With the emphasis on how education (PreK-12 and higher education) impacts the local and state economies, business and community leaders have interest in the curriculum and resulting preparedness of students to be productive contributors to the economy. Broad community involvement in providing input related to school offerings is a positive approach for designing curriculum that will have support when implemented. Generally, any significant change in the curriculum should involve all the aforementioned constituencies, as well as the school’s noncertificated personnel. The more people affected by the change, and the greater its complexity and costs, the greater the number of persons and groups that should be involved. The roles of various individuals and groups in curriculum development are examined in Chapter 4. Although some limited gains certainly take place through independent curriculum development within the walls of a classroom, significant curriculum improvement comes about through collaborative planning and problem solving. Results of group deliberation are not only more extensive than individual efforts, but the process by which the group works together allows members to share their ideas and to reach consensus. In this respect, members help each other to change and to achieve commitment to change. Carl D. Glickman (1998) averred: “Any comprehensive changes made without the understanding and support of at least a core majority of educators and parents will fail, not necessarily because of the changes themselves (Glickman, 1998, p. 39). But because of the way they came about” (p. 28). “Regardless of how insupportable is the case for keeping schools as they are, without a way for educators, parents, and citizens to understand, discuss, and participate in new possibilities, change efforts for the long term will be for naught” (p. 39). Being cognizant of the attitudes of varying constituents that have a stake in curriculum development is a fundamental responsibility of the curriculum developer (Taba, 1962). Change Leadership Those who lead curriculum change and implementation may either have been directed to lead specific change or perhaps they have identified that curriculum redevelopment is needed from analysis student learning outcome data and progress towards meeting school district or school strategic goals. There are three categories of planned change that are generally considered. All three may apply to curriculum development: empirical rational strategies, power coercive strategies, and normative reducative strategies (Bennis, Benne, & Chin, 1985).



Chapter  2  •  Principles of Curriculum Development

Empirical rational strategies are based on using research (empirical) to develop changes in practice and are useful when those who will implement the change see the change as beneficial or rational for their work. An example would be when a grant recipient develops a needed assessment for reading comprehension and through dissemination of the grant outcomes, the assessment is then shared with State Education Authority (SEAs) and Local Education Authorities (LEAs) resulting in a fairly rapid adoption of the new reading assessment. The second category of strategy is power coercive, and is reliant on the power, often political or legislated to drive the change. An example of power coercive change was the direction from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) that all students would be reading on grade level by 2013, resulting in curricular changes across the country. Readers can evaluate how effective this change strategy was for your own context. Normative re-educative strategies are grounded in the thinking that stability without change is often comfortable and therefore, change in curriculum may not be invited from outside entities. Those within the organization identify changes in curriculum that may be needed. Then, curriculum leaders collaborate with those who will most probably influence or be involved in implementation of the curriculum change. Through the collaborative process curriculum changes needed are created along with the process for implementation. Each of the three categories of change leadership may be applied over time. As curriculum leaders, part of the role is determining the most efficacious strategy for the target change and your context. As you think about leading curricular change, consider that it is also human capacity building and professional learning for all who are involved in the collaboration. Per Fullan (2010), as the capacity of individuals and the collaborating group are developed, focused on improving student learning outcomes, then the improvements will be sustainable and continuing. Decision-Making Process AXIOM 6.  Curriculum development is basically a decision-making process. Curriculum planners, working together, make a variety of decisions, including the examples that follow.

1. Disciplines.  The absence or limited presence of philosophy, anthropology, driver education, and sometimes art, foreign languages, music, and physical education from the curriculum of schools indicates that priorities have led to decisions being made about the subjects that are most important for students to learn. 2. Competing Viewpoints.  Planners are to use research and their context to determine which approaches are best for students. An example that has been controversial in some contexts is to have bilingual education or to provide another education opportunity for English learners. Planners make decisions about how students with disabilities will be served and the extent of inclusion in schools. Other common decisions relate to student grouping which could be heterogeneous or homogenous, by achievement on accountability assessments, or by student choice and interest. 3. Emphases.  With the expectation of increased graduation rate, along with students being college and career ready, decisions about how to accelerate students who are not grade level proficient in reading and mathematics is determined as early as kindergarten and through high school. Similar determinations relate to emphasis on providing rigorous learning opportunities for all students or just for select groups (Taylor, Watson, & Nutta, 2015). Emphases are to be developed before the curriculum development or re-development process begins. 4. Instructional Methods and Resources.  Curriculum development frequently extends to the instructional implementation and suggests methods or approaches for efficacious

29

30

Part I  •  The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

implementation. Examples of queries that would lead to instructional and resource decisions follow. Will digital tools be a priority to provide flexible access for learners and teachers? How much time is expected for the elementary school reading block? If the reading block is expected to be more than one hour, how much time will then remain for mathematics, science, social studies, the arts, and physical education? Or, will science and social studies concepts be learned by reading informational text and non-fiction during the reading block? 5. Organization.  Organization of the school day and year impacts curriculum development. If school communities adopt philosophies of continuous progress based on mastering competencies, the curriculum would have to have extremely well-coordinated vertical alignment. If classes are team taught with a social studies educator and English language arts educator, then integrating the two disciplines for facilitated instruction would be an important component of the curriculum organization. With the expansion of virtual schools and virtual courses taken by students in brick and mortar schools, new organizational considerations have arisen to be considered. Two necessary characteristics of a curriculum planner are the ability to effect decisions after sufficient study of a problem and the willingness to make decisions (Glickman, 1998). Every decision involves calculated risk, for no one—despite what some experts may claim—has all the answers to all the problems or a single panacea for every problem. With this in mind, collaborative decision making that begins with establishing parameters, some of which were identified in this section, will facilitate the process. Curriculum planning decisions are to be made on the basis of the best available research and evidence that suggests optimum opportunities for all learners to achieve at the level expected. Although the task of making curricular decisions may be difficult in complex contexts, the opportunity to make choices from among many alternatives is an advantage in school districts in the US. Continuous Process AXIOM 7.  Curriculum development is a never-ending process. Curriculum planners constantly strive for the ideal, yet the ideal eludes them. Perfection in the curriculum will never be achieved. The curriculum can always be improved, and many times better solutions can be found to accomplish specific objectives. As the needs of learners change, as society changes, as technology unfolds, and as new knowledge appears, the curriculum must change. Curriculum evaluation should affect subsequent planning and implementation. Curriculum goals and objectives and plans for curricular organization should be modified as evidence based feedback reveals the need. Curriculum development is not finished when a single curricular problem has been temporarily solved, nor when a newer, revised program has been instituted. Continual evidence and data gathering to monitor fidelity of implementation is necessary to assure that the program is on track and that when problems arise, reasonable solutions are developed. Further, adequate records should be maintained of curriculum committees’ processes so that in the future there will be an organizational memory for reference and comparison. Using an online collaborative site where participants can contribute and have access will provide interested parties empowerment and a voice to maintain engagement in the continual improvement.

Comprehensive Process AXIOM 8.  Curriculum development is a comprehensive process. Historically, curriculum

revision has been a hit-or-miss procedure: patching, cutting, adding, plugging in, shortening,



Chapter  2  •  Principles of Curriculum Development

lengthening, and troubleshooting. Hilda Taba (1962) made the same observation when she likened curriculum development to quilt making: the compilation of diverse individual contributions that are interconnected only by threads of similarity (p. 8). Curriculum planning has often been too fragmentary rather than comprehensive or holistic. Too many curriculum planners have focused on the trees and not seen the forest. The popular expression that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts applies well to curriculum development. Although parts of the curriculum may be studied separately, planners are to frequently and periodically view the macrocurriculum—that is, the curriculum as a whole, as distinguished from the sum of its parts. A comprehensive view encompasses an awareness of the impact of curriculum development not only on the students, teachers, and parents directly concerned with a programmatic change, but also on the innocent bystanders, those not directly involved in the curriculum planning but affected in some way by the results of planning. Human sexuality education, an example that is sensitive in many communities, may affect not only teachers, students, and parents of students for whom the program is intended but also teachers, students, and parents of those who are not scheduled for the instruction. Some from the groups involved may not wish to be included. Others from the groups not in the program may wish to receive the instruction. There may be those from both groups who reject the subject as inappropriate for the school. The comprehensive approach to curriculum planning requires a generous investment of physical and human resources. Curriculum specialists engage in planning for curriculum development or in what might be referred to as developing the management plan. Some predetermination is made prior to initiating curriculum development as to whether the tangible resources, the personnel, and sufficient time will be available to provide a reasonable expectation of success. Not only must personnel be identified, but their sense of motivation, expertise, and other commitments are also to be taken into consideration by the curriculum leaders. Perhaps one of the reasons that curriculum development has historically been fragmented and piecemeal is the level of demand that the comprehensive approach places on the school district’s resources. Systematic Development AXIOM 9.  Systematic curriculum development is more effective than trial and error. Curriculum

development should ideally be made comprehensive by examination of the whole and should be made systematic by following an established set of procedures. Procedures, including norms of collaboration for the participants, should be agreed upon and known by all those who participate in the development of the curriculum. Curriculum planners are more likely to be productive and successful if they follow an agreed-upon model for curriculum development and collaboration that outlines or charts the sequence of steps and the norms of collaboration that will be part of the process. If the curriculum specialist subscribes to the foregoing axioms and consents to modeling his or her behavior based on these axioms, will success be guaranteed? The answer is an obvious “no,” for there are many limitations on curriculum specialists, some of which are beyond their control. Among the restrictions on the curriculum planner are the style and personal philosophy of the administrator, the resources of the school district, the community context, the expertise, knowledge, and skills of the participants in curriculum development, and the availability of professional materials and resource persons. One of the greatest limitations—sometimes overlooked because it is so obvious and encompassing—is the existing curriculum. Many treatises have been written by curriculum experts on the characteristics of different types of curriculum. The earmarks of an activity

31

32

Part I  •  The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

curriculum, a subject-matter curriculum, a broad-fields curriculum, and variations of core curricula are described in detail in the literature. From a purely cognitive base such discussions are useful. But the inference may be drawn that the choice of a type of curriculum is an open one, which would be rare. To change the curriculum type, say to a problem based integrated curriculum from a discrete standards based individual subject content curriculum, would take many months of investigation into the feasibility of implementation, not just of development. Starting from the Existing Curriculum AXIOM 10.  The curriculum developer starts from where the current curriculum is, just as the

teacher starts from the current achievement of each student. Curriculum change does not take place overnight. Few quantum leaps can be found in the field of curriculum, and this condition may be a positive value rather than a negative one, for slow but steady progress toward change allows time for data gathering, data analysis, improvement, and revision. Because most curriculum planners begin with already existing curricula, their role is essentially curriculum re-development. The investment of human capital, their thinking, and school district funds to support re-development generally does not result in eliminating previous curriculum, but building upon it.

EIGHT CONCEPTS OF CURRICULUM CONSTRUCTION Although a model for curriculum development may show a process, it does not reveal the whole picture. It does not show, for example, how to select from competing content, what to do about conflicting philosophies, and how to assure articulation between levels. The eight guiding concepts to be discussed are not only perennial problems for curriculum developers but are also concepts that lead to the formulation of principles of curriculum development. The creation of a well-functioning sequence, for example, is a continuing problem for the curriculum developer. At the same time, the curriculum planner must understand the concept of sequencing, which is essential to an effective curriculum. Bringing together the two elements, curriculum and sequencing, the principle is formulated that an effective curriculum is one that is properly sequenced. All eight concepts are interrelated. First to be examined are four concepts that are closely related to each other: scope, relevance, balance, and integration. The last three are dimensions of scope; all four relate to the choice of goals and objectives. Next to be considered are three other closely interrelated concepts: sequence, continuity, and articulation. The last two are dimensions of sequencing. Finally, you will review the concept of transferability. Scope Scope is usually defined as the breadth of the curriculum. The content of any course or grade level—identified as topics, learning experiences, activities, organizing threads or elements, integrative threads, or organizing centers—constitutes the scope of the curriculum for that course or grade level (Tyler, 1949; Bloom, 1958; Goodlad, 1963). The summed content of the several courses or grade levels makes up the scope of the school curriculum. J. Galen Saylor and William M. Alexander (1954), in an earlier work, defined scope in the following way: “By scope is meant the breadth, variety, and types of educational experiences that are to be provided pupils as they progress through the school program. Scope represents the latitudinal axis for selecting curriculum experiences” (p. 284).



Chapter  2  •  Principles of Curriculum Development

When teachers select the content that will be learned during the year, they are making decisions on scope. When curriculum planners at the school district or state level set the minimum requirements for graduation from high school, they are responding to the question of scope. ORGANIZING CENTERS OR THREADS.  John I. Goodlad (1963) defined the elements of scope as “the actual focal points for learning through which the school’s objectives are to be attained”  (p. 28). He wanted to convey the meaning of these elements as one term for the following reason:

Nowhere in the educational literature is there a term that conveys satisfactorily what is intended in these focal points. The words activities and learning experiences are used most frequently but are somewhat misleading. Under the circumstances there is virtue in using the technical term organizing centers. Although somewhat awkward, the term does permit the inclusion of such widely divergent focal points for learning as units of work, cultural epochs, historical events, a poem, a film on soil erosion, and a trip to the zoo. The organizing center for teaching and learning may be as specific as a book on trees or as general as press censorship in the twentieth century. Organizing centers determine the essential character of the curriculum. (Goodlad, 1963, p. 28)

In a similar vein, Tyler (1949) advised those who are organizing the curriculum to identify the organizing threads or elements, that is, the basic concepts and skills to be taught (p. 86). Thus, curriculum planners choose the focal points, the basic concepts and skills, and the knowledge that will be included in the curriculum. A central problem of this horizontal organization, called scope, is the delimitation of the concepts, skills, knowledge, and attitudes to be included. AIMS PROCEDURE.  By working collaboratively with others, curriculum specialists select the

concepts, skills, and knowledge to be incorporated into the curriculum for areas not previously designated by standards or an education organization. Many years ago, Hollis L. Caswell and Doak S. Campbell (1935) suggested a procedure for determining the scope of the curriculum. Referring to the process as the “aims procedure,” they outlined the steps as follows. First, a general all-inclusive aim of education is stated. Second, this all-inclusive statement is broken up into a small number of highly generalized statements. Third, the statement of a small number of aims is divided to suit the administrative organization of the school [for the elementary, junior high, or senior high school divisions]. . . . Fourth, the aims of each division are further broken up by stating the objectives to be achieved by each subject. Fifth, the general objectives for the subjects in each division are analyzed into specific objectives for the several grades; that is, statements in as specific terms as possible are made of the part of the subject objectives to be achieved in each grade. The specific objectives for all the subjects in each grade represent the work to be carried forward in the respective grades and indicate the scope of work for the grades. (Caswell & Campbell, 1935, p. 152)

Caswell and Campbell perceived the specific objectives—not learning experiences, focal points, topics, or organizing threads—as indicating the scope of the curriculum. NECESSARY DECISIONS.  With time so precious and the content burden so great, every organizing center included in the curriculum must be demonstrably superior to those not included. Decisions as to the superiority of the selected elements are reached by group consensus, by expertise, or by both. Curriculum planners answer questions to which there are no easy answers, like these:

• What do students need to succeed in our society? • What are the needs of your locality, state, nation, and world?

33

34

Part I  •  The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

• What are or will be the essentials of each discipline, including the past, present, and the future? Decisions on the scope of the curriculum are multiple and relate to the curriculum as a whole for the various disciplines, courses, or content within the disciplines, units, and individual lessons. Curriculum planners make decisions on scope not only within each of the three domains of learning but also from among the domains. Within the domains they must raise questions such as the following: • Shall a course in geology as well as human geography be included (cognitive)? • Shall the development of charity and/or the attitude of cooperation be included (affective)? • Shall physical education and dance be included (psychomotor)? Curriculum planners may find the determination of scope within a domain, albeit taxing, easier to resolve than making decisions between domains. Which domain, it must be asked, is most important? This question resurrects philosophical arguments about the nature of knowledge as well as the nature and needs of learners and of society. What knowledge is worth more? Arno Bellack (1965) addressed this question, and concluded that schools should enable teachers to develop students’ knowledge in the major disciplines. Other theorists stressed the domain of knowledge, the cognitive domain. Jerome S. Bruner (1962) wrote: “The structure of knowledge—its connectedness and its derivations that make one idea follow another—is the proper emphasis in education” (p. 120); Robert L. Ebel (1972) championed cognitive learning; and Philip H. Phenix (1962) said: “My thesis, briefly, is that all curriculum content should be drawn from the disciplines, or to put it another way, that only knowledge contained in the disciplines is appropriate to the curriculum” (p. 57). Combs, Kelley, and Rogers (1962) on the other hand, looked beyond the realm of knowledge to the development of values and the self-concept as central to the educational process. Many teachers and curriculum planners, do not rely on their own judgment, leaving decisions on scope to others—to curriculum consultants, to writers of curriculum guides, and to the authors and publishers of textbooks. Thus, the scope may consist of many pages of one or more texts, and the determination is made simply by dividing the number of pages by the number of days of schooling or by dividing the number of topics and learning activities in a course of study by the number of days or weeks. Although this simplistic planning is better than none, the curriculum would be far more pertinent if planners exercised, through a systematic, collaborative process, their own combined professional judgment and selected from the entire field only those concepts, skills, and knowledge they deemed appropriate to their school, learners, society, state, region, and country. Since the implementation of standards and accountability for student learning outcomes, there have been changes in the examination of scope by instructional leaders and teachers. Because of the scrutiny of the outcomes, teachers collaborate and add in their own experience about how much time it takes for students to develop proficiency on a particular standard or instructional goal and objective. Even with vast resources of curriculum guides, teacher teams wrestle with portioning time where it is most needed and allowing for differentiation and reteaching as needed. Though standards based education does provide some limitations on curriculum decision making, it does not eliminate the many decisions that teachers make in planning, organizing, presenting, and evaluating learning to support students’ success.



Chapter  2  •  Principles of Curriculum Development

Relevance The challenge of the principle of relevance is, how is it determined and by whom? Relevance in one context may not be quite as relevant in another. VARYING INTERPRETATIONS.  The difficulty of determining relevance lies in the multitude of

interpretations of the word. What is considered relevant education for suburbia may not be for urban centers. What is considered relevant for the Anglo may not be for the Hispanic. What is relevant to the essentialists may not be to the progressivists. Relevance, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. “Like the words relation and relating,” said Harry S. Broudy (1972), “relevance excludes virtually nothing, for everything mentionable is relevant in some sense to everything else that is mentionable” (p. 179). Think broadly of generally relevant. Whether the curriculum is relevant or not may be beside the point. The consumers of curriculum, the constituents and patrons of the school, will form attitudes toward relevance. Curriculum developers consider perceptions of relevance before they consider with the question of relevance itself. William Glasser (1992) attributed students’ perceptions of their lessons as “boring” to the fact that they could not relate what they were studying to their lives (p. 7). Conflicts come about between the academic studies and the career-technical curricula. Preparation for careers is of extreme importance. Students can see the value in skill courses but often do not realize that the academic areas may (a) provide a foundation needed in every curriculum and (b) open new vistas toward other careers. Disagreements over relevance arise from differing conceptions of what exists in society and what should exist in society. The question becomes: should curriculum planners educate students for life as it is or as they think it should be or will be? Should the curriculum develop the desire to read nonfiction, to subscribe to scholarly journals, to listen to classical music, and to frequent art galleries? Should the curriculum encourage students to make money, to prefer pop fiction, to enjoy rock music, and to artistically liven up their own homes? Should the curriculum remain neutral and abstain from all such value-laden content, or, conversely, should it introduce the learners to a range of content and experiences? Arguments arise over the relative merits of the concrete versus the abstract. Some prefer to concentrate on content that can be experienced with the senses whereas others prefer to concentrate on developing the intellect through high-level generalizations. AN EXPLANATION OF RELEVANCE.  B. Othanel Smith (1969) clearly explained relevance when

he wrote: The teacher is constantly asked “Why should I learn that?” “What is the use of studying history?” “Why should I be required to take biology?” If the intent of these questions is to ask what use can one make of them in everyday activities, only general answers are possible. We can and do talk about the relevance of subject matter to the decisions and activities that pupils will have to make. We know, among other things, that they must: • • • •

choose and follow a vocation, exercise the tasks of citizenship, engage in personal relationships, take part in culture-carrying activities . . . 

 . . . the question of relevance boils down to the question of what is most assuredly useful.  (Smith, 1969, pp. 130–131)

35

36

Part I  •  The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

Smith (1969) admitted that it is difficult to show the utility of abstract subject matter: Unfortunately, the utility of this form of subject matter is much more difficult to demonstrate. . . . Perhaps the chief reason utility of abstract knowledge cannot be demonstrated to the skeptic is that a great deal of it functions as a second-order utility. A first-order utility is illustrated in the skills that we use in everyday behavior such as handwriting and reading. The second-order utility consists of a learning that shapes behavior, but which is not itself directly observable in behavior. (Smith, 1969, p. 131) USES OF KNOWLEDGE.  Smith (1969) classified the uses of knowledge that are not directly

observable as associative, interpretive, and applicative. By associative Smith meant the learner’s ability to relate knowledge freely, sometimes bringing about solutions to problems. Abstract knowledge helps individuals to interpret their environment, which they cannot do without fundamental knowledge. Abstract subject matter enables learners to apply concepts to solve new problems. Curriculum specialists in collaboration with others decide what is meant by relevance and then proceed to make the curriculum as relevant as possible. Balance Balance is an unusual curriculum concept that on the surface seems obvious but with some probing becomes somewhat cloudy. Nailing down a precise definition of balance is difficult. Many— perhaps most—educators think that the curriculum is in a state of imbalance. Years ago, Paul M. Halverson (1961) made an observation that could well be repeated today: “Curriculum balance will probably always be lacking because institutions of all kinds are slow in adapting to new needs and demands of the culture except when social change is rapid and urgent in its implications for these institutions” (p. 7). The search for a definition of balance is complicated by differing interpretations as it applies to the curriculum. Halverson (1961) spoke of balancing ends and means, as follows: “A balanced curriculum implies structure and order in its scope and sequence (means) leading to the achievement of educational objectives (ends)” (p. 4). Goodlad (1963) would bring the learner-centered curriculum and the subject-centered curriculum into balance, commenting: Much recent and current controversy over the curriculum centers on the question of what kind and how much attention to give learners and subject matter, respectively. The prospect of stressing one to the exclusion of the other appears scarcely worthy of consideration. Nonetheless, the interested observer has little difficulty finding school practices emphasizing one component to the impoverishment of the other. (Goodlad, 1963 p. 29)

Ronald C. Doll (1996) looked at balance from the learner’s standpoint and described it as follows: A balanced curriculum for a given learner at a given time would completely fit the learner in terms of his or her particular educational needs at that time. It would contain just enough of each kind of subject matter to serve the individual’s purposes and to speed his or her development. . . . Perhaps the best that can be done in working toward balance is to be clearer about what is valued for the growth of individual learners and then to apply these values in selecting curriculum content, grouping pupils for instruction, providing for articulation, and furthering guidance programs. (Doll, 1996 pp. 186–187)



Chapter  2  •  Principles of Curriculum Development

In the foregoing comments Goodlad (1963) stressed the need for balance between the learner and the subject-centered curriculum, whereas later Doll (1996) emphasized the need for a curriculum that fits individuals through a judicious balance of group and individual experiences. SETS OF VARIABLES.  You may apply the principle of balance in several ways. Given the typi-

cal elementary school, middle school, and high school, curriculum planners seek balance among variables, a few noted in this text. You will note that some of the sets of variables call for proportions or splits other than a 50-50 distribution. There are times when a balance does not mean equal proportion. 1. The learner-centered and the subject-centered curriculum.  This variable presupposes a balance between the conflicting philosophies of progressivism and essentialism. 2. The needs of society and the needs of the learner.  The curriculum must be not only socially but also personally oriented. 3. General and specialized education.  While the curriculum of a high school consists of core education courses that could comprise a majority of the curriculum offerings, electives must be available for learners in specialized fields. School districts in various parts of the country offer alternatives to the general-specialized-education balance by providing magnet programs in separate schools or within a school for specialized education. Also, they meet student needs by allowing dual enrollment in both the high school and a career technical school, community college, or state college, or by joining forces with other public schools to operate an area career technical center. Online coursework is another approach that allows school districts to meet the needs of their students. 4. Breadth and depth.  The curriculum can be so broad as to be superficial or conversely so profound as to limit. 5. The three domains may create a three-way balance.  You cannot ignore the cognitive or affective or psychomotor domain. 6. Individualization and general education.  Find ways to individualize or personalize instruction within the context of a school district. It may be that digital resources hold the most promise for meeting each individual’s needs in addition to the expert instructor. 7. Innovation and stability.  Stability is comfortable and encourages development of expertise. Constant innovation can provide cognitive overload for those who are to implement. Evaluation of implementation over time, is essential to know if implementation is with fidelity and if the fidelity or the innovation are most linked to outcomes, either positive or negative. 8. The needs of the exceptional and the nonexceptional student.  All learners are expected to be successful so the varying needs of special needs learners, high achieving learners, English learners, and all of those in between are essential. 9. Within and across disciplines.  Disciplines may compete for time in the curriculum, just as there is competition for content learning within a discipline. Integration Curriculum specialists may choose to provide for integrating subject matter. Integration, in the context of a curriculum construction concept, means the blending, fusion, or unification of disciplines. A fully integrated curriculum tears down barriers between disciplines and fuses disciplines under overarching themes or topics. Unlike the determination of scope and sequence, which must be accomplished, the integration of disciplines is an optional and controversial undertaking. Whether to integrate the curriculum is an issue that divides educators.

37

38

Part I  •  The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

Whether curriculum planners choose to integrate subject matter hinges upon their philosophy of the nature of knowledge, the nature of learners, and the purposes of education. Many educators support the integration of subject matter based on their analyses of studies pointing to successes with interdisciplinary curricular plans. Tyler (1949) defined integration as “the horizontal relationship of curriculum experiences” and went on to say, “The organization of these experiences should be such that they help the student increasingly to get a unified view and to unify his behavior in relation to the elements dealt with” (p. 85). Hilda Taba (1962) commented that learning is more effective when connections among various fields of study are made explicit, especially when one is applying knowledge. Subject matter may be organized based on separate disciplines with their own time blocks. Another approach is to integrate it either on a schoolwide basis (as with the core curriculum) or on the classroom level (as with certain types of unit plans) without regard for disciplines. Not all educators, of course, are advocates of integrating subject matter. Some believe that the various disciplines should be taught separately. Thus, they reject the broad-fields approach to curriculum organization and recommend that teachers and students concentrate on the separate disciplines. Correlation of the curriculum is a type of integration and is the relating of subjects to one another while still maintaining their separateness. Relationships among subjects taught at a particular school level are shown to students, as in the cases of history and literature; mathematics and science; art, music, and literature. Subjects may be correlated horizontally across one grade level or vertically across two or more. As an example of the latter, world history, taught in the sophomore year, may be aligned with the literature that students read at about the same time. TWO VIEWS OF CURRICULUM INTEGRATION.  Taba offered two views of curriculum integration. The first view is the horizontal relationship of subjects. In addition, said Taba (1962), “Integration is also defined as something that happens to an individual” (p. 299). If you follow the second view, “The problem, then, is that of developing ways of helping individuals in this process of creating a unity of knowledge. This interpretation of integration throws the emphasis from integrating subjects to locating the integrative threads” (Taba, 1962, p. 299). Regardless of whether the subject matter is presented to the learner in an integrated fashion, the learner must integrate the knowledge into his or her own long-term memory. If new information is not integrated into prior knowledge then it will not be retrievable accurately and quickly at a later date, for example in the spring when accountability assessments take place. Taba (1962) remarked:

Unification of subjects has been a theme in education ever since the Herbartians. By far the greatest number of experimental curriculum schemes have revolved around the problem of unifying learning. At the same time we are far from achieving unification, partly because of fear of loss of disciplined learning if the study of specialized subjects is discarded, and partly because as yet no effective basis has been found for unifying school subjects. (Taba, 1962, pp. 298–299)

You have seen and will see a number of references to interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary integrated curricula in this text. Although leaders and teachers may seek to employ an interdisciplinary approach to curriculum and instruction at more than one level, integration of the curriculum was, in the days of the core curriculum, found more frequently in middle schools. Integrated curricula challenge the time-honored organization of curricula into separate disciplines. Curriculum planners must decide whether they will make a conscious effort either to



Chapter  2  •  Principles of Curriculum Development

correlate or to integrate subject matter and, if they plan to do either, determine the organizational structure they will create to do so. Scope, relevance, balance, and integration are interrelated principles to which curriculum specialists give attention. Sequence Sequence is the order in which the organizing elements or centers are arranged by the curriculum planners. Whereas scope is referred to as “the what” of curriculum organization, sequence is referred to as “the when.” Sequence answers the questions of when and where the focal points will be placed and may be referred to as a pacing guide, which not only includes sequence, but also the approximate time the unit of instruction may proceed. Some time ago Saylor and Alexander (1954) defined sequence as: the order in which educational experiences are developed with pupils. Sequence refers to the “when” in curriculum planning. Determination of the sequence of educational experiences is a decision as to the most propitious time in which to develop those educational experiences suggested by the scope. If we think of scope as the latitudinal aspect of curriculum planning, sequence becomes the longitudinal axis. (Saylor & Alexander, 1954, p. 249)

Once the scope is determined, then the order of the content in the flow is decided. In some subjects, there are prerequisite skills and knowledge that are thought to be important, and in other cases the sequence is a preference. In history, chronological order may be a natural organizational sequence. In some cases, history and social studies curriculums are organized by themes, in which case the chronology takes second place in the sequence of decision making. Other considerations in sequence that may be considered are: the learners, the prerequisite knowledge needed, challenge of the curriculum objective, instructional objective, and learning targets. WAYS OF SEQUENCING.  How do curriculum specialists decide which content comes first?

Sequencing is accomplished in a variety of ways, including arranging the content. Several ways of thinking about sequencing follow. 1. From the simplest to the most complex.  Learn the tens, for example, before learning the hundreds. 2. In chronological order.  History is most often taught in this fashion. 3. By theme.  Tragedies in English literature and drama. 4. Geographically.  Regions of the world may be studied. 5. Concrete to the abstract.  Develop concepts with manipulatives (real or virtual) before moving to problem solving. 6. General to specific.  Study the concept of interdependence before digging deeply into examples to which students can connect. 7. Groupings of similar topics, readings, skills.  When the order is not important to skill development, there may be groupings such as contemporary American authors. In contrast, literature is frequently grouped by genre: drama, short stories, novels, and nonfiction, but sometimes by a theme, such as change and then within the theme students read a short story, novel excerpt, poem, and nonfiction or informational text. Standards and curriculum objectives will most likely drive the groupings. For certain content students cannot engage until they have proficiency with the preceding skills. The study of algebra is extremely challenging without proficiency in multiplication,

39

40

Part I  •  The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

division, and application of those concepts to fractions. Generally, a student cannot succeed in a second-year world language class without proficiency at the first-year level. CONCEPTIONS OF SEQUENCING.  Donald E. Orlosky and B. Othanel Smith (1978) discussed three conceptions of sequencing: (a) sequencing according to need, (b) macrosequencing, and (c) microsequencing. According to the first conception,

the learner orders his own learning as he deals with a situation from moment to moment. He selects what he wants to know as the need arises. If he makes a mistake in the selection he simply goes through the process again until he finds that which satisfies his present need. This is an opportunistic notion of sequencing but those who advocate it maintain that it is psychologically sound. (Orlosky & Smith, 1978, p. 267)

Macrosequencing follows principles of learner development expounded by persons such as Arnold Gesell, Frances L. Ilg, and Jean Piaget. Macrosequencing, said Orlosky and Smith (1978), is the organization of knowledge and the formulation of instruction to coincide with the different stages of the individual’s development. For a long time, teachers have arranged the knowledge of instruction roughly in accordance with the development learner. Examining the existing program of studies of almost any school shows that it corresponds roughly to the learner’s development (Orlosky & Smith, 1978, p. 251). Microsequencing is the ordering of subject matter according to the prerequisite knowledge required of each unit of content. “This assumes,” said Orlosky and Smith (1978), “that for any learning task there is a hierarchy extending from the very simple to the more abstract and complex elements which lead to the attainment of a specified objective” (p. 267). Curriculum planners are called on to make decisions on placement of content at the appropriate grade levels. Using the terms “sequence” and “grade placement” together, B. Othanel Smith, William O. Stanley, and J. Harlan Shores (1957) observed: There are only two possible approaches to the solution of problems of grade placement and sequence. The first accepts the child as he is and adjusts the experience to his level of development while holding the instructional goals constant.  .  .  .  The second approach assumes curriculum experiences to be located at a given grade level and provides learnings to adjust the child to these experiences—that is, to get him ready for the learning. (Smith, Stanley, & Shores, 1957, p. 171) WHERE TO BEGIN.  Disagreements over the process of sequencing center on whether curriculum planners should start with learners or subject matter. The first demands choosing emphases in keeping with the learners’ actual growth and development or developmentally appropriate; the second, placing subject matter at the grade level at which it is assumed learners will be able to master it. The latter approach to sequencing has been the historic approach. Smith, Stanley, and Shores (1957) advocated a blending of the two approaches, holding it unrealistic to subscribe wholeheartedly to either approach (p. 171). They counseled curriculum specialists to take into account the maturation, experiential background, mental age, and interests of the learners and the usefulness and difficulty of the subject matter when developing a sequence. The ordering of the organizing elements of the curriculum is one of the major tasks of the curriculum developer.



Chapter  2  •  Principles of Curriculum Development

Continuity Continuity is the planned repetition of content at successive levels, each time at an increased level of complexity. Tyler (1949) described continuity as follows. Continuity refers to the vertical reiteration of major curriculum elements. For example, if in the social studies the development of skills in reading social studies is an important objective, it is necessary to see that there is recurring and continuing opportunity for these skills to be practiced and developed. This means that over time the same kinds of skills will be brought into continuing operation. In similar fashion, if an objective in science is to develop a meaningful concept of energy, it is important that this concept be dealt with again and again in various parts of the science course. Continuity is thus seen to be a major factor in effective vertical organization. (Tyler, 1949, pp. 84–85) SPIRAL CURRICULUM.  The principle of continuity is represented in the spiral curriculum (Bruner, 1963). Concepts, skills, and knowledge are introduced and reintroduced—for example, the repetition of addition, study of democracy, writing, personal health, and conservation, each reintroduction enhancing the earlier learning over various school years. An example that is common is the spiraling within a school year of standards in English Language Arts (ELA). A specific standard may be learned several times within a school year using different kinds of texts with the expectation of the student work outcomes to increase in challenge each time. EXPERTISE NEEDED.  Planning a curriculum for continuity requires a high degree of expertise, which demands both knowledge of the subject field and knowledge of the learners. For example, to plan a mathematics sequence for kindergarten or prekindergarten through high school with appropriate scope, sequence, and continuity requires the combined skills of subject-matter specialists and teachers. Continuity is not simply repetition of content but also repetition with increasing levels of complexity of thinking and appropriate resources at each stage, followed by professional learning for teachers and instructional leaders. This concept was applied in the development of the Common Core State Standards which begin in kindergarten and progress with increasing challenge through high school. Whereas elementary school learners, for example, may learn that democracy means government of the people, by the people, and for the people, secondary students may wrestle with controversial and unresolved problems of democracy in the global community. Collaboration with those affected will reveal to curriculum developers which standards and units of content are to be reintroduced and at what point. Preassessment or checking for background knowledge and readiness of the learner, is essential before each new organizing element is broached. Preassessment will uncover whether the learners are ready for (a) new content based on prior content and (b) prior content that will be repeated at a more complex level.

Articulation If continuity is viewed as the spiraling of content upward through the grades then view articulation as the meshing of organizing elements across school levels—that is, across elementary, middle, and high schools. Articulation from high school to post-secondary institutions is an element of sequencing that is increasing in importance and frequency with the expectation that graduates are college and career ready, and that retention and graduation rates increase for undergraduate degree granting institutions.

41

42

Part I  •  The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL.  Oliver (1965) used the term “articulation” synonymously with “horizontal articulation” or “correlation.” He equated the concept of “continuity” with “vertical articulation” (p. 222). Sequence, continuity, and articulation are all interrelated. Vertical articulation is grade to grade and horizontal is within a grade. This meshing may or may not involve reintroduction of units of content that are progressively more difficult. Collaborative efforts are necessary among curriculum developers if articulated sequences are to be planned from kindergarten through twelfth grade and beyond. Within decentralized school districts, lack of articulation occurs frequently; however, curriculum is generally thought of as one of the components of school districts that should be centrally coordinated just as human resource policies are centralized. Articulation is particularly difficult in some states where separate school districts managing different levels of schooling exist side by side under separate administrators and separate school boards, such as in high school districts or elementary school districts. Even when all levels of schooling are centralized under a single superintendent and school board, articulation among schools and among grade levels and content areas remains a challenge. GAPS AND OVERLAPS BETWEEN LEVELS.  If given the authority, teachers could select which content will be taught, leading to gaps in the curriculum. Likewise, there is legitimate concern that students could be reintroduced to the same content more than once as they move up the educational continuum. Gaps and overlaps can be avoided by providing opportunities for teachers to articulate between and among the grade levels. An example of overlap is when students read the same selection of fiction in the fifth grade and then again in the sixth grade, although the selection is appropriate across the two grade levels. Schools that plan contiguously by providing planning opportunities between and among school levels to align curriculum offerings and/or operate as professional learning communities stand a far better chance of eliminating concerns in this area. PERSONAL ARTICULATION.  There is not only a need for planned articulation of subject matter but also for students’ personal articulation. School leaders look for ways to respond to students’ varied capabilities. Some middle school students, for example, are able to tackle high school subjects, like algebra and geometry. Some high school students can perform well in Advanced Placement courses in the high school or can dually enroll at a local college due to their educational prowess and articulation agreements between the college and school district. To recap what has been said about sequencing, continuity, and articulation—continuity and articulation are dimensions of sequencing. Sequencing is the logical or psychological arrangement of units of content within lessons, units, courses, and grades. Continuity is the planned introduction and reintroduction of the same units of content through the grades at ever-increasing levels of scope and depth. Articulation is the planned sequencing of units of content across grade levels—that is, from one grade level to the next to ensure that the next grade level begins where the previous grade level left off. Although this text presents sequencing and related principles in a favorable light as useful concepts in planning, organizing, and evaluating the curriculum, views on many concepts and practices in education differ. The concepts of sequencing and the spiral curriculum are no exception. Holding that “there is little interest today in sequencing,” John D. McNeil (2006) wrote, “Current research casts doubt on rigid conceptions of skill hierarchies and spiraled curriculum. Although there may be some valid skill hierarchies such as teaching addition before multiplication, little evidence supports hierarchies such as those in Bloom’s taxonomy” (p. 332). With McNeil’s finding in mind, helping teachers and curriculum leaders to know how to use higher levels of thinking and complexity effectively without always starting at declarative knowledge, can be



Chapter  2  •  Principles of Curriculum Development

helpful. Many students find declarative knowledge to be boring; in contrast to the opportunity to apply and use knowledge which is intellectually engaging and motivational. Transferability Whatever is taught in school should in some way possess transfer value; that is, learning in school should have applicability in either a broad or narrow sense outside of school and after the school years. Education for education’s sake—the mark of the learned person—is simply not sufficient as a goal of education when the expectation is that students will be college and career ready and educators are held accountable for student learning outcomes. Education should in some way enrich the life of the individual. The transfer of learning, as it is sometimes called, has been discussed at some length in the literature of educational psychology (Broudy, 1972). Mayer (2011) described how transfer using digital and print resources can be increased when content is presented using dual channels of spoken words and visuals only without a third channel (for example written words) at the same time. Transfer gives a permanence to learning beyond the moment of its first introduction into the classroom for retrieval in later grades or on accountability assessments. Lack of success on accountability assessments may be attributed in part to the lack of attention to transfer when target concepts are taught. Career-technical education possesses a built-in one-upmanship in transferability. Skills and knowledge learned in career and technical education can be transferred to work and life situations. Teachers of psychomotor skills are particularly fortunate because students have no difficulty seeing the transfer value of these areas of study. Students can and will use what they learn in such areas as music, art, physical education, engineering, set development, software and simulation development. Transfer is paramount with most teachers of perceptual motor skills. Transfer in the affective and cognitive areas is more difficult to discern. Transfer of cognitive learning is most often visible in student performance on assessment and standardized tests, in admission to and success in college, and in the evaluations employers give. Proponents of psychology (mental or formal discipline) maintained that rigorous subjects discipline the mind; thus, such education was generally transferable. Some of the essentialists have held that education is the storing of data—computer fashion—for use at a later date when the occasion arises. Unfortunately, disuse sets in; forgetting, and when retrieval is needed, the supposedly stored data have slipped away. On the other hand, if the curriculum develops the subject to high levels of thinking and complexity, or at least to the application level, then transfer and storage in long term memory for retrieval is more likely (Brown, Roediger, & McDaniel, 2014; Intentional Futures, 2015). Daniel Tanner and Laurel Tanner (2007) pointed out that the Eight-Year Study disproved the notion that a high school student must complete a prescribed sequence of subjects in order to be successful in college (p. 87). Bruner (1963) provides an example of students in a fifth-grade class learning “a way of thinking about geography” as opposed to being dished out selected, unconnected geographical facts (p. 26). Bruner encouraged teachers to use a discovery approach, justifying it on the grounds of “increased intellectual potency, intrinsic rewards, useful learning techniques, and better memory processes” (p. 27). Transferability is a principle of both instruction and the curriculum. Methods of teaching for transferability refer to the instructional process. When you analyze what the learner has transferred, you are in the area of curriculum. Curriculum developers should specify objectives, select content, level of thinking and complexity, and instructional strategies that will lead to maximum

43

44

Part I  •  The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

transfer. Furthermore, plans for evaluating the curriculum should include means of judging the degree of the transfer of the many segments of the curriculum. In identifying the eight guiding principles of curriculum development, a structure of curriculum development is provided, resulting in a curriculum system that attends to scope, relevance, balance, integration, sequence, continuity, articulation, and transferability.

Summary The system of education responds to change as conditions in its suprasystem (society) change. Curriculum change is a normal, expected consequence of changes in the environment. It is the responsibility of curriculum specialists to seek continuous improvement in the curriculum. The task of the curriculum specialist is facilitated if generally accepted principles and concepts for curriculum development are followed. Ten general principles or axioms and eight concepts are presented in this chapter as guidelines to curriculum development. The principles and concepts stem not only from disciplines outside of professional education but also from the folklore of curriculum, observation, experimental data, and common sense.

Both teachers and curriculum specialists have roles in curriculum development in collaboration with other school personnel. Teachers, curriculum specialists, supervisors, administrators, students, parents, and other stakeholders can all play significant roles in effecting curriculum change and its successful implementation to achieve intended outcomes. Curriculum developers start from the given and work within specific contextual parameters. Unless there is an edict or political need for rapid curriculum change and implementation. Most successful change is developed and implemented by those who are the key stakeholders for the target change.

Application 1. In your context, which curriculum principles and concepts guide practice? 2. Which curriculum innovations in your context or nationally are based on half truths, whole truths, or false premises? Use evidence to support the learning outcomes and any resulting modifications to the curriculum.

3. How have available technology and digital tools impacted the practice of curriculum development and implementation? Provide examples of influence of these developments of resources on curriculum change and resulting changes in teaching effectiveness and student learning.

Reflection and Inquiry 1. Hypothesize the development and results of the movements of choice such as online learning, charter schools, home schooling, and early-college entry programs. 2. Choose three social developments, events, pressures, or forces in the United States within the last 20 years that have caused changes in the

curriculum and briefly analyze those changes. Which student groups have benefitted from those changes and to what extent? 3. Race to the Top had as its funding priority to establish challenging standards, develop and sustain professional evaluation systems, create data systems for monitoring outcomes, and turning around lower



Chapter  2  •  Principles of Curriculum Development

performing schools (US Department of Education, 2015,  p. vii). The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (www.ed.gov/ESSA) signed into law in 2015 provides some flexibility that many educators believe is important for contextualizing curriculum solutions.

45

Investigate these two recent influences on curriculum and how they have impacted or are impacting your context compared to the national context. 4. Based on evidence and data, formulate Axiom 11 to improve curriculum development nationally.

Websites Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Ascd.org Digital Promise: digitalpromise.org

George Lucas Education Foundation: Edutopia.org Phi Delta Kappa International: pdkintl.org. Every Student Succeeds Act: www.ed.gov/ESSA

Suggested Reading Parkay, F. W., Anctil, E. J., & Hass, G. T. (2006). ­Curriculum planning: A contemporary approach. (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Perelman, L. J. (1992). School’s out: Hyperlearning, the new technology, and the end of education. New York, NY: William Morrow. Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horace’s compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Turney, D. (1976). Sisyphus revisited: Perspectives on curriculum development 1776–1976. (n.a.). 1976 Yearbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Walker, D. F., & Soltis, J. F. (2004). Curriculum and Aims. (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. C. (2011). Curriculum development: A guide to practice (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

References Apple, M. W. (2008). Curriculum planning: Content, form, and the politics of accountability. In F. M. Connelly, The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Bellack, A. (1965, February). What knowledge is of most worth? The High School Journal. 48, 318–322. Bennis, W., Benne, K., & Chin, R. (1985). The planning of change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bloom, B. S. (1958). Ideas, problems, and methods of inquiry. In (n.a.) The Integration of educational experiences: The fifty-seventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Part III. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bobbitt, F. (1918). The curriculum. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Broudy, H. S. (1972). The real world of the public schools. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Brown, P. C., Roediger III, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Bruner, J. S. (1962). On knowing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. S. (1963). Structures in learning. Today's Education, 52(3), 26–27. Caswell, H. L., & Campbell, D. K. (1935). Curriculum development. New York, NY: American Book. Combs, A. W., Kelley, W. C., & Rogers, C. R. (Eds.). (1962). Perceiving, behaving, becoming: 1962 yearbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Combs, A. W. (1965). The professional education of teachers. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Doll, R. C. (1996). Curriculum improvement: Decision making and process. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

46

Part I  •  The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions

Ebel, Robert L., (1972. September). What schools are for. Phi Delta Kappa, 54(1), 3–7. Fullan, M. (2010). All systems go: The change imperative for whole system reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Glasser, W. (1992). The quality school: Managing students without coercion. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. Glickman, C. D. (1998). Revolutionizing America's schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Goodlad, J. I. (1963). Planning and organizing of the public schools. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Guggenheim, D. (Director). (2010). Waiting for Superman [Video file]. United States. Halverson, P. M. (1961). The meaning of balance. In (n.a.) Balance in the curriculum, 1961 yearbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Hunter, M. (1984). Knowing teaching, and supervising. In P. Hosford (Ed.), Using what we know about teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 169–192. Intentional Futures. (2015). Learning science & literacy: Useful background for learning designers. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Macdonald, J. B. (1971). Curriculum development in relation to social and intellectual systems. In R. M. McClure, The curriculum: Retrospect and prospect. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and ­Curriculum Development. Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. McNeil, J. D. (2006). Contemporary curriculum in thought and action (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Miel, A. (1946). Changing the curriculum, a social process. New York, NY: D. Appleton-Century Company. Mullen, C. A. (2007). Curriculum leadership development: A guide for aspiring school leaders. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. The National Commission on Excellence in Education, (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Oliver, A. I. (1965). Curriculum improvement: A guide to problems, principles, and process (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row. Orlosky, D. E., & Smith, B. O. (1978). Curriculum ­development: Issues and insights. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Parkay, F. W., Anctil, E. J., & Hass, G. T. (2006). Curriculum planning: A contemporary approach (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Phenix, P. H. (1962). The disciplines as curriculum content. In (n.a) Curriculum crossroads. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Posner, G. J., & Rudnitsky, A. N. (2006). Course design: A guide to curriculum development for teachers. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn. Rhodes, N. C., & Pufahl, I. (n.d.). Foreign language teaching in U.S. schools: Results of a national survey, Executive summary. Retrieved December 8, 2010, from http://www.cal.org/projects/executivesummary-08-09-10.pdf Saylor, J. G., & Alexander, W. M. (1954). Curriculum planning for better teaching and learning. New York, NY: Rinehart. Schwab, J. J. (1970). The practical: A language for curriculum. Washington, DC: National Education Association, Center for the Study of Instruction. Smith, B. O. (1969). Teachers for the real world. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Smith, B. O., Stanley, W. O., & Shores, J. H. (1957). Fundamentals of curriculum development. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (2007). Curriculum development: Theory into practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall. Taylor, R. T., Watson, R., & Nutta, J. (2015). Leading, teaching, learning, the common core standards: ­Rigorous expectations for all students. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Fundamental change: Innovation in America’s schools under race to the top. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of State Support. U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Every student ­succeeds act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/ESSA. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No child left behind act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/ index.html.

PART

II

Curriculum Development Role of Personnel Chapter 3

Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, Multisector Process

Chapter 4

Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension

47

CHAPTER

3

Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, ­Multisector Process Learning Outcomes

CURRICULUM DECISIONS

After studying this chapter, you should be able to: 1. Describe types of curriculum systems that are conducted at levels and in sectors. 2. Describe an organizational pattern for curriculum development at the individual school level. 3. Describe an organizational pattern for curriculum development at the school district level.

As instructional leaders seek to improve learning outcomes for their students, curriculum decisions, such as the following, are being made in some school district in the United States. • A school system has revised a curricular plan based on WorldClass Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) standards for English Learners (ELs). • A school district establishes a committee to review potential supplementary digital resources to augment its elementary school core reading program. • A middle school has decided to focus on English Language Arts (ELA) standards for which data indicate students are less proficient than in other standards. • A high school determines how to best prepare students to take state-mandated end of course exams (EOCs). • The secondary schools of a school district create classes that will increase female student participation in physical education due to the implications of Title IX. • A school district is implementing a One to One (1:1), one digital device for each student and staff member, initiative for its high school students. • A school district has adopted digital policies such as those for students bringing their own device (BYOD) for learning purposes. Countless curricular decisions, such as those in the preceding examples, are made on a continual basis. Some decisions are relatively simple—adding a course here, deleting a course there, or making some minor changes to content learning targets. Other decisions are sweeping and far-reaching for example, the creation of a magnet secondary school with emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) or the conversion of a traditional 8–3–3 plan for school organization (eight years of elementary school (PreK–6), three of junior high [7–9], and three of high [10–12] to a middle school 7–3–4 plan 7 years in elementary [PreK–5], three in middle school

48



Chapter 3  •  Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, ­Multisector Process

[6–8], and four [9–12] in high school. These changes are complex and require both administrative and curricular decisions. Considering how school and school district leaders arrive at these decisions vary. More progressive school districts have continuous improvement models in place to address curriculum decision making and are constantly affecting changes in the curriculum as a result of these plans. Others approach curricular decisions as a response to an identified need that has presented itself due to student performance or other pressures. Some make decisions haphazardly without results, while some school districts demonstrate lethargy and apathy toward curricular decision making and are, for all intents and purposes, stagnant. Though why and how curriculum decisions are made run the gamut, the importance of a school district following a systematic process to arrive at sound decisions regarding their curriculum system is paramount. When curriculum is viewed as a system with interdependent components (e.g., curriculum, instruction, assessment) and developed with this large view concept in mind, the student learning outcomes will be better. Sequence of Decision Making You may visualize the sequence of curricular decision making by the curriculum teams at the various levels within a school district in the form of waves starting in the individual teacher’s classroom and terminating with the school district curriculum team, as pictured in Figure 3.1. In this illustration, each level receives information, ideas, and proposals from various levels within the model and, in turn, sends information, ideas, and proposals to them. Each level acts within the limitations of its own responsibility. Curriculum teams at any level may initiate action as well as react to suggestions made to them. Teams are responsive to both subordinate and higher levels. If a curriculum team wishes to initiate a plan that affects other levels, it must involve persons from those levels beginning at the earliest planning stages. If those in a level wish to initiate or endorse a plan that goes beyond the assigned responsibility or that might be likely to create repercussions anywhere in the system, it must seek approval at higher levels. FIGURE 3.1

Classroom teacher Team/grade/department faculty School curriculum team

Area curriculum team District curriculum team

Sequence of Decision Making

49

50

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

While the examples of curriculum decisions given at the beginning of this chapter are typical and occur within individual school districts, it is likely that similar curriculum developments in different school districts may unfold at the same time. An example would be how different external pressures may impact decisions that are made. Public outcry and widespread parental dissatisfaction from low student performance on state exams at one particular school may lead to demands for changes to the curriculum and at the same time parents at another school may use vouchers to transfer to nonpublic schools due to the same dissatisfaction. Each school district determines whether to vary curriculum offerings at one school to appease stakeholders or to improve student learning outcomes, while maintaining the standard curriculum in others, which is a real and complex issue. While the media may influence the dialogue and the educational responses to these challenges, professionals may contribute more to research based discourse and solution finding. Of the examples given at the beginning of this chapter only three, English Learner (EL) programs, opportunities for females, and preparation for a state assessment, may be said to have evolved as a result of pressures from the federal or state governments. In 1974 the United States Supreme Court opened the doors to require EL programs with its decision in the Lau v. Nichols case (1974). As a consequence of this decision, the San Francisco Unified School District was required to provide differentiated instruction to children of Chinese ancestry who were having difficulty with the English language. Furthermore, federal funds have been appropriated to assist school districts in developing and implementing EL programs. The participation of females in physical education has been advanced through enactment by the U.S. Congress of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), which bars discrimination on the basis of gender. With added pressure from the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), states setting academic standards have had instituted assessments at the ­elementary through high school levels (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Certainly, federal and state legislation and court decisions have brought about curricular change, as will be explored more fully later.

LEVELS OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT At the Various Levels Curriculum development occurs on many levels and curriculum developers, specialists, supervisors, teachers, leadership teams, school leaders, or stakeholders may be engaged in efforts on several levels at the same time. Each level performs distinct curricular efforts and has its own organizational processes for making curriculum decisions. For curriculum decision making to take place, appropriate organizational structures are necessary. The levels of development on which teachers function can be conceptualized as shown in the step model, Figure 3.2 (Oliva, 1972). In the step model, all teachers are involved at the classroom level; most teachers participate at the school level; some take part at the school district level; and, fewer and fewer teachers engage at the state, national, and international levels. However, a few teachers do participate in curriculum development at all levels. Charter schools or private (independent) schools are the exception to the step model as they have their own organizational structures. They may be singular schools in which teachers make all curricular decisions or may be members of a charter school or independent school organization that have decisions regarding curriculum made at the executive level.



Chapter 3  •  Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, ­Multisector Process

51

International Nation State School district Individual school Classroom FIGURE 3.2

Step Model of Development

The step model, with its ascending stairs and especially with its use of the term levels, may lead to some erroneous conclusions. You might infer, that since the steps clearly sketch a hierarchy that planning at the classroom level is least important and planning at each successive level is increasingly more important. In terms of levels of importance, classroom planning is far more important than any of the successive steps. At the classroom level, the results of curriculum planning make their impact on the learners. In some ways, it would appear pertinent if the model were turned around and classroom planning was placed at the top and international planning at the bottom. Unfortunately, reversing the step model would introduce another possible misinterpretation. Because the classroom is the focal point for curriculum planning and the main locale for curriculum development efforts in this model, it is shown as the first step. Designating the international level as the initial step would be extremely inaccurate, as very few teachers or curriculum specialists work at that level and then usually only after they have demonstrated a high level of success and have been recognized for curricular expertise in the other levels. The step model may convey to some readers that curriculum specialists move through each stage or level in a fixed sequence. Although most teachers are involved in curriculum planning at both the classroom and school levels, some will proceed no further than those two levels. Often, teachers and curriculum specialists work in sequence from one level to the next or simultaneously at all levels; whereas, others may skip whole levels. Although curriculum planning usually begins in the classroom, it may start at the level curriculum specialists believe there is need to initiate change. Note the steps in the preceding model are of equal width and rise; therefore, the model can give the impression that curriculum planners have an equal opportunity to participate at all levels and spend equal amounts of time in planning at each level. Opportunities for curriculum planning become fewer at each successive step up the staircase. Consequently, the step model narrows as you move from classroom to international to simulate the fewer opportunities for curriculum planning.

52

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

The Classroom Level When a teacher is first employed at a school it may appear that all curricular decisions have been made. Standards are provided, subject or grade level textbooks and materials have been selected, and guidelines are in place. The teacher thinks, with some justification, that the important decisions about the curriculum have already been made by others, the grade level or subject team, the school, the school district, the state, the nation, and the public. However, decisions regarding curriculum are ongoing and occur at a variety of levels and at different times throughout the school year. Most schools have systems and structures in place to support collaborative decision making. The team approach may be implemented at schools to encourage teacher participation in decision making. Some schools may subscribe to a coaching model in which teachers work in pairs to guide curricular decisions. Schools leaders may subscribe to a combination of both or offer other means of opportunities. Whatever the curriculum system, it is important that structures (e.g., resources and time) which support collaboration are in place for teachers. Perhaps the life of the teacher would be easier and less complicated if the curriculum were prescribed. On the other hand, if there were no curriculum decisions to be made, teachers would be less involved in the learning process. A main theme of this text is the notion that teachers are at the center of learning decisions and should be in roles to influence or make decisions. The teacher then not only makes decisions or participates in collaborative decision making, but also gathers data and evidence on which to base curricular decisions. In what specific curriculum endeavors is the individual classroom teacher likely to participate? The following two cases may give insight. TWO CASES.  First, take the hypothetical cases of two experienced, high performing and highly

motivated teachers a fourth-grade teacher of a self-contained general education class and a tenthgrade teacher of social studies. Both have eight years of experience and serve as lead teachers, both are employed in the same school district, and both participate in curriculum planning at various levels. Our fourth-grade teacher, Teacher F is a grade leader who has five teachers. Our tenth-grade teacher, Teacher N, is a member of a social studies department with eight faculty members. Now, examine their curriculum development activities during the school year. Teacher F creates lesson plans which are aligned to the standards (classroom level). He reviews progress monitoring data with the other teachers in his grade level to drive team decisions on mathematics lessons for non-proficient students (grade level). He participates on a curriculum team making recommendations for implementing an intensive reading program in the school (school level). Further, he serves on a school district team which studies ways to implement federal legislation regarding Exceptional Student Education (ESE) (school district level). While Teacher F was making contributions toward curriculum development at the school and school district levels, Teacher N had been no less occupied at the state, national, and international levels. She was selected to participate on a statewide committee to develop cut scores for end of course exams in social studies (state level). She participated as an International Baccalaureate (IB) Examiner in which she graded external assessments of candidates (international level). She received notification from the National Endowment for the Humanities that a proposal she submitted will be funded (national level) and has been invited by the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children to present at a conference in Europe (international level). While relatively few teachers have the opportunity or perhaps the inclination to participate in curriculum efforts at different levels as suggested by these two hypothetical cases, none of these



Chapter 3  •  Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, ­Multisector Process

curricular activities is beyond the realm of possibility. There are teachers who engage in activities like these in school districts across the country. TASKS OF TEACHERS.  Teachers carry out curriculum design when they review the target standards and align instructional goals (essential ideas) and instructional objectives (learning targets) with them. As they incorporate subject matter (content), choose materials, and identify resources in the school and community they are extending their curriculum design efforts. When they decide on and incorporate the scope and sequence of the standards, revise the content to align to the rigor of the standard, develop instructional plans, and construct classroom assessments aligned to the standards, they are refining their curriculum system. As they pilot new programs, differentiate the curriculum for individual students and groups of students, and develop their own curricular materials they become curriculum experts in their teacher role. Curriculum implementation is equated by some curriculum experts with instruction. The opinion that curriculum implementation does not start until instruction begins is held by many. Included in this concept are the final stages of curriculum planning or design when decisions are made as to how standards based curriculum will be put into operation and how instruction will be designed and implemented. Within this context teachers select appropriate emphases within the standards, decide which content for students need particular emphasis, and allot times for the various topics and units to be taught, unless there is a prescribed pacing calendar. They determine the structure of the classroom and how it will be modified and decide how resources may best be used to maximize learning. Teachers also have the responsibility of evaluating both the curriculum and their instruction. In some ways it is difficult to separate the two dimensions and to tell where instructional evaluation ceases and curriculum evaluation begins. In a very real sense, evaluating instruction is evaluating curriculum implementation. You can clarify the distinctions between the two dimensions of evaluation in the following way: Curriculum evaluation is the assessment of programs, processes, and curricular documents and artifacts (e.g., guides, formative assessments, alignment tables). Instructional evaluation is (a) the assessment of student achievement before, during, and at the end of instruction and (b) the assessment of the effectiveness of the instructor through student learning outcomes. Thus, teachers work at the task of curriculum evaluation when they seek to find out if programs are valid, relevant, feasible, of interest to the learners, and meet the rigor of the standards. Additionally, teachers review the choices of delivery systems, materials, and resources and examine the finished curriculum documents and artifacts they have created such as guides, unit plans, and lesson plans. Teachers conduct instructional evaluation when they assess the learner on entry skills and knowledge before the start of instruction; progress monitor students; write and administer classroom level assessments, and interpret resulting data and evidence to further inform instruction. These examples transpiring at the classroom level demonstrate that curriculum development and instruction are complex and demanding responsibilities. As curriculum development at the various levels is discussed in the following pages, it may seem that individual teachers have little autonomy. To some extent there is truth in that belief. The influence of federal, state, and local school district mandates that affect the teacher’s prerogatives in the areas of curriculum and instruction is a reality. In spite of the influence on the teacher’s professional responsibilities, many curricular and instructional decisions remain to be made, especially in selecting delivery systems, differentiating to student learning needs, monitoring student academic progress, and reteaching when needed based on classroom evidence and data.

53

54

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

The Team, Grade, and Department Levels In the following section, specific curriculum innovations are discussed primarily to delineate the process of curriculum development and to help leaders to impact and evaluate curriculum change. Organizational patterns also appear in this section to illustrate teachers’ participation in curriculum development at various levels beyond the classroom. Typically, elementary teachers in schools share curriculum development responsibilities as a collaborative team and at grade levels. Teachers in middle schools customarily take part in curriculum development at the team, grade, and department levels. Secondary school or high school teachers primarily join with their colleagues in curriculum planning at the department level, but also at the course or grade level. One of the axioms in Chapter 2 stated that curriculum development is essentially a group undertaking. Once the teacher joins other teachers, curriculum development takes on a new dynamic. It calls for a spirit of collaboration on the part of each teacher, places a limit on solitary curriculum development, and calls for a more formal organizational structure. It is at the team, grade, or department level that curriculum leadership begins to emerge. Examples of curriculum development practices that teachers on a collaborative team, a given grade, or a particular department or subject are called on to make include: • • • • • •

reviewing data on student progress towards proficiency on a standard; establishing or revising team, grade, or departmental priorities based on student data; aligning the curriculum to standards; developing a scope and sequence of the standards; selecting materials and resources for instruction; determining how technology will be incorporated into instruction, provision of feedback, and assessment; • writing common progress monitoring assessments; • establishing actions to differentiate instruction based on student progress; and • evaluating instructional effectiveness. The associated list is not exhaustive; however, it gives a sampling of the many kinds of collaborative decisions that members who constitute the team, grade, subject, or department may make. Generally, teachers are given autonomy to make decisions that affect their own classes. When a decision is likely to have an impact on teachers, other than their individual classroom, it becomes a matter for joint deliberation by the parties outside of the classroom or at higher levels to be affected. To enable the decision making process to become more efficient, choosing the most effective teachers with leadership skills, as curriculum developers or subject matter experts (SMEs) for a collaborating group is wise. If curriculum development is also viewed as professional learning then teachers, both veteran and novice, may be included. Being purposeful and deliberate in selecting participants for collaborative decision making is more important than it may appear on the surface. Patterns of organizational interaction vary among teachers, teams, grades, subjects, and departments, from school to school and from school district to school district. Curriculum matters that can be determined and implemented within a team, grade, subject, or department are handled at that level. However, curriculum development can impact persons beyond the team and the group for whom the documents were made.



Chapter 3  •  Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, ­Multisector Process

The School Level Although many curriculum decisions are made at the classroom or team, grade, subject, and department level, other decisions can be reached only at a school level. The school provides some mechanism whereby the curriculum is articulated and integrated and school leaders and staff should hold themselves accountable for the implications of curriculum decisions. Systems and structures differ school by school within the nation, within the state, and within the same locality. Educational diversity is both a blessing and a dilemma for curriculum developers. It is a strength in that it permits schools to respond to needs evidenced in the individual school and locality. It presents a problem in the light of state and national standards that specify commonalities of expectations and proficiency levels. A decentralized site-based approach to management is no greater guarantee of successful curriculum making than is a centralized approach orchestrated by the school district or state level. Michael G. Fullan (1994) called attention to the need for coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies (pp. 186–202). Site-based management and shared decision making should not be perceived as the delegation of all authority and responsibility to the individual school. A bottom-up approach without support of higher levels may be no more successful in creating lasting curriculum improvement than a top-down approach without cooperation of lower levels. Commented Fullan (1994), “In sum, decentralized initiatives, as far as the evidence is concerned, are not faring much better than centralized reforms” (p. 189). Efforts toward empowerment at the local level have sought to balance the heavier control formerly exerted by school district and state levels. However, the local school cannot work in isolation. Collaboration among levels remains essential. The preceding chapter demonstrated that curriculum developers conceive of curriculum development as a collaborative undertaking. Given the many dimensions of the school administrator’s job, a participatory approach to administration is sound not only philosophically but also practically. Collaborative decision making, whether in respect to curriculum planning or to other aspects of the instructional leader’s job, makes for a more efficient and effective school. STAKEHOLDERS OF THE SCHOOL.  Stakeholders (constituent groups) of the school who are

involved in curriculum development are usually identified as the staff, teachers, students, and lay members of the community. On occasion, nonprofessional employees of the school district become involved in the planning process but rarely as major participants. The concept of involving stakeholders in the process is not new. In 1970, Jack R. Frymier and Horace C. Hawn stated a principle that summarizes the belief in the necessity for involving persons in curriculum planning on a broad scale: Involve People Who Are Affected. Involvement is a principle fundamental to democracy and to learning theory. The very essence of democracy is predicated upon the assumption that those who are affected by any change should have some say in determining just what that change shall be . . . Significant and lasting change can only come about by such involvement. All who are affected by curriculum development and change should have a genuine opportunity to participate in the process. (Frymier, 1970, pp. 28–29)

55

56

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

Robert S. Zais (1976) raised a question, however, about the validity of the participatory model of curriculum decision making (p. 448). Additionally, speaking of the democratic “grassroots model,” Zais (1976) stated: The grass-roots model of curriculum engineering  .  .  .  is initiated by teachers in i­ndividual schools, employs democratic group methods of decision making, proceeds on a “­broken front,” and is geared to the specific curriculum problems of particular schools or even ­classrooms. (Zais, 1976, p. 18)

The grass-roots model is responsible for generating two of the curriculum establishment’s axioms: First, a curriculum can be successfully implemented only if the teachers have been intimately involved in the construction and development processes, and second, that not only professional personnel, but students, parents, and other lay members of the community must be included in the curriculum planning process. To deny the validity of either of these claims (neither of which has been satisfactorily demonstrated) is not necessarily to deny any role to teachers or lay participants; rather it is to suggest the need to define more precisely the appropriate role that school leaders, teachers, curriculum specialists, and nonprofessionals should play in curriculum engineering (Zais, 1976, pp. 448–449). One organizational model that commonly exists in schools in which stakeholders participate is the curriculum leadership team. The curriculum leadership team focuses on curricular issues and is both proactive and reactive in its manner of operating. It should ensure articulation between and among the various teams, grades, subjects, and departments of the school, making certain that teachers are following agreed-upon sequences and meeting expectations of aligned standards based curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Whereas it may react to proposals presented by both the principal (instructional leader) and the faculty, the team also generates its own proposals and possible solutions to curricular issues. Another organizational model that exists in schools is the school improvement team. The school improvement team is data centric and focuses on improving student achievement. Its purpose is different from that of the curriculum leadership team for it is reactive in its approach to solving student performance issues. In most cases the school improvement team will recommend a plan of action with timelines and metrics to create an immediate change, but will not develop the curriculum. Of the two examples, the curriculum leadership team occupies a strategic position and fulfills a key role in the process of curriculum development. Of all groups at all levels of planning, the curriculum leadership team is in the best position to make significant contributions to curriculum improvement. Examples of actions the curriculum leadership team may make are: • • • • • • • •

adding new programs, deleting, or changing programs; increasing access to online instruction and research; increasing classroom use of digital devices throughout the school; evaluating the school’s curriculum; planning ways to respond data informed student needs; planning for school accreditation; choosing resources; and verifying alignment with state mandates and federal legislation.

Although school leaders and curriculum specialists may not agree on the degree to which they should encourage or permit the involvement of various stakeholders, the literature on



Chapter 3  •  Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, ­Multisector Process

curriculum development consistently promotes a collaborative approach. However, it is important to note, as in any organizational model in the educational setting, external stakeholders should only serve in an advisory manner to the school leaders. The School District Level None of the previously discussed levels classroom (teacher), team/grade/subject/department, or individual school can work as isolated units. They function within the context of the school district under the direction of a superintendent who works for the school board. Efforts are to be coordinated among entities to achieve the school district strategic curricular goals. Consequently, the superintendent or his designee provides a mechanism whereby school district level curriculum planning may be conducted. Patterns of organization at the school district level increase in complexity as the size of the school district increases. Curriculum planning on a district level is often conducted through various teams. Districtwide teams may be composed of teachers, school leaders, school district curriculum developers, stakeholders, and, in some cases, students. Representatives may be either elected by members of their respective groups or appointed by school district level leaders or in the case of school personnel, by the recommendation of school instructional leaders. Subcommittees of professionals from anywhere in the school district may be appointed by the curriculum team to conduct specific phases of curriculum development. School district level teams and curriculum teams meet to consider problems such as: • • • • • •

adding new programs; abandoning programs; implementing standards based curriculum and instruction; creating items for progress monitoring or EOC exams; writing or reviewing proposals for state, federal, and private foundation grants; and articulating programs between levels.

The State Level State Departments of Education (SDOE) or State Educational Agencies (SEAs) are directly responsible for the educational matters within their borders. Governed by a State Board of Education (SBOE), which is often comprised of elected members or appointed members by the governor, or a combination of both, the SDOE and SEA operate in the arena of curriculum development through a number of channels within and outside of education that directly and indirectly impact a state’s curriculum. CHANNELS WITHIN EDUCATION.  SBOEs serve as a political arm in the public education arena by influencing legislation and by providing oversight of the SDOE and SEA. As a board, their main function is to set policies which may include standards for SEAs to follow. The State of Texas provides an excellent example of how SBOEs function. In Texas, the SBOE consists of elected members and one gubernatorial appointed member who:

• • • • •

set curriculum standards; review and adopt instructional materials; establish graduation requirements; oversee funding; appoint board members to military and special school districts;

57

58

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

• provide final review of rules in educator certification; and • review the commissioner's proposed award of new charter schools, with authority to veto a recommended applicant. (Texas Education Agency, 2016) SEAs operate in the arena of curriculum development through a number of channels within the education profession by interpreting and enforcing legislated policy. The SEA may call on a variety of stakeholders with various backgrounds to serve on statewide committees or teams. The educational professionals who are asked to serve constitute the professional channel for curriculum development. STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION.  The SDOE or SEA exercises direct responsibility over the curriculum of the school districts. Led by a Chief State School Officer (CSSO) (superintendent or commissioner of education), the state department of education, an agency of the executive branch of the state government, consists of a number of deputies, directors, coordinators, supervisors, specialists, and other staff members. The SEA provides general leadership to the school districts. SEAs interpret, enforce, and monitor state and perhaps federally legislated regulations for which they have responsibility, particularly when funds flow through the SEA to the school districts, such as those for Title I and Title II. SEAs wield great power over the school districts. In curriculum matters it provides technical assistance to the legislature in developing statutes, setting standards and achievement levels for state exams, selecting and approving programs, and monitoring student progress. SEAs also disburse state and federal funding for specific programs, provide technical assistance to school districts in interpreting state statutes and policies, and enforce the application of state laws and policies. At times, decisions are made on the state level without advance consultation with the local school district personnel. At other times, however, the state department of education seeks advice and assistance from individuals and from ad hoc committees created for the purpose of studying specific problems and recommending solutions. School leaders and teachers are often asked to participate in organizing, conducting, and attending conferences and workshops held throughout the state on specific topics. The state department of education takes a leadership role in disseminating information regarding curriculum innovations and practices among the schools of the state. It issues Technical Assistance Papers (TAPs), white papers, informational guides, and other sources of information as a service to its constituencies. STATE PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.  In a less formal way, curriculum developers find

opportunities for curriculum development and consideration of curriculum problems through activities of the state professional organizations. Serving on a state level committee or attending a confererence allows them to learn and share curriculum ideas, which often lay the groundwork for subsequent curriculum reform. This type of curriculum professional learning cannot be equated with more structured efforts under the SEA. Nor, can the examination of curriculum problems by state professional organizations be labeled as a level of planning, as no element of authority exists in this type of voluntary activity. More appropriately, the state professional organizations constitute a sector that seeks to influence curriculum change through research, example, and recommendations coupled with collaboration across school district boundaries. LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.  State legislatures throughout the country consistently demonstrate

a penchant for curriculum making. Legislation can be a result of a grassroots movement within the state or it can evolve from recommendations made by the SEA. In some cases, acts of the



Chapter 3  •  Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, ­Multisector Process

state legislature stem from the personal beliefs, personal influences, desires of the legislators themselves, or from positions of political parties. As schools and school districts are directly impacted by legislation, developers should be judicious in maintaining a pulse on legislative sessions. A recent example from higher education is that after Puerto Rico experienced two devastating hurricanes in 2017, Florida’s governor decreed in-state tuition at colleges and universities would be provided to students from Puerto Rico. The legislature finalizes budget appropriations and sets laws and may not fund a curricular initiative that was requested by the governor or was put into statute. STATE SUPREME COURTS.  Over the years state supreme courts have found themselves entangled in curriculum decision making. Two historically famous cases may serve to illustrate involvement of the state courts in curriculum making. In 1874 the Supreme Court of Michigan ruled in a case brought against the school district of Kalamazoo by a taxpayer of that community, that the school board of Kalamazoo could, indeed, spend public funds to provide a secondary school education for the youth of their district (Stuart v. School District No. 1, 1874). In 1927 the Supreme Court of Tennessee replied to the appeal of defense attorneys of John Thomas Scopes of the world-famous monkey trial by upholding the constitutionality of the Tennessee law that forbade teaching in the public schools any theory that denied human creation by a divine being (de Camp, 1968). The scientific creationism versus evolution issue continues to surface in some state executive and legislative bodies to this date, impacting curriculum and resources used in teaching science. State supreme courts are not engaged with making curriculum decisions directly; however, their opinions do influence curriculum development. The judicial branch, by the virtue of its ideology and past opinions, influences the governor and SEA in policy development and implementation.

A Hierarchical Structure In practice, responsibility for curriculum development is spread across the levels of classroom, school, school district, and state. Each successive level of the hierarchy, up to and including the state level, possesses the power to approve or reject the curriculum proposals of the level below it. Whereas teachers and curriculum developers may participate in curriculum development at the state level, their curriculum efforts at that level are purely advisory. Only the state board of education, the SEA, or the state legislature can make mandates on local school districts. School districts follow specific state regulations and statutes after which, they may then initiate curriculum development. Limitations of Hierarchical Structure Beyond the state level, the hierarchical power structure does not hold true. In the USA a nationally decentralized education process is in place and authority for education is reserved to the states. The national level may seek to bring about curriculum change, but only through persuasion, which generally is done with financial incentives, through the SEA and LEA. The history of federal legislation in support of career and technical education and education of special needs students, reveals that the national level exerts a potent influence on the curriculum of the schools throughout the country. The dollars distributed by the federal government are, of course, in itself a powerfully persuasive instrument. However, officials at the national level can intervene in state and local school matters only subsequent to federal legislation or legal

59

60

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

FIGURE 3.3

Nation

Hierarchical Structure Model

State School district Individual school Team/grade/department Classroom

case decisions that they are empowered and/or required to enforce. The national level represents a unique blend of control through both authority and persuasion. In spite of the decentralized education process, the federal government exercises much control over the schools, including the curriculum. Consequently, a curriculum model shows the levels of curriculum planning through the state level and beyond the state level. Such a model is shown in Figure 3.3.

SECTORS OF DEVELOPMENT There are curriculum theorists who prefer to examine sectors of development, instead of referring to levels of planning. The concept of sectors eliminates the hierarchical and sequence problems of the step model and simply states that curriculum planning goes on in eight sectors: the classroom; the team/grade/subject/department; the individual school; the school district; the state; the region; the nation; and the world. The sectors of planning model, illustrated in Figure 3.4, show that the majority of curriculum development takes place by teachers and curriculum specialists in the classroom, team or grade, school, and school district. Decreasing amounts of curriculum development take place in sectors beyond the school district boundaries. The broken lines signify that an individual teacher or curriculum developers may work at separate times or simultaneously in more than one sector.



Chapter 3  •  Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, ­Multisector Process FIGURE 3.4

Sectors of Development

Classroom

World

Team/grade/department

Nation Region State School District

In discussing sectors of development, the sectors in which specialists work and those where decisions are made should be distinguished. These are not necessarily the same. Decisions about classroom curriculum that the individual teacher wishes to make may be referred to a higher level of decision making, especially if these decisions will impact other teachers. For example, teachers should not make a unilateral decision to replace an adopted textbook that aligns to state standards which is a part of an articulated series used at several grade levels. That type of decision should be made at a higher level, depending upon where the authority resides either at the school or school district level. In fact, there may be SEAs that adopt textbooks and materials and do not allow that kind of decision making beyond the state sector.

SECTORS BEYOND THE STATE When curriculum specialists work in the regional, national, or international sector, they work in quite a different context. Except in the cases of federal legislation and federal judicial decisions or case law, which are discussed in the following pages, information sharing and persuasion rather than statutory power are the tools of the regional, national, and international sectors. No assurance of any kind exists that curriculum decisions reached in these sectors can or will be put into operation in the schools. Although fewer opportunities exist for curriculum specialists to engage in planning in the regional, national, and international sectors, the opportunities that do arise can be rich for the participants.

61

62

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

The Regional Sector Participation in developing curriculum in the regional sector is not comparable to that in the previously described sectors. On occasion, curriculum specialists of a particular region of the USA or even from a number of countries may assemble and develop curriculum materials that they may use in their schools. Notable illustrations of this type of collaborative endeavor occurred when American schools were under fire in the early 1960s due to the former Soviet Union (USSR) launching the Sputnik satellite in 1957. Sputnik created widespread fear in the American public that the USSR had won the race to space and that the USA was not as technologically advanced as its adversaries (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, n.d.). Consequently, Sputnik set a nasty precedent in which public education received all the blame for America’s social crisis (Bracey, 2007). As dissatisfaction with schools increased the United States Office of Education’s life adjustment education curriculum, which sought to make school relevant to teenagers, was analyzed and criticized. Speeches and interviews given by politicians, military leaders, and scientists called for a return to a more traditional form of education. For the first time, a school accountability movement, due to the large amount of public funds being allocated, was propagated (Bowers, 1991). Scholars and stakeholders from various parts of the country developed the New Math and New Science programs as a part of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) in an attempt to ensure that highly educated individuals would be available to help America compete with the Soviet Union in scientific and technical fields (National Defense Education Act, 2017). New Math and New Science included higher level courses, such as calculus and physics in an effort to prepare high school students for college and to compete with international counterparts. As a general rule, curriculum development in the regional sectors are more likely to consist of sharing common issues, exchanging practices, reporting research, and gathering information. Much of the participation in which school personnel take part in the regional sector falls into the category of data analysis related to curriculum evaluation, in contrast to planning or implementing curriculum. The National Sector THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS.  Although education in the USA is a function of the states,

the profound effect of national legislation on the administration and curriculum of our schools is not to be minimized. In 1964, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act, which banned racial and gender discrimination in all federally funded institutions, and gave the United States Department of Education (USDOE) the authority to collect racial data from schools (Brown, 2004). Pressure mounted to increase equitable educational opportunities for all learners by establishing the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 (ESEA). At the time, ESEA was considered the most monumental effort the federal government had attempted to influence state and local school boards to reform organizational and resource allocation practices ­(Kantor, 1991). Significant monies were included to entice states and school districts to align with ESEA policies. Over four billion dollars in aid (e.g., Title I) was offered to assist schools whose students were economically disadvantaged (Mondale & Patton, 2001). In addition to assisting economically disadvantaged students’ education, re-authorizations of ESEA provided funding to assist in the areas of education technology, professional learning (Title II), classsize reduction, safe and drug free schools, EL education, Native American education, charter schools, and head start (Electronic Summary of The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 2008).



Chapter 3  •  Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, ­Multisector Process

A major expectation of the ESEA was that school districts using federal funds were expected to improve student academic performance of economically disadvantaged students in the areas of reading and mathematics, when compared to nondisadvantaged peers, throughout the state (Wong & Meyer, 1998). In addition, the ESEA was to be evaluated every four years to ensure that the goals were met (Electronic Summary of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 2008). The lasting impact of ESEA remains through its many revisions. In 2016, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was passed to replace ESEA and to signal a new era in leadership for curriculum development (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). As noted in Chapter 2, ESSA provides some flexibility that many educators believe is important for contextualizing curriculum solutions, in contrast to the more heavy-handed accountability experienced with NCLB. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.  The United States Department of Education

(USDOE) gathers data, disseminates information, provides consultative assistance, sponsors and conducts research, funds projects, and disburses funds appropriated by Congress. The USDOE exercises a degree of leadership in curriculum development for educators and schools of the nation, particularly in areas that are funded at the federal level. In the public governmental sector, USDOE exercises a strong influence. Educators find the opportunity to participate in national curriculum efforts supported by the USDOE by writing and submitting proposals for grants to conduct curricular research or to put particular programs into operation in their school districts. An example of the USDOE funding curricular efforts took place in 1990 and 1991, when grants were provided for states to voluntarily create standards for history, ELA, science, civics, economics, history, the arts, world languages, and physical education. At the federal executive level there was leadership change with different political influences so the beginning of standards development funded by the USDOE went by the wayside (Ravitch, 2010). The USDOE may call on curriculum experts from particular fields to serve as readers in which grant proposals are being accepted. These readers evaluate and make recommendations on proposals to be awarded. The opportunity to participate as a reader on a grant team allows the specialist to grow professionally and bring back new ideas for curriculum development to their own institutions. Local schools in various regions of the country have participated in curriculum evaluation on a national scale through the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) which is overseen by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), a division of the USDOE (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.). NAEP is the only assessment administered by the federal government, although educators may have misconceptions that other assessments are administered by the federal government. Under the direction of NAEP, objectives have been specified, criterion-referenced measurement instruments have been created, and assessments have been conducted in a number of subject areas. From these data curriculum developers in local school districts can draw inferences about various aspects of subjects that are tested. U.S. SUPREME COURT.  In this discussion of curriculum efforts on a national scale, the legislative branch (Congress) and the USDOE, which is a part of the executive branch of the U.S. government, have been mentioned. On occasion, the judicial branch of the federal government assumes the role of curriculum decision maker. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public schools may not conduct sectarian practices, that released time for religious instruction under certain conditions is permissible, that the theory of evolution may be taught, that special instruction in English must be given to non-English-proficient students, that prayer in the public schools

63

64

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

is a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, that Cleveland’s school voucher program does not infringe on the principle of separation of church and state, and that the school district must reimburse parents of a child that has been identified as having special education needs for appropriate private schooling if the public school does not provide such schooling for the child, (Illinois ex rel McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948; Zorach v. Clauson, 1952; Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968; Lau v. Nichols, 1974; School District of Abington Township, Pa. v. Schempp & Murray v. Curlett, 1963; Zolman et al. v. Simmons-Harris et al., 2002; Forest Grove School District v. T.A., 2009). The U.S. Supreme Court justices do not seek the role of curriculum specialists, but when they elect to consider cases they elect to be in a curriculum decision making role. PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATIONS.  Professional education associations have afforded opportunities for educators to engage in curriculum deliberations. From a historical standpoint, one of the more significant attempts at curriculum decision making at the national level by a professional organization was the National Education Association’s (NEA) appointment of the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education (1918), which in 1918 produced one of the most influential and foresighted documents in the history of American education. The document, Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education, made 19 generalizations or principles, some of which applied at all levels of education. In speaking of the role of secondary education in achieving the main objectives of education, the Commission listed (in Principle IV) seven objectives that have become widely known and discussed as the Seven Cardinal Principles (pp. 5–10). Among these objectives were maintenance of good health, proficiency in the basic skills (reading, writing, and mathematics), and technical education. The Commission’s report, possessing no authority other than its persuasiveness, was broadly received and accepted as a valid statement of goals for the secondary education of its time. Many high schools attempted to implement the Commission’s Cardinal Principles. Although some criticism of the Seven Cardinal Principles exists, many educators think that this statement of the purposes of secondary education is as relevant today as it was when first issued so many years ago. Professional education organizations continue to make significant contributions to the curriculum field. For example, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), a professional association with a special interest in curriculum improvement, engages its members and others in numerous curriculum studies. It disseminates the results of studies through its print and online resources, publications (Educational Leadership), and journals. Of special help to persons interested in the curriculum field are the ASCD’s conferences, in which participants under the leadership of recognized experts focus on particular curriculum problems. Its online newsletters SmartBrief and SmartBrief on EdTech provide links to articles on current educational events and issues. PROFESSIONAL BOOKS.  Professional books on education make their contributions to the quest

for curricular solutions to many social and educational issues. A few noteworthy books that were written in the past that have had an impact on historical curriculum development were written by authors such as Earl Kelley (1947), who stressed the importance of an individual’s self-­concept; Ralph Tyler (1949), who suggested a systematic way of arriving at instructional objectives; ­Benjamin Bloom and his associates (Bloom, Hastings, & Madeus, 1971), who offered a way of evaluating mastery of educational objectives. James B. Conant (1959), who made recommendations that were widely adopted by secondary schools; Jerome S. Bruner (1959), who wrote on the structure of disciplines; Theodore Sizer (1984), who founded the Coalition of Essential Schools; John I. Goodlad (1984), who directed an extensive study of schools and made recommendations



Chapter 3  •  Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, ­Multisector Process

for improvement; E.D. Hirsch (1987), who initiated the “Cultural Literacy” concept leading to the “Core Knowledge Foundation” schools by identifying “what Americans need to know.” Research and curriculum development are not a recent phenomenon in the education arena and continue to be represented in many publications from respected publishers. PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS AND BUSINESS CORPORATIONS.  Private foundations and organiza-

tions sponsored by business and industrial corporations have demonstrated a deep interest in supporting projects designed to improve education in the USA. Examples of foundations’ interest in the curriculum in the past, included the Carnegie Corporation’s support in the field of mathematics and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation’s aid in the field of science. In the early 1950s, the Carnegie Corporation financially aided professors in arts and sciences, education, and engineering at the University of Illinois to develop a school mathematics program for grades nine through twelve, which became known as the University of Illinois Committee on School Mathematics (UICSM). Shortly thereafter, in the late 1950s, the Carnegie Corporation funded another mathematics project: the development of a program for grades seven and eight by teachers of mathematics, mathematicians, and mathematics educators at the University of Maryland. The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation entered into curriculum development in the late 1950s by supporting, along with the National Science Foundation and the Ford Foundation’s Fund for the Advancement of Education, the production of a new program for high school physics known as Physical Science Study Committee (PSSC) physics. By studying the past, several observations can be made about national curriculum development in mathematics and science. First, these programs were created through the collaboration of scholars and practitioners, professors and teachers which support the axiom that curriculum development is essentially a group undertaking. Second, all these undertakings took considerable effort and cost a significant amount. Without the largesse of the federal government, public and private foundations, and professional organizations, these programs would not have existed. Third, all these efforts occurred in the decade of the 1950s and continued into the early 1960s. The 1950s were a time when there was a great deal of ferment in education, and money flowed into educational pursuits. As a response to the technology of the former Soviet Union and in the name of national defense, the funding for educational projects and research was abundant in the 1950s. No such concerned collaborative activity on such a broad scale had occurred since until the development of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). This initiative was funded by Race to the Top (RTTT) and was noted in Chapter 2 and again in the next section (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). There are numerous private organizations, foundations, and corporations that continue to provide funds to influence the educational landscape (e.g., Bill & Melinda Gates Education Foundation, Lucas Education Foundation, Wallace Foundation). Mike Fineberg and Dave Levin, established a private foundation KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) after working for Teach for America, another private foundation (Author, 2017). Many school districts strategically seek grants by establishing departments with sole purpose to seek funding to pay for strategic initiatives. Additionally, schools develop grant writing teams to address smaller curricular projects. The curriculum specialist can play a key role in seeking grants or in providing technical assistance on grant writing teams. OTHER INFLUENTIAL VOICES.  Although education in the USA is a function of the states,

according to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, presidents have made an effort to influence the educational landscape. In 1990 President George H. W. Bush and the National

65

66

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

Governors Association set forth six national educational goals that resulted in the America 2000 legislation. Expanding on the Bush reform efforts, the U.S. Congress in 1994 enacted President Bill Clinton’s educational reform package known as the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which added two goals beyond the earlier six and authorized funding to promote achievement of those goals (U.S. Congress, 1994). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) passed by the U.S. Congress in 2001 and signed into law by President George W. Bush in January 2002, introduced a number of measures to raise student reading and mathematics proficiency with data analysis and accountability for outcomes by student subgroups of race, language, special ediucation, and economic status. Further educational reform has been sought through competitive grants to the states. An example is President Barack Obama’s America Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) which included the Race to the Top (RTTT) initiative, with the first awards made by the U.S. Department of Education to Delaware and Tennessee in the spring of 2010 (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). This funding provided for the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) development and associated assessment consortiums (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010). The International Sector INTERNATIONAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS.  Involvement of American curriculum specialists on the international education arena is made possible through membership in international professional associations, primarily those based in the United States. The International Literacy Association, previously noted, attracts reading specialists from around the world, but primarily from the United States and Canada. The World Council for Gifted and Talented Children holds conferences in various parts of the world. Two of the more pertinent international organizations for individuals interested in curricular activities on a cross-national scale are the World Council for Curriculum and Instruction and the International Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies. The American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies is a member of the latter. Sponsoring periodic conferences in various parts of the world, these international organizations offer opportunities for individuals interested in curriculum studies to exchange ideas and develop an understanding of one another’s educational systems and problems. If teachers and other school leaders are willing to spend a period of time abroad, they can become intimately involved in curriculum development overseas by accepting employment in the U.S. Department of Defense Schools, which have decreased in number over the years, or in the private American Community International Schools, whose curricula are mainly those offered in the United States. Or, they may become active in developing curricula of foreign national schools through employment with the Peace Corps or the Agency for International Development. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), with headquarters in Paris, affords opportunities for curriculum study, research, teaching, and technical assistance from members of the United Nations. The Institute of International Education in New York City directs an international exchange of students and teachers supported in part by Fulbright funds. The Council for International Exchange of Scholars in Washington, D.C., administers Fulbright fellowships that enable faculty and administrators from institutions of higher education to conduct research and teach beyond the USA. Another professional organization that targets specific education arenas that are related to non-traditional learning is the International Association for K–12 Learning (iNACOL). iNACOL



Chapter 3  •  Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, ­Multisector Process

67

serves the digital instruction community by providing resources for online education through books, reports, white papers, conferences, and webinars. iNACOL’s focus is in creating national standards, blended learning, competency-based learning, and personalized learning (International Association for K–12 Learning, n.d.). Online education and the current landscape and trends in this arena will be discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 13. Opportunities for firsthand participation in curriculum construction on a cross-national basis are rare, and this dearth of opportunity is to be expected. The curricular needs and goals of education in various countries are so divergent as to make impractical the building of a particular curriculum that will fit the requirements of the educational system of every country. INTERNATIONAL STUDIES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT.  Significant efforts, primarily in the

realm of assessment of student achievement, should be noted. Studies comparing achievement of students in a number of countries and in a variety of disciplines have been conducted by the International Association for Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), the International Assessment of Educational Progress (IAEP), and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Programme for International Assessment (PISA), the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). In the United States, leaders regularly compare student achievement to achievement in other countries via these results and therefore, influence curriculum. You will find discussion of international comparative studies in Chapter 12 of this text.

Summary This chapter discusses a variety of organizational patterns for carrying out curriculum activities in the individual school and school district. A teacher or curriculum specialist may be requested to serve on a number of curriculum committees and councils within a school district. Curriculum development is viewed as occurring on levels: classroom, collaborative team/grade/ subject/department, individual school, school district, and state. Each level in ascending order exercises authority over preceding levels. In addition, development takes place in national and international sectors. Sectors are distinguished from levels because sectors have no or limited power over the five levels. Teachers and curriculum specialists will find their most frequent opportunities to participate actively in curriculum development at the first four levels. Some curriculum specialists are called on by the state to serve on curriculum projects. A limited number of school-based persons take part in a variety

of curriculum efforts sponsored by regional, national, and international organizations and agencies. Teachers have considerable opportunity to shape curricular decisions at the classroom, local school, and school district levels along with some opportunity at the state level. Forces outside the schools also influence curriculum decision making. Curriculum development is perceived as a multilevel, multisector collaborative process. Models of levels or of sectors of planning address the questions of where decisions are made and what organizational processes are used for developing plans. These models do not answer the question of why decisions are made, a topic explored in later chapters. As long as we conceptualize levels of planning as loci of work rather than levels of importance, and understand that curriculum specialists do not necessarily work at all levels or sectors, the concepts of levels of planning and sectors of planning are valid and useful.

68

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

Application 1. How has the implementation of standards based assessment impacted the teacher’s role in curriculum development in your context? Use evidence to support your position. 2. In your context, how can teachers shape curricular decisions in a school? Provide evidence and

include organizational patterns which you would use to support curricular decision making. 3. In your context, provide examples of influence sectors have had on curriculum change and resulting changes in teaching effectiveness and student learning outcomes.

Reflection and Inquiry 1. Research the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and explain how the core tenants of the act will impact the various levels of curriculum development. 2. Should the USDOE exist? Support your position.

3. Research organizations that are promoting standards in online curriculum development. What gaps and overlaps exist in their positions based on your research?

Websites American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies: aaacs.org Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development SmartBrief and SmartBrief on EdTech: ascd.org, smart​ brief.com/ascd/index.jsp, and smartbrief.com/edtech/ index.jsp Institute of International Education: iie.org International Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies: www.iaacs.ca International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement: iea.nl

National Council of Teachers of English: ncte.org South Atlantic Modern Language Association: samla .memberclicks.net United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization: unesco.org U.S. Department of Education: ed.gov WIDA: http://wida.us World Council for Curriculum and Instruction: wcci-­ international.org World Council for Gifted and Talented Children: worldgifted.org

Suggested Readings Brady, M. (2000). The standards juggernaut. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(9), 649–651. Eccles, J. C. & Harold, R. D. (2008). Gender differences in sport involvement: Applying the Eccles’ expectancyvalue model. Ann Arbor, MI: University Press. Glickman, C. D. (1998). Revolutionizing America’s schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kohn, A. (1999). The schools our children deserve: Moving beyond traditional classrooms and “tougher standards.” Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. National Education Association. (1983). Report of the committee of ten on secondary school studies. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Sowell, E. J. (2005). Curriculum: An integrative approach (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.



Chapter 3  •  Curriculum Development: A Multilevel, ­Multisector Process

69

References Author. (2017). Keeping promises to children since 1994. Kipp Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.kipp.org/ kipp-foundation/history/. Bloom, S. B., Hastings, J. T., & Madeus, G. F. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Bracey, G. (2007). The first time “everything changed”: The 17th Bracey report on the condition of education. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 119–136. Bowers, J. (1991). Evaluating testing programs at state and local levels. Theory into Practice, 30(1), 52–60. ­ Brown, F. (2004). The first serious implementation of Brown: The 1964 Civil Rights Act and beyond. The Journal of Negro Education, 73(3), 182–190. Bruner, J. S. (1959). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. (1918). Cardinal principles of secondary education. Washington, DC: United States Office of Education. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Supplemental information for Appendix A of common core state standards for English language arts and literacy: New research on text complexity. Washington, DC: National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ Conant, J. B. (1959). The American high school today. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. de Camp, L. S. (1968). The great monkey trial. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Electronic Summary of The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. (2008). From http://wps​ .prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/2355/2412111/ Documents_Library/esea1965.html Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968). Forest Grove School District v. T.A. (No. 08-305), 523 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir.), aff’d, 129 S. Ct. 2484, (2009). Frymier, J. R. & Hawn, H. C. (1970). Curriculum improvement for better schools. Worthington, OH: Charles A. Jones. Fullan, M. G. (1994). Coordinating top-down and bottomup strategies for educational reform. In R. F. Elmore & S. H. Fuhrman (Eds.), The governance of curriculum (pp. 186–202). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Hirsch, E.D. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American must know. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Illinois ex rel McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 68 S. Ct. 461 (1948). International Association for K–12 Learning. (n.d.). Our story. Retrieved from https://www.inacol.org/about/ our-story/. Kantor, H. (1991). Education, social reform, and the state: ESEA and federal education policy in the 1960s. American Journal of Education, 100(1) 47–83. Kelley, E. C. (1947). Education for what is real. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). Mondale, S., & Patton, S. (2001). The story of American public education. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (n.d.). Sputnik and the dawn of the space age. Retrieved from http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). The nation’s report card. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/about National Defense Education Act. (2017). The federal role in education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/ overview/fed/role.html Oliva, P. (1972). The secondary school today (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row. Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice undermine education. New York, NY: Perseus Books. School District of Abington Township, Pa. v. Schempp & Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, (1963). Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Stuart v. School District No. 1, Village of Kalamazoo, 30 Mich. 69 (1874). Texas Education Agency (2016). SBOE – State Board of Education. Retrieved from http://tea.texas.gov/ About_TEA/Leadership/State_Board_of_Education/ SBOE_-_State_Board_of_Education Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. U.S. Congress. (1994) H.R. 1804 Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/ legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/intro.html.

70

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

U.S. Department of Education (2004). Four pillars of NCLB. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/4pillars.html U.S. Department of Education (2015). Fundamental change: Innovation in America’s schools under race to the top. Office of State Support, Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. U.S. Department of Education (2016). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Wong, K., & Meyer, S. (Summer, 1998). Title I schoolwide programs: A synthesis of findings from recent evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 115–136. Zais, R. S. (1976). Curriculum: Principles and foundations. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Zolman et al. v. Simmons-Harris et al., 536 U.S. 639 (2002). Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 72 S. Ct. 679 (1952).

CHAPTER

4

Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension THE SCHOOL AND SCHOOL DISTRICT AS A UNIQUE BLEND Schools differ considerably from one another in their physical facilities, resources, and locales. Yet, it is not the schools that differ as much as the people who either support them or operate within them. Each school has a unique blend of talent, with different skills, knowledge, experience, and personality. Curriculum development is a people process, a human endeavor in which individuals and groups accept and carry out mutually reinforcing roles. Faculties with a predisposition to change curriculum to better serve students with the subtle blending of their skills and knowledge can achieve significant successes in curriculum improvement. Differences Among School Faculties The human variables in the process of curriculum development are many and complex. When schools’ achievements in curriculum improvement are compared, it is quickly discovered that there are great variations in the leadership skills of (a) the person or persons leading the curriculum study, (b) the curriculum development team, (c) the total faculty, and (d) the preceding three entities working together. Success or failure will depend to a great extent on how people relate to and collaborate with each other on curriculum initiatives. The previous chapter in this text stated that decisions regarding curriculum are ongoing and occur at a variety of levels and at different times throughout the school year. In addition, curriculum developers conceive of curriculum development as a collaborative team undertaking in which decisions must be made. Due to the human factor, there are variables that impact the decision making process.

Learning Outcomes After studying this chapter, you should be able to: 1. Describe the roles of (a) the instructional ­leaders, (b) the curriculum ­specialist or developer, (c) the teachers, (d) the students, and (e) the stakeholders in curriculum development. 2. Describe the knowledge and skills needed by the curriculum specialist or developer.

Talent Variables School and school district faculties and administrators have a wide range of capacity in the areas of leadership, instruction, curriculum, technology, data analysis, organization, and communication. The differences among individuals and teams participating in curriculum 71

72

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

development are dependent, depends on other factors, rather than independent variables does not change due to other variables. The presence or absence of a particular skill or expertise and the degree to which an individual possesses it, have an impact on all others who take part in the process. Not only are the leaders’ leadership skills and the followers’ followership skills important in themselves, but even more important is the manner in which they come together as shared leadership, in a complementary manner. In accounting for success or failure in a collaborative enterprise, think about differences among teams as well as among individuals. Working together, members of a team must, in a spirit of mutual respect, become unified as they move toward common goals. Therefore, a curriculum team can demonstrate competence in leadership. Success in curriculum development is more likely to be achieved when the leadership skills of the administrative team interface with those of the faculty and stakeholders, resulting in a total team approach to the solution of curriculum problems.

ROLE OF CURRICULUM TEAM MEMBERS In Chapter 3, it was determined that curriculum teams function at several levels and in several sectors. Primary responsibility for curriculum development is assigned to a constituent group or the collaborative curriculum team made of up of instructional leaders, curriculum developers, teachers, students, and stakeholders. The collaborative curriculum team carries the heaviest burden in seeking to improve the curriculum and team members in the process of curriculum development serve many roles. Some of these roles are determined by society and others by organizational structures. Team members may self-determine the roles they prefer to play on the team themselves, based on time, expertise, and interest. Some roles are mandated, whereas others spring out of the personalities of the team. For purposes of analysis, focus your attention on the roles of the curriculum team in grades 9 through 12 at a high performing high school, school XYZ that had a full-time lead teacher serving as a curriculum specialist on staff. Recently, the school leaders learned they received a major grant to implement a one-to-one (1:1) digital device initiative. It also included mobile learning platforms and wireless as a service so that students could access content and curriculum by bringing their own device (BYOD) such as smart phones and tablets. The stakeholders of the school were thrilled for this opportunity provided students access to a digital device to attain and utilize digital curriculum and other electronic resources at both home and school. Additionally, the staff embraced this opportunity to evolve their curriculum to meet the current and future needs of the students and community. Year one of the grant focused implementing the initiative in the discipline of English Language Arts (ELA), to be expanded to all school wide disciplines in years two and three. In the hypothetical high school a collaborative curriculum team is tasked with determining which device, platform, and electronic curriculum will be used to provide cutting edge opportunities for students while maintaining high student performance. To accomplish these tasks, the principal (instructional leader) asks the curriculum specialist to serve as the chairperson of a team which includes teachers from various disciplines and grades at the school, a teacher from an online school who lives in another area of the state, and school stakeholders (e.g., students, parents, business leader). As the instructional leader, he provided guidance to the curriculum specialist on the expectations and deliverable he set for her and on the roles of the team members. The deliverable was to provide a recommendation on a roadmap for successful implementation of the 1:1 initiative for the following schoolyear, that will be implemented over a three-year time frame.



Chapter 4  •  Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension

Role of the Instructional Leader In high school XYZ, the instructional leader assigned the task of establishing a team to the curriculum specialist. In doing so, he chose to delegate. Delegation is an important management skill for it serves to develop others and to provide motivation; however, if not managed correctly, it can have a negative impact. In this case, the instructional leader played an active role throughout the process by supporting, communicating, and holding the team accountable to ensure success. Components of the deliverable established by the instructional leader required the curriculum specialist to develop a team, establish processes, conduct research, seek input from stakeholders, and gain group consensus on the outcome. Additional expectations that he set surrounding the composition of the team and parameters for which the team would operate included: • members have diversity of thought and represent the demographics of the school; • members bring to the task expertise, knowledge, and technical competence in the areas of curriculum, applicable standards, instruction, assessment, and technology; • members have excellent written and oral communication skills; • members should have objective decision making skills; • communication structures and expectations must be established early in the process; • the team must develop an online curriculum survey to be administered to all staff and stakeholders; and • the team must analyze the data gathered from the survey and other sources to guide the development of the deliverable. Whether the instructional leader plays a direct or indirect role, his or her presence should always be strongly felt. If the instructional leader serves actively in the process of curriculum development or indirectly by delegating leadership responsibilities to subordinates, efforts are likely to fail without his or her support. As early as 1955, the instructional leader’s role in “instruction and curriculum development” was listed as the number one critical task for the instructional leader by the Southern States Cooperative Program in Education, sponsored by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation (Southern States Cooperative Program in Educational Administration, 1955). However, in today’s schools the span of responsibilities that fall on the instructional leader often overweigh the opportunities for him or her to develop curriculum. In some instances, curriculum development does not head the list of priorities of principals. In 2003, William H. Roe and Thelbert L. Drake (2003) observed that the principal is torn between his or her desired role as instructional leader and his or her actual role as administrator and manager (p. 22). More recently John Hattie (2009) provided conclusions from meta-analysis research, that instructional leadership, which is focused on processes leading to change in student achievement, has a higher effect size than other types of leadership. Some factors that lead principals away from spending time on instructional leadership are business and personnel management; efficiency of operation and safety; mandates from the state and school district, along with stakeholders’ expectations of engagement. In most schools, stakeholders are aware that the instructional leader by both tradition and job description is charged with the responsibility for conducting all the affairs and decision making of the school. Similarly, at the school district level curriculum would be the responsibility of the superintendent. In that sense, all curriculum teams and groups of the school and school district are advisory to the principal and superintendent respectively.

73

74

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

“Theory X” and “Theory Y” Through each person’s individual approach, the instructional leader exerts a force on all operations within the school. The success of the curriculum specialists and developers may depend to some extent on whether the principal is a “Theory X” or “Theory Y” leader. In 1960, Douglas McGregor classified two management approaches, Theory X and Theory Y, based on a set of assumptions that managers have about people. According to McGregor (1960), managers following Theory X believe the following. • • • • •

The average person dislikes work and tries to avoid it. Most people must be forced to work and threatened with punishment to get them to work. The average person lacks ambition and avoids responsibility. The average person must be directed. The need for security is the chief motivation of the average person. (McGregor, 1960, pp. 33–34)

Authority, control, task maintenance, and product orientation dominate the thinking of the Theory X administrator. On the other hand, the administrator who subscribes to Theory Y holds these beliefs. • The average person welcomes work. • The average person seeks responsibility. • Most people will demonstrate self-reliance when they share a commitment to the realization of common objectives. • The average person will be committed to an organization’s objectives if he or she is rewarded for that commitment. • Creativity in problem solving is a trait found rather widely among people. (McGregor, 1960, pp. 47–48) Whereas administrators may be more inclined toward one theory, he or she will manifest behavior that will at times leans toward the other. There are occasions when the Theory Y administrator will exercise authority and follow Theory X principles. Nevertheless, the position among many specialists in curriculum development and in leadership is that a Theory Y approach is recommended. Thomas J. Sergiovanni and Fred D. Carver (1980) counseled: “In our view, the unique role of the school as a humanizing and self-actualizing institution requires that school executives adopt the assumptions and behavior manifestations of Theory Y” (p. 49). The human relations-oriented principal nurtures the curriculum development process by establishing a climate in which the curriculum team feels valued and in which they satisfy, to use Abraham Maslow’s (1970) term, “the need for self-actualization” (p. 4). The instructional leader encourage and facilitates the process. Because the instructional leader holds the power for final decision making, he or she is wise to give serious consideration to recommendations made by the curriculum team. Theory Y administrators might well find compatible with their views of leadership principles of Theory Z organizations made popular by William G. Ouchi in the 1980s (Ouchi, 1981). Based on practices traditionally followed by Japanese business and industry, Theory Z organizations emphasize collective decision making and responsibility over individual decision making and responsibility. Theory Z organizations welcome the establishment of quality control circles or simply, quality circles which are small teams of employees who are tasked to study and propose ways of solving problems and improving the effectiveness of the organization (Ouchi, 1981). These quality circles may sound like a professional learning community (PLC) to readers as the genesis of the PLC may have been from the quality movement.



Chapter 4  •  Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension

Regardless of their approach, instructional leaders establish an organizational framework and positive organizational culture so that curriculum development may proceed. They assure that facilities and needed resources are available and provide for coordinated efforts of the various teams and consultative help. Their coaching will keep the teams on task, assist with resolution if conflict arises, and communicate school needs to all teams. Instructional leaders provide a healthy school culture and climate that encourages continuous improvement and therefore develop the talent and capacity of all in the organization. With the emphasis on data and evidence informed decision making, the instructional leader assures access to relevant sources and analysis to support the teams. ROLE OF THE CURRICULUM SPECIALIST.  In the school XYZ scenario, the online teacher and

stakeholders indicated it was impractical for them to attend all meetings in person; however, they were motivated to participate if a virtual format was provided. The curriculum specialist determined that a blended meeting structure would be conducive to strong communication. In a blended meeting structure, team members meet virtually and/or f2f depending on the needs of the team. In the case of this curriculum team, the curriculum specialist established two f2f meetings and virtual meetings with Instant Messaging System (IMS) and video capabilities. In an IMS meeting the meeting leader (moderator) uses Chat, typed real-time conversations via a network, phone, and video to link in all members of a team together to conduct the meeting. This was the first time the curriculum specialist had used a blended approach to conduct meetings; consequently, she practiced during a few low-level meetings with colleagues to understand potential challenges. She discovered similar challenges present in virtual meetings as in traditional face to face meetings to which she was accustomed. Challenges in virtual meetings were: • people talked at the same time; • one member could not resist displaying his or her advanced knowledge of the subject under discussion; • one member consistently finished sentences for other members; • one member dominated the discussion; and • the leader explained a point three times before all team members seemed to understand. She was confident she could overcome these challenges for she had a strong understanding of adult communication strategies (Mangin & Dunsmore, 2014). She concluded it was possible that many, even most, of the members thought they were communicating something to the team while they were speaking. It was highly probable that what was heard was much different from their intentions. She also found there were challenges present when conducting an IMS meeting such as the following. • Participants must have access to the same electronic programs being used by the moderator to access the materials. • Technical problems may present themselves which create significant challenges if back up plans are not developed. • Material must be presented electronically so participants can see and use the material. • The participants interject their comments directly to the moderator, or to the group, or to another participant with or without others knowing. • Participants can easily be distracted for they are not physically present.

75

76

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

As the complexities are considered in carrying out this task, she became acutely aware of the responsibility she bore for the success or failure of the work of the curriculum planning team. According to the Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession (2009), knowledge and skills a teacher leader must bring to any task include: • • • • •

working with adult learners; communication; collaboration; knowledge of content and pedagogy; and systems thinking. (Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession, 2009)

Each of the identified expertise areas are important; however, curriculum specialists would find it difficult if they were not knowledgeable of the team process. Success in curriculum improvement depends on the concerted effort of both team members and leaders. The curriculum specialist must create a collaborative environment built on trust. ROLE OF THE TEACHERS.  In our proposed setting the teachers serve in a variety of roles. The brick and mortar teachers, traditional school-based, who participated on the team:

• provided insight on the learning needs of the students; • provided insight to the level of expertise the staff has in the use of technology, curriculum design, and instruction methods used at the school; • served as experts for the standards students are required to master; • helped to design formative and summative assessments that align to the ELA standards; • provided insight on current curricular and instructional initiatives; and • liaised with the team, staff, and teachers on matters important to the success of the initiative. The online teacher assisted by: • aiding in selecting a robust digital curriculum aligned to the standards; • providing expertise on types of pedagogy needed for online instruction; and • accessing resources to assist in the implementation of the initiative. The examples given are not definitive nor are they germane only to online and brick and mortar teachers; however, the combined strength of the teachers on the team will serve the school well. The teachers will serve as a primary voice in the curriculum development phase and will be instrumental in executing the implementation plan. In addition, they will serve as teacher leaders among their peers when the 1:1 initiative is rolled out to other members of the faculty. Over the years, the roles that teachers play in curriculum development have varied depending on the circumstance. Until the recent movement to standards based curriculum, teachers were the primary team in curriculum development. In the 1980s and 1990s the empowerment movement gained momentum and sought to raise the status of teachers and thereby improve the school’s curriculum and instruction program’s effectiveness. The empowerment, which permitted teachers as professionals to take part in the decision making process of the school was considered fundamental to a school’s success (Maeroff, 1988). Schools and school districts ascribed to this model, which evolved into another conception referred to as site based management. Following the practices of site based management, administrators literally shared their power with teachers (Snowden, Gorton & Alston, 2007). Site based management referred to decisions being made closest to the implementation or to those involved, resulting in decentralization of authority from the school district level to the



Chapter 4  •  Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension

school level, which then may have been shared with teachers. Over time, some school districts found that there are functions which are better to be made at the school district level for consistency, such as talent recruitment, budgeting and financial management, and curriculum development. The inclusion of curriculum development being found to have need of consistency, particularly with the implementation of accountability brought on by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, has resulted in much curriculum development now taking place at the school district level, with empowered teachers involved, thus combining the concepts of decentralization and centralization into a practical approach in the context of accountability for student learning. Critics of empowerment and shared decision making argued that teacher involvement in decision making or shared decision making was an unnecessary demand on teachers’ time, an inappropriate role, or an infringement on administrative authority. However, this was in direct conflict with the success of Japanese quality circles which revealed that meaningful involvement in decision making enhances worker morale and consequently increases production (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). Translated into school terms, this principle indicates that when teachers find themselves to be valued professionals whose opinions carry some weight, they will be more satisfied with their profession. This improvement in teacher morale, in turn, will increase school productivity, that is, student achievement. In 1990, George H. Wood (1990) connected the empowerment of teachers to the empowerment of students when he said, “Only by linking democracy to empowerment, that is, working for the democratic empowerment of students will teachers find a genuine sense of empowerment themselves” (p. 107). More recently, Taylor, Hocevar, and Touchton (2011) in a national study of principals and superintendents found that as accountability for student learning outcomes increased, principals reconsidered shared decision making, since they felt the weight of accountability. However, principals expressed continued belief in shared decision making and in finding funds and time for teachers to be involved, particularly with curriculum and instructional decisions that affected teachers’ daily work. ROLE OF COMMUNITY AS STAKEHOLDERS.  As mentioned in Chapter 3 of this text ­stakeholders, constituent groups, operate on a variety of levels such as schools and school districts. Both internal (staff, students, and district level personnel), and external (parents, community members, and businesses), have a critical role to play in improving student outcomes; therefore, involving stakeholders in initiatives is wise if managed properly. To sustain success in school initiatives, parent and community involvement in schools must,

go beyond social activities and fund-raising efforts to address student achievement head-on, and school staff must lead this effort. When schools, districts, parents and community groups collaborate and align their efforts around student achievement, more students will succeed, success can be sustained, and public education will be at its best. (U.S. Department of Education, 2009)

The role stakeholders play on the curriculum team fluctuates from project to project as well as from school to school and across school districts. In working with adults, the curriculum specialist should understand risks from inviting and honoring diverse decisions, maintain objectivity while building trust, and be able to manage healthy discourse while facilitating focused conversations (Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession, 2009). In the 1:1 initiative described at high school XYZ, stakeholders assisted in areas such as: • defining and providing insight to the needs of the community; • assisting on decisions regarding technology;

77

78

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

• assisting with online survey design, implementation, and analysis of the results; • marketing the curriculum and instructional changes and expectations for equitable access; and • liaising between the curriculum team and school community on the initiative. The roles of stakeholders in the affairs of the school have changed considerably over the years. Historically, the community was the school. Parents schooled at home for lack of or in preference to a formal school and the affluent imported tutors from Europe to live in their homes and to instruct their children. The church provided instruction in its religious precepts, and young men learned trades as apprentices on the job. Women in colonial America would bring children into their homes and for a small payment from each family, and teach them R’s, reading, writing, and arithmetic. For the greater part of the twentieth century, community involvement was interpreted as passive support for the schools. The school would send bulletins and notices home to inform parents about issues and activities. Stakeholders would meet to hear about the school or school district’s achievements, organize themselves as volunteers, and work to raise funds for special projects. The community’s role was to support and strengthen decisions made by the school and school district leaders. The current professional literature is filled with discussions of the necessity for involving the community in the educational process; therefore, a shift of stakeholder involvement is noticeable. School leaders seek stakeholder engagement and strategize to receive input from a representative demographic of the community the school serves. Creating advisory councils school improvement teams, business/industry/university partnerships, and seeking community involvement grants are examples of actions instructional leaders take to gain support. Diversity of thought and expertise from stakeholders are important factors an instructional leader should consider when working to improve the curriculum. ROLE OF STUDENTS AS STAKEHOLDERS.  Generally, student performance is the driving indicator for curriculum development; however, a particularly valuable contribution to curriculum improvement that students can make is to provide feedback on the teachers’ instruction. Although some teachers resist student feedback of their performance, it can be provided anonymously by the learners. Valuable clues for modifying a curriculum and improving methods of instruction can be provided. Effective teachers often seek feedback from their students and are wise in doing so, given that when teachers seek feedback from students, the probability that student learning will increase is high (Hattie, 2009). Regarding the 1:1 initiative at high school XYZ, students had a vested interest in improving conditions at the school and they supported the initiative by:

• • • • •

providing insight on the educational and technology needs of students; assisting with the design of surveys used by stakeholders; assisting in the selection of and giving feedback on the chosen technology; participating in assessments; and identifying strengths and weaknesses in the initiative.

The contributions made by the students to the curriculum initiative enhanced the work of the professional educators. Additionally, leaders sought student input through other actions. Progress monitoring, informal assessments on student learning outcomes as they relate to a standard, provided valuable insight related to a teacher or curriculum team on the level of rigor of the curriculum, instruction, and the effectiveness or instruction.



Chapter 4  •  Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension

Even in those schools and school districts in which student input is not actively sought, or where it is prohibited by collective bargaining agreements, and in which channels have not been established for gathering data from students, their learning outcomes speak loudly. For the instructional leader, teacher grade distributions are an example of an important indicator to consider when determining the effectiveness of curriculum and instruction. If teacher given grades are high, and student scores on aligned nationally standardized exams and state assessments are consistently below national and state averages, it can be concluded that some adjustments are necessary with respect to either the curriculum, instruction, or resources.

THE CURRICULUM SPECIALIST AND THE TEAM PROCESS Neither technical expertise nor knowledge about curriculum theory can substitute for a curriculum specialist’s knowledge of and expertise with the team process. Four sets or clusters of team process skills appear to be particularly important. 1. Change process.  The leader must be knowledgeable about the process of effecting change and be able to translate that knowledge into practice with the team. He or she must demonstrate effective decision-making skills and can lead team members in learning to use them. 2. Interpersonal skills.  The leader must be knowledgeable about team dynamics. He or she must exhibit a high degree of human relations skills, be able to develop interpersonal skills among members of the team, and be able to establish a culture of collaboration. 3. Leadership skills.  The leader must demonstrate leadership skills, including organizational skills and the ability to manage the change process. He or she must help members of the team to develop their leadership skills and develop the school or school district’s capacity. 4. Communication skills.  The leader must communicate effectively in English or the official language both orally and in writing, aligned with establishing lines of communication. He or she must be proficient in facilitating discussions, assuring that all have a voice, and that all voices are heard, with respect for the perspectives of each. THE CHANGE PROCESS Axiom 1 in Chapter 2 proposed that change is both inevitable and desirable. Human institutions, like human beings, change if they are to continue growing and developing. Gail McCutcheon (1985) cited the ease and comparative safety of the status quo, the requirements of time and effort, the lack of rewards, established policies, and routines as impediments to change. Nevertheless, neither the status quo nor regression to outmoded practices is a defensible position for school and school district leaders. They seek to continuously improve. Curriculum development is the planned effort to effect change in the curriculum. Planned change, far different from trial and error or natural evolution, implies a systematic process to be followed by all participants. One should begin the examination of the change process by investigating the variables that exist within organizations and that have an impact upon that process. What are the typical functions of a change agent? Warren G. Bennis (1965) listed normative goals of change agents, including such tasks as improving interpersonal relationships among managing personnel, helping in resolving conflicts, and reducing tensions among workers. FOUR VARIABLES.  Harold J. Leavitt and Homa Bahrami (1988) identified four organizational variables: “structures,” “information and control methods” (i.e., the technology of managing), “people,” and “task” (pp. 246–256).

79

80

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

Structure—In Chapter 3, various organizational patterns, or structures, were identified that schools have adopted to carry out curriculum development. As already noted, structures differ considerably among school districts and among individual schools. A school’s organizational structure is shaped not only by the tasks to be accomplished, but also by the leadership, specialists, teachers, and stakeholders. No single organizational structure will satisfy the personal and professional needs of participants in every school or school district. Determination of the appropriate organizational structure is one of the decisions that curriculum developers make. Appropriate structure facilitates achievement of goals (Bolman & Deal, 2013). Information and Control Methods—The element of technology of managing encompasses both the technological tools and other resources available at the school’s disposal and the procedures followed to accomplish the task at hand. People—The human capital, or talent variable, sets the operation in motion and carries on the task; however, the differences in people make each curriculum development effort a unique undertaking. The persons essential to the curriculum development process have been discussed earlier in this text. Experts in the social science of human behavior refer to the main players in the change process as the change agent and the client system. A change agent is a person versed in the behavioral sciences who helps an organization change. The client system consists of those persons in the organization with whom the change agent works and who themselves may undergo change. This point reinforces Axiom 4 in Chapter 2, which postulates that curriculum change results from changes in people. Task—The school performs many tasks in a number of curriculum development areas. The tasks of the school relate to learners themselves whose behavior, skills, and knowledge may be changed as a result of engagement with curriculum. Leadership calls for the judicious integration of these four variables. Although behavioral scientists argue about whether the change agent must come from within or outside the school district or organization, in practical terms schools and school districts will ordinarily use their own personnel for making change; however, there are times when a consultant may be engaged. In reality, an instructional leader is a change agent since the role is to improve student learning outcomes. In reflecting on the history of change theory in education you may be familiar with Kurt Lewin. Lewin (1947) proposed a simple strategy consisting of three steps. He suggested that existing targets of change be unfrozen, then changes or innovations made, and finally the new structures refrozen until the start of a new cycle. Later, he introduced the concept of the force field, which viewed organizations as being in a state of balance or equilibrium when forces of change (driving forces) and forces of resistance (restraining forces) are equal in strength (Lewin, 1951). Changes occur when the organization is forced into a state of disequilibrium. This state of imbalance may be accomplished by augmenting the driving forces or by reducing the restraining forces; either action breaks or unfreezes the force field that maintains the organization in equilibrium. Robert J. Alfonso, Gerald R. Firth, and Richard F. Neville (1981) identified change theory as one of four theoretical fields assumed to have implications for the behavior of instructional leaders. They took the position that a school district should designate the leader responsible for promoting change and that the leader be conversant with change theory and not make change for the perception of newness, but change instead for bettering student learning outcomes. Table 4.1 identifies common barriers to change and strategies to eliminate those barriers. Uppermost in the minds of curriculum planners must be the purpose of change: improvement in



Chapter 4  •  Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension

the organization, neither change for change’s sake nor change for creating an image of newness per se, but change instead for bettering the products of the school. TABLE 4.1  Common Barriers to Change and Possible Change Strategies Barriers

Strategies

Fear of change on the part of those likely to be affected

Leader provides authentic and clear expectations regarding potential impact on and options for those affected by change. Involvement in decision making of those affected. The change must be made more attractive than lack of change.

Lack of clear goals

The team agrees to clear goals.

Lack of competent leadership

Leaders selected by peer or appointed are qualified. Ineffective leaders are provided other opportunities.

Lack of ability of team members to ­function as a team

Establish professional learning in the collaborative process.

Lack of research on problems to be addressed

Provide research, data, evidence, and analysis, along with support if needed for clarifications and understanding.

A history of unsuccessful curriculum efforts Strategize for quick wins to motivate staying the course. Lack of evaluation of previous curriculum efforts

Evaluation supported by data and evidence leading to the conclusion that change is needed. Collaboratively design or engage an evaluator for the target change.

Negative attitudes from the community

Stakeholders and community members are involved and updated on the process and progress.

Lack of resources

Adequate resources (human, physical, and intellectual) to carry out curriculum planning, implementation, and evaluation are provided and must also be available.

External pressures such as state and federal legislation, and accreditation

Lobby to change barrier legislation and develop relationships with decision makers in these arenas.

Lack of experience or knowledge about a curricular issue

Seek expert consultations from universities or professional organizations.

DECISION MAKING.  Axiom 6 of Chapter 2 takes the position that curriculum development is a decision making process. A lack of skills in decision making on the part of a curriculum specialist and team can be a formidable barrier to change. Are there any principles of decision making that could be helpful to curriculum teams? Stufflebeam, Foley, and Gephart (1971) and the Phi Delta Kappa National Study Committee on Evaluation (1971), which Stufflebeam chaired, provides guidance on the process of decision making. Stufflebeam and his committee ventured that the process of decision making consists of four stages awareness, design, choice, and action. During the process, he proposed that four kinds of decisions are made planning, structuring, implementing, and recycling. From the time student learning outcome data begin to be monitored, decisions should be made regarding the curriculum and instruction. Constant monitoring of data points regarding

81

82

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

curriculum and instruction should be at the center of the continuous improvement model. Because decision making never ends, skills in data analytics, monitoring, and decision-making processes are to be developed. INNOVATIVE INDIVIDUALS AND SMALL TEAMS.  Most curriculum development is conducted through a team process; however, change can be and often is brought about by innovative individuals and/or small teams working independently under the approval of leadership. Initiatives or pilots of new ideas; created by innovative individuals or small teams can be widely translated into practice. Informal teams are self-constituted, ad hoc, impromptu collections of individuals who gather together for some immediate purpose and later disband. The wise curriculum leader seeks to identify informal teams that may have an impact on curriculum development efforts and seeks to channel their energies into the deliberations of the formal structure. Curriculum innovation should be encouraged as long as (a) a need is established based on data and evidence, supported by respected research to support the need, (b) sound pedagogical practices are established and used, and (c) research questions are established and data are used to determine outcomes. The activity should not be replicated or continued without proof that it is an effective practice or pilot. When an innovative endeavor begins to place demands on others, without supportive data or without sanction of leadership, independence may bring ineffective practices into the learning environment. Curriculum leaders guide the team in bringing about change. In so doing they exhibit expertise in facilitating and leading the change process. Everyone involved develops their analytical skills for decision making if positive curricular changes are to be effected. TEAM DYNAMICS.  The success of a curriculum team, to some extent, is based on a clear understanding of the team’s task otherwise known as its purpose and expected deliverables from its actions. One of the great difficulties for the curriculum leader is keeping a team on task. Challenging this goal are the many individuals who try to satisfy their own personal needs in a team setting. A behavior referred to as processing, is essential in any team, particularly early in the team’s activity when individuals are getting to know each other and trying to analyze the task. The curriculum leader must ensure some, though not equal, balance between task orientation and process orientation. He or she must see to it that a team moves on with its task while permitting individuals to achieve personal satisfaction as members of the team. Excessive stress on either approach can lead to frustration of members. The curriculum team leader should be aware of the presence of three types of behaviors within a team. First, each team is composed of individuals who bring their own individual behaviors to the team. Some will maintain these behaviors, sometimes consciously and at other times subconsciously, regardless of the team setting. Thus, the team members are likely to bring personal preferences and behaviors into the team setting. Some behaviors have a positive impact on the team while others have a negative one. The team leader needs to channel negative behaviors into constructive paths or eliminate them where possible. Second, individuals in teams sometimes behave in ways that are quite different from their individual behaviors. There are contrasts in behavior between the individual who relies on his or her own inner resources, the inner-directed personality, and the individual who takes cues from those around him or her, the outer-directed personality. Not only do personal behaviors sometimes change in a team setting, but also individuals assume special roles that they do not and cannot perform in isolation. At times, an individual’s behavior causes that individual to behave in a way in which he or she perceives the team members wish him or her to act.



Chapter 4  •  Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension

Third, the team itself assumes a personality of its own. Noted already was that the functioning of the team is more than the sum of the functioning of each of the individuals who make up the team. The individuals interact with and reinforce each other, creating a unique blend. In this respect, some departments or grade level teams of a school are perceived as being more productive than others, just as schools are perceived as being different from one another. ROLES PLAYED BY TEAM MEMBERS.  Kenneth D. Benne and Paul Sheats (1948), developed a classification system for identifying functional roles of team members (pp. 43–48). They organized their classification system into three categories: team task roles, team building and maintenance roles, and individual roles. Team members take on task roles when they seek to move the team toward attaining its goals and solving its problems. Among team task roles are those of information seeker, information giver, and energizer. Team members play team building and maintenance roles when they are concerned with the functioning of the team. Included in the seven team and maintenance roles are those of encourager, harmonizer, and gatekeeper. Team members also indulge in individual roles to satisfy personal needs. Aggressor, blocker, and recognitionseeker are among eight individual roles. Teams can be helped by the leader or by an outside expert who models and shares about productive group dynamics. More authentic support can be achieved through team interactions that permits feedback to its members. This feedback could be in the form of simple analysis of interactions that have taken place among the various members. A team will be more productive if its members already possess a high degree of self-awareness and interaction skill. If, however, a team appears to lack skills in interaction or self-awareness, it may be advisable to depart from the team’s task to conduct team building exercises to establish trust and relationships. The reasons why individuals agree to participate in collaborative teams are many and varied, sometimes verbalized but often not; sometimes valid in terms of the team’s goals, sometimes not. Individuals who are motivated and possess the necessary personal and professional expertise should be encouraged to take part in curriculum development for their contributions, but also for their own professional learning and organization capacity building. TEAMS.  Curriculum development teams should be essentially task-oriented. They are given a specific job to do, carry out, and then either accept another job or cease to function. Their productivity should be measured first in the quality of improvement that takes place in student learning outcomes resulting from the changes to the curriculum and second in the professional growth of the participants. CHARACTERISTICS OF PRODUCTIVE TEAMS.  Notable research conducted in the Hawthorne

plant of the Western Electric Company in Chicago produced evidence that involvement of those affected in planning and carrying out a project led to greater productivity. From a historical perspective, the characteristics of a productive team have received much attention from respected researchers. Rensis Likert (1961) saw a supportive environment, mutual confidence and trust among team members, and a sharing of common goals as contributing to team effectiveness. Ned A. Flanders’ (1970) studies of classroom verbal interaction led users of his instrument for observing this process to conclude that team leaders need to decrease their own verbal behavior and stimulate members of the team to interact more. Fred E. Fiedler (1967) concentrated on the effectiveness of the leader, and Kimball Wiles (1967) gave attention to skill in communication as

83

84

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

essential to team effectiveness. In 1985, Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin (1985) advocated skill in planning for change. From examining the wealth of literature on team dynamics and team process, a summary of characteristics of a successful leader that make for team effectiveness or productivity are: • • • • • • • • • • • •

a supportive environment; a relationship of trust is apparent among members; understood and mutually accepted goals; necessary expertise in the team; necessary resources; shared decision making; evident effective communication; leadership opportunities provided; noted progress towards task accomplishment; satisfaction of members’ personal needs; leaders seek to release the potential of the members; and effective time management.

RESPONDING TO INDIVIDUAL TEACHER CONCERNS.  Fundamental to successful change, be it curricular or other, is an understanding of concerns of individuals who form a team. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) (n.d.) was developed at the Research and Development Center for Teacher Education at the University of Texas. CBAM illuminates the necessity for analyzing concerns among individuals in a team that intends to effect change. CBAM targets the personal concerns of individuals in the team by providing a diagnostic approach to understanding human beliefs. In 1978, Gene E. Hall and Susan Loucks (1978) described seven stages of concern during the change process, from simple awareness of an innovation to be considered to refocusing on benefits of the innovation (pp. 36–53). The perceptive curriculum leader is aware of these concerns and guides the members constituting the team through the seven stages to shifting concerns away from themselves to successful implementation of the innovation. LEADERSHIP.  Curriculum team productivity arises from a synchronous blend of skills by team

members and the curriculum leader, yet a heavy burden for the productivity of the team rests with the leader. If a survey were administered to educators to determine the characteristics of a successful leader the following descriptors may well emerge: • • • • • •

intelligence, experience, assertiveness, articulate, innovative, and dynamic.

It is almost impossible to ascribe any single set of characteristics to persons in positions of leadership. Generalizing that leaders tend to possess, among other attributes, slightly above average intelligence as well as requisite personal and leadership skills, Ralph B. Kimbrough and Michael Y. Nunnery (1998) concluded that the possession of certain characteristics does not guarantee success as a leader, nor does their absence rule out success.



Chapter 4  •  Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension

Historical Perspective on Leadership Reviewing historical theories and research on leadership will assist you in developing your own perspective and deciding how you will lead.    Two Approaches.  Historically, it was believed leaders leaned toward one of two basic approaches: the bureaucratic or the collegial. The first approach has been labeled autocratic; the second, democratic. In 1982, Edgar L. Morphet, Roe L. Johns, and Theodore L. Reller (1982) discussed the assumptions that underlie these two approaches. According to these authors, leaders who follow what they termed the “traditional, monocratic, bureaucratic approach” hold to a lineand-staff plan of organization that places responsibility and authority at the top that encourages competition, and that allows individuals to be expendable (pp. 77–79). On the other hand, according to Morphet, Johns, and Reller (1982), leaders who follow what they called the “emerging, pluralistic, collegial approach” believe that power, authority, and decision making can be shared, that consensus leads to unity within the organization, and that individuals are not expendable (pp. 80–82). In contrasting these two approaches to leadership, Morphet, Johns, and Reller (1982) noted that the traditional approach operates in a closed climate, whereas the democratic approach functions in an open climate. The traditional approach relies on centralized authority with a fixed line-and-staff structure. Authority is spread out and shared under the pluralistic approach; the structure, while sometimes more complex than the traditional structure, is more flexible to allow for maximum participation of members of the organization. The flow of communication is much different under these two approaches. The autocratic or authoritarian approach is imbued with the philosophy of going through channels. Messages may originate from the top of the echelon, which is most common, or from the bottom. Messages from the top pass down through intermediate echelons but may not be stopped by these echelons. On the other hand, messages originating from the bottom proceed through intermediate echelons and may be stopped by any echelon. Subordinates are required to conduct business through channels and may not with impunity “go over the head” of their immediate supervisor. Under a pluralistic approach, communications may flow in any direction—up, down, circularly, or horizontally. They may skip echelons and may be referred to persons outside the immediate chain of command. The pluralistic leader is not “hung up” on channels and personal status. It is the traditional approach that begets the “organization man.” Morphet, Johns, and Reller (1982) cautioned, in comparing these two approaches, “It should not be inferred, however, that democratic administration is ipso facto good and that authoritarian administration is ipso facto bad. History provides numerous examples of successful and unsuccessful democratic administration and successful and unsuccessful authoritarian administration” (p. 85). They noted, though, that some studies reveal monocratic organizations to be less innovative than pluralistic ones. The traditional leader may be identified as an adherent to Theory X and the pluralistic leader as a follower of Theory Y. Leaders in organizations of the Theory Z type are largely Theory Y practitioners who structure their organizations to secure maximum involvement and commitment from the workers. The pluralistic assumption that the individual is not expendable, for example, has been interpreted in Japanese Theory Z organizations as a guarantee of lifetime employment in the organization in return for full commitment to that organization in the realization of its goals (Ouchi, 1981). This guarantee has become less certain given the economic stresses of the last several decades.

85

86

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel Leadership Style.  Leadership style is a potent factor in the productivity of teams. A classic study of the impact of leadership was conducted in 1939 by Lewin, Lippitt, and White, who studied the effects of three different styles of adult leadership on four groups of eleven-year-olds. They examined the effects of “authoritarian,” “democratic,” and “laissez-faire” leadership. Under the authoritarian leadership they were more dependent upon the leader, gave more expressions of discontent, and lack of group initiative. The laissez-faire atmosphere resulted in greater reliance on the leader, greater discontent among the group, and reduced conversation related to the work. Furthermore, the eleven-year-olds were not productive in the absence of the laissez-faire leader. The converse of these situations was true for the democratic group climate. Consequently, they remained productive in the democratic leadership atmosphere. Under the democratic leadership they relied more on each other. Further, in the absence of the leader of the democratic group children were able to proceed with their work (Oliva, 1956). Although curriculum specialists are not leading children, the noted study has implications for leading teams. If a curriculum leader seeks commitment from a team, the authoritarian and laissez-faire approaches are not likely to be effective. The curriculum leader’s power is conferred by the group, especially if the leadership is encouraged from within the team. Task and Relationship Oriented Leaders.  In 1969, renowned industrial and organizational psychologist Fred Fiedler (1969) studied the age-old question of whether successful leadership results from personal style or from the circumstances of the situation in which the leader finds himself or herself. Fiedler spoke of the need for an appropriate match between the leader’s style and the team situation in which he or she must exercise leadership. Developing what is called the contingency model, Fiedler classified leaders as task-oriented or relationship-oriented. In some respects, this classification resembles the dichotomy between the autocratic and democratic leader. The task-oriented leader keeps the goals of the organization always in front of him or her and the team. The needs of the organization take precedence over the needs of individuals. The superordinate–subordinate relationship is always clear. The relationship-oriented leader is less task oriented and more concerned with building harmonious relationships among the members of the organization. He or she possesses a high degree of human relations skill and is less conscious of status. Persons exhibiting either of these two styles may find themselves in organizations that are either structured or unstructured, or in mixed situations possessing elements of both structure and lack of structure. Successful leadership depends on the fortuitous combination of both style and circumstance. Fiedler (1969) found that task-oriented leaders perform better than relationship-oriented leaders at both ends of the continuum from structure to lack of structure. They perform well in structured situations where they possess authority and influence and in unstructured situations where they lack authority and influence. Relationship-oriented persons function best in mixed situations in which they possess moderate authority and influence. Situational Leadership.  Leadership, then, arises from the exigencies of a situation. Stephen J. Knezevich (1984), for example, espoused a situational view of leadership when he said: A person is selected to perform the leadership role because of possessing a set of sensitivities, insights, or personal qualities the team may require for realization of team objectives and decisions. . . . The leader is selected and followed because of being capable to achieve what the followers need or want. A leader successful in one community with a unique set of educational needs may not experience similar success when moved to another with a markedly different set



Chapter 4  •  Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension of educational problems, personnel, and value orientations. Changing the situation, or team’s nature and purposes, results in a significant variation in leader characteristics desired that upsets all but the broadest interpretations of personal attributes. (Knezevich, 1984, p. 66)

Instructional Leadership.  Review of leadership literature would not be complete without referencing instructional leadership and transformational leadership. While both are widely noted today, transformational leadership seeks to develop the capacity of participants over time for sustained improvement and instructional leadership has greater change in student achievement (Hattie, 2009). The research on leadership thus suggests that the leader in curriculum development should.

• • • • •

Seek to develop a collaborative approach. Seek to develop trusting relationships. Use data analytics to focus on data and evidence informed needs. Encourage the development of leaders from within the team, Maintain openness to new ideas.

Even with the best leadership some collaborative teams experience great difficulties in moving toward accomplishment of their goals. Without effective leadership, little can be expected of teams in terms of productivity. EMPOWERMENT.  W. Edwards Deming (1986), whose ideas on management are credited with

helping Japan’s rise after World War II as an industrial power and influenced Ouchi (1981), blended industrial management principles into a concept known as Total Quality Management (TQM). Although Deming’s ideas applied to industry, TQM when applied to education incorporates principles of shared management, the notion that quality should be determined in process rather than tested at the end of the process, the idea that learners should share responsibility in evaluating their own work, abandonment of performance ratings of individuals, and participation of team members in finding solutions to problems. This kind of collaboration and ownership results in what is called empowerment today. In 1992, William Glasser (1992), in a vein similar to Deming’s, pointed out obstacles to quality schools in the presence of too much boss-management, too much coercion, not enough cooperative learning, too much traditional testing, too little emphasis on enhancing the ability to use knowledge, and too little opportunity for learners to evaluate the quality of their work. Neither American industry nor education has fully implemented all principles of quality management. However, some evidence exists in the concepts of performance assessment, cooperative learning, and constructivist psychology, which encourages the learners to take responsibility for formulating their own knowledge under the guidance of the teacher. COMMUNICATION SKILLS.  Much of the success of a curriculum development team is based on how communication structures are established and by the skill level of participants in written and oral communication. Brick and mortar school based teams may establish regular meetings on site to review and discuss curriculum initiatives. Virtual schools may establish similar expectations; however, meetings would be held though electronic means such as phone conferences, online information portals, and IMS that allows video conferencing. Both curriculum teams would communicate through oral and written formats and may establish similar timelines, benchmarks,

87

88

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

and deliverables. Challenges exist in both of these environments and the leader will demonstrate proficiency in two ways: he or she must possess a high degree of communication skills and must also be able to keep team members on track to deliver a quality product on time. COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS.  There are common misunderstandings about com-

munication to be clarified. First, skill in speaking is sometimes mistaken as a communication skill. The ability to respond quickly and fully, to think on one’s feet, is an attribute desired of a leader. However, facility in speaking does not ensure that a message is understood as it was intended. Second, team interaction is sometimes taken for communication. Comments such as “We had a lively discussion” are meaningless unless it is known whether the discussion led to understanding and decision making. Processing, the sharing of personal feelings and opinions, is sometimes equated with communication. Interaction for interaction’s sake cannot be accepted as a legitimate activity for work in curriculum development. Third, the assumption that communication is full, clear, and completely understood is often made without sufficient evidence. Alfonso, Firth, and Neville (1981) advised leaders against making such an assumption: “Communication will always be inaccurate because sender and receiver can never share common perceptions. Supervisors often operate on the assumption that communication is perfect. Instead, they should function on the basis that communication is imperfect and must always be so” (p. 175). For the purpose of clarity, consider the following three categories: (a) problems with oral communication or those that oral and written communication share, (b) problems with written communication, and (c) problems brought about by nonverbal behavior or the absence thereof. Oral Communication.  Difficulties in oral communication can arise in the following

situations. 1. Members of the team either unintentionally or deliberately fail to come to the point.  They talk around instead of to an issue. Sometimes they engage in avoidance behavior—that is, they resist coming to grips with the issue. The curriculum leader helps team members to address the issues and to come to the point through clarification. 2. Members of the team use imprecise language.  The team leader is alert to difficulties members may have in following a discussion. He or she asks speakers to repeat and clarify statements and questions as necessary. The leader keeps in mind that some members hesitate to ask for clarifications themselves, feeling that in so doing they may expose their own ignorance. The leader uses inquiry to engage everyone and to provide for explicit understanding. 3. Members of the team select out of a discussion those things that they wish to hear.  Everyone hears and sees selectively. Sometimes hearing is selective due to relationships with the speakers, or due to individual frames of reference. The leader helps team members to see all facets of a problem, calling attention to points they may have missed which are pertinent. 4. Members fail to express themselves, particularly if they disagree with what has been said.  Some persons hold back their views and opinions for various reasons. The leader assures members that dissent and diversity in perspectives are encouraged. By modeling responses to divergent opinions and valuing of all voices, a climate is fostered in which each person can express himself or herself without reprisal.



Chapter 4  •  Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension

5. Members fail to follow an orderly process of discussion.  Communication is impossible when team members are unwilling to share the floor; turns in discussion, listen to each other with an open mind, and respect each other’s views. The team leader collaboratively establishes group norms to facilitate productive communication. 6. Consensus is not achieved.  The team strives to reach consensus through thorough discussion of the issues. The goal is commitment of as many persons as possible to curriculum development and implementation. Without commitment, curriculum improvement is not possible. 7. Sessions end without closure.  If next steps are not clear, members leave the team meetings confused. The leader has the responsibility for seeking closure on issues when possible, for summarizing the team’s work, and for calling the team’s attention to the next steps. 8. The communication flow is primarily from leader to members.  The leader should resist the temptation to dominate a discussion and to foist his or her views on the team. He or she should ensure that communication is initiated by members of the team to the leader and to each other as well as from the leader to team members. 9. Acrimony, hostility, and disharmony exist within a team.  When these conditions occur, the leader must intercede and work to remove the friction. The leader should be attune to team dynamics and seek to create an environment of trust and respect. Written Communication.  Writing easily comprehensible messages is an art, at least in a cooperative activity such as curriculum development. Written communication should serve only to supplement, not replace, oral communication. Keep in mind that electronic communications, text, email, chat, sent professionally are to adhere to the same guidelines as traditional written communications. Every written communication can be examined and interpreted, including electronic ones. Difficulties arise with this form of communication when the following situations occur.

1. The writer cannot sense the impact of his or her words in a written communication.  Extra care is taken when structuring a written message. A written message may give a far different impression from what the writer intended, without benefit of nonverbal communication. The reader’s disposition at the time can influence interpretation. The writer should review any written communication in the light of the impact it may have on him or her if he or she were the recipient. 2. Written communications are excessive in number.  The leader should encourage the use of written communications as needed but discourage excessive use. Courtesy, clarity, and brevity should be earmarks of written communications. 3. Standard English is not used.  Communication loses impact if conventions of grammar (e.g., English or official language), punctuation, and usage are lacking. Inaccurate spelling, improper grammar, and poor sentence structure can detract from the messages and can generate lack of support and unnecessary criticism. Face-to-face communication is ordinarily a far more effective means than writing for conveying ideas among members of small teams of peers such as a typical curriculum development team. Data or evidence displays or spreadsheets most probably are provided electronically so they can be analyzed before the meetings or during the meetings. Even in the case of complex or technical data presented in written form, follow-up discussions are usually necessary.

89

90

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel Nonverbal Behavior.  Nonverbal communication is shaped both biologically and culturally. A team leader should be able to detect fatigue, boredom, hostility, and sensitivity on the part of the members through body language and other nonverbal cues. He or she should be able to sense when a discussion is turning negative and turn the discussion to constructive paths. The leader must be especially cautious of nonverbal signals he or she gives and must make every effort to ensure that those signals are positive. Finally, for successful curriculum development both the leader and team members must exhibit a high degree of skill in all modes of communication (Hall, 1959).

Summary This chapter focused on the roles played by various persons and teams participating in curriculum development at the individual school and school district levels. Some instructional leaders perceive themselves as experts in curriculum and instruction and take an active part in curriculum development, whereas, others delegate that responsibility. A Theory X administrator emphasizes authority and control, whereas a Theory Y administrator follows a human relations approach. Theory Z organizations emphasize collaborative decision making and responsibility over individual decision making and responsibility. Instructional leadership is essential to improve student learning outcomes, of which curriculum development is a part and transformational leadership develops professional capacity over time.

Students, depending on their maturity, participate in curriculum improvement by serving on committees and by providing data and evidence about their own learning experiences. Stakeholders participate in curriculum development by serving on advisory councils, responding to surveys, providing data and evidence about their children, and serving as resource persons. The professional personnel—teachers, specialists, administrators—share the greatest responsibility for curriculum development. Both leaders and followers will develop skills in the team collaborative process. Among the competencies necessary for the curriculum specialists are skills in leading change, decision making, relating interpersonally, in leading teams, and in communicating.

Application 1. In your context, in what roles do teachers play in curriculum development? Give examples in which teachers have participated in a curriculum initiative and the roles they have played. How would you adjust those roles for greater empowerment and capacity building? 2. In your context, which innovative practices from an individual or small team have been

institutionalized? Use evidence to support your position and discuss any resulting modifications to the curriculum. 3. Think about team experiences that may benefit from a blended approach. As a leader, design a plan to manage participants in a variety of roles who are in various physical locations.



Chapter 4  •  Curriculum Development: The Human Dimension

91

Reflection and Inquiry 1. Consider a curriculum initiative that is being instituted in your context in the near future. Hypothesize the team members and their role to deliver a successful initiative. 2. Using the same initiative, discuss what communication structure you would use. Support

your position by considering time, effort, and costs. 3. In your context, what evidence is there that today’s principals either are or are not instructional leaders? Support your evidence with changes in student learning outcomes.

Suggested Reading Johnson, J. (2011). You can’t do it alone: A communications and engagement manual for leaders committed to reform. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Yankelovich, D. (1999). The magic of dialogue. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

References Alfonso, R. J., Firth, G. R., & Neville, R. F. (1981). Instructional supervision: A behavior system (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4(2), 43–46. Bennis, W. G. (1965). Theory and method in applying behavioral science to planned organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1(4). Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D., & Chin, R. (1985). The planning of change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistic choice and leadership (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Center for Strengthening the Teaching Process. (2009). Teacher leadership skills framework. Retrieved December 17, 2016, from http://cstp-wa.org/cstp2013/ wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Teacher-LeadershipFramework.pdf The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) (n.d.). A model for change in individuals. Retrieved from www .nationalacademies.org/rise/backg4a.htm Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis: Productivity and competitive position. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology University Press. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Fiedler, F. (1969). Style or circumstance: The leadership enigma. Psychology Today, 10(2), 38–43. Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teacher behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley P. C. Glasser, W. (1992). The quality school: Managing students without coercion (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Perennial. Hall, E. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Hall, G. E., & Loucks, S. (1978). Teacher concerns as a basis for facilitating and personalizing staff development. Teachers College Record, 80(1), 36–53. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge. Kimbrough, R. B., & Nunnery, M. Y. (1998). Educational administration: An introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall College Division. Knezevich, S. J. (1984). Administration of public education (4th ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row. Leavitt, H. J., & Bahrami, H. (1988). Managerial psychology: Managing behavior in organizations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–41. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York, NY: Harper Torchbooks.

92

Part II  •  Curriculum Development: Role of Personnel

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Maeroff, G. (1988). The empowerment of teachers: Overcoming the crisis of confidence. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Mangin, M. M. & Dunsmore, K. (2014). How the framing of instructional coaching as a lever for systematic or individual reform influences the enactment of coaching. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(2), 179–213. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row. McCutcheon, G. (1985). Curriculum theory/Curriculum practice: A gap or the Grand Canyon? In A. Molnar (Ed.), Current thought on the curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Morphet, E. L., Johns, R. L., & Reller, T. L. (1982). Educational organization and administration: Concepts, practices, and issues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Oliva, P. (1956). High school discipline in American society. NASSP Bulletin, 40(6). Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Phi Delta Kappa National Study Committee on Evaluation (1971). Educational evaluation and decision making. Itasca, NY: Peacock.

Roe, W. H., & Drake, T. L. (2003). The principalship (6th  ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sergiovanni, T. J., & Carver, F. D. (1980). The new school executive: A theory of administration. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Snowden, P. E., Gorton, R. A., & Alston, J. A. (2007). School leadership and administration: Important concepts, case studies, and simulations (7th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Southern States Cooperative Program in Educational Administration. (1955). Better teaching in school administration. Nashville, TN: McQuiddy. Stufflebeam, D. L. (1971). Educational evaluation and decision making. Itasca, NY: Peacock. Taylor, R. T., Touchton, D., & Hocevar, M. (2011). Principals’ decision making: The influence of accountability. Education Leadership Review, 12(2). U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Step 6: Engaging stakeholders. Sustaining Reading First, 6, 205–243. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/support/stakeholderlores.pdf Wiles, K. (1967). Supervision for better schools. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wood, G. H., (1990). Teachers as curriculum workers. In J. T. Sears and J. D. Marshall (Eds.), Teaching and thinking about curriculum: Critical inquiries. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

PART

III

Curriculum Development Components of the Curriculum System Development Process Chapter 5

Models for Curriculum System Development

Chapter 6

Philosophy and Aims of Education

Chapter 7

Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making

Chapter 8

Curriculum Goals or Overarching Ideas and ­Curriculum Objectives or Standards

93

CHAPTER

5

Models for Curriculum System Development Learning Outcomes

SELECTING MODELS

After studying this chapter, you should be able to: 1. Analyze the models and select one or more of its components to evaluate in your context. 2. Distinguish between deductive and inductive models for curriculum development. 3. Distinguish between linear and nonlinear models for curriculum development. 4. Distinguish between prescriptive and descriptive models for curriculum development. 5. Understand a systems approach to models in curriculum development.

The literature of education is replete with discussions of modeling. Models, which are essentially patterns to provide consistency, serve as guidelines for action. They can be found for almost every form of educational leadership task. The profession has models of instruction, of administration, of evaluation, of supervision, and others. There are even models of curriculum as opposed to models of curriculum development (Johnson, 1967). Unfortunately, the term model as used in the education profession often lacks precision. A model may be a tried or untried scheme. It may be a proposed solution to a piece of a problem, an attempt at a solution to a specific problem, or a microcosmic pattern for replication on a grander scale. At the local level, some faculties and instructional leaders follow models or adjust them to meet the needs of students. They devise their own patterns for solving educational problems or establishing procedures, though they may not have formalized their practices. The strict following of evidence based models or using a hybrid (combination) approach may serve educators well; therefore, practitioners to whom a model is directed have a responsibility to understand the essential components. Curriculum developers should have a deep understanding of curriculum and instruction research if they choose to vary from an evidence based model. Variation in Models

94

Some of the models found in the literature are simple; others are very complex. Within a given area of specialization, such as administration, instruction, supervision, or curriculum development, models may differ but show great similarities. The similarities may outweigh the differences. Individual models are often refined or revised according to the current trends that are affecting the educational practice and leadership, such as accountability and standards based curriculum. Four models of curriculum development are presented in this chapter. By examining models for curriculum development, you can analyze the phases the originators conceived as essential to the



Chapter 5  •  Models for Curriculum System Development

process. The purpose of presenting two of the models (Tyler and Taba) is to acquaint the reader with a historical basis for curriculum development. The third model (Oliva) demonstrates a more complex curriculum model which includes an evaluation component and may also be considered historical before accountability was in place for student learning outcomes. The fourth model (Gordon Taylor) demonstrates a systems approach to standards based practice, during a time of accountability, with a feedback loop. Three of the models (Tyler, Oliva, Gordon Taylor) are deductive. A deductive model proceeds from the general (e.g., examining the needs of society) to the specific (e.g., specifying instructional objectives). On the other hand, Taba’s model is inductive. An inductive model uses a bottom to top approach, starting with the assessment of the needs of students served at the local level and leading to generalization. The four models described in this chapter are linear; that is, they propose a certain order or sequence of progression through the various steps. The term linear applies to a model whose steps proceed in a more or less sequential, straight-line method from beginning to end. Perhaps the term “mostly linear” would be more accurate, since some doubling back to previous steps can take place even in “mostly linear” models. For simplicity’s sake, the term linear is used. A nonlinear approach would permit developers to enter at various points of the model, skip components, reverse the order, and work on two or more components simultaneously. This text promotes using a model, whether linear or nonlinear, in a task such as curriculum development, which can result in greater efficiency and productivity. The four models presented in this chapter are prescriptive rather than descriptive. A prescriptive model recommends what should be done and is seen as a standard in industry by many curriculum developers. By following a prescriptive model, the developer may be able to achieve desired outcomes in a more controlled manner. A descriptive model recommends an approach in more general terms. In other words, the developer relies on a practice they are familiar with and they do not necessarily follow an exact approach, every time. Control of outcomes could be less predictable in a descriptive model. All of the models presented specify sequences for carrying out the various phases or components; however, the various individuals and groups involved are not included in the models. The roles of individuals in the process are discussed elsewhere in the text.

MODELS OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT Curriculum development is seen as a process for making programmatic decisions and for revising artifacts (e.g., curriculum guides, specifications, benchmarks, and pacing guides) based on continuous and subsequent evaluation of effectiveness. A model can provide consistency and give order to the process. As Taba (1962) expressed, curriculum development should be approached systematically. When considering both structure and strategy in curriculum development, the curriculum continually and authentically evolves in a relevant context. The Tyler Model for Curriculum Development Perhaps one of the best-known models for curriculum development with special attention to the planning phases can be found in Ralph W. Tyler’s classic book, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (1949). “The Tyler Curriculum Rationale,” a process for selecting educational objectives, is widely known and has been practiced in curriculum circles throughout the world.

95

96

Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

Although Tyler proposed a rather comprehensive model for curriculum development, the first part of his model (selection of objectives) received the greatest attention from other educators. Tyler (1949) recommended that curriculum developers identify general objectives by gathering data from three sources: the learners, contemporary life outside the school, and the subject matter. After identifying numerous general objectives, the developers refine them by filtering them through two screens: (a) the educational and social philosophy of the school, and (b) the psychology of learning. A screening process is necessary, according to Tyler’s model, to eliminate unimportant and contradictory objectives. He advised the use of the school’s educational and social philosophy as the first screen for these goals (Tyler, 1949). The general objectives that successfully pass through the two screens become known as instructional objectives. In describing educational objectives, Tyler (1949) referred to them as “goals,” “educational ends,” “educational purposes,” and “behavioral objectives,” (pp. 12–13). STUDENT AS SOURCE.  The developer begins his or her search for educational objectives by

gathering and analyzing data relevant to student needs and interests. The total range of needs, educational, social, occupational, physical, psychological, and recreational, is studied. Tyler recommended evidences such as observations by teachers, interviews with students, and interviews with parents. Questionnaires and test results were recommended as techniques for collecting data about students. By examining the needs and interests of students, the developer identifies a set of potential curriculum general objectives. SOCIETY AS SOURCE.  Analysis of contemporary life in both the local community and in society at large is the next step in Tyler’s process of formulating general objectives. Tyler suggested that developers create a classification scheme that divides life into various aspects such as health, family, recreation, vocation, religion, consumption, and civic roles. From the needs of society flow many potential educational objectives. The developer should study trends in society, both past and present, to make an intelligent analysis of needs of social institutions. After considering this second source, the developer has lengthened his or her set of objectives. SUBJECT MATTER AS SOURCE.  Tyler recommended a third source for the developer, the subject

matter, the disciplines themselves. Many of the curricular innovations of the 1950s, the new mathematics, audio-lingual foreign language programs, and the plethora of science programs, came from the subject-matter specialists. From the three aforementioned sources curriculum developers derive general or broad objectives such as instructional goals. These goals may be pertinent to specific disciplines or may cross multiple disciplines. Mauritz Johnson, Jr. (1967) held a different perspective about these sources. He commented that the “only possible source [of the curriculum] is the total available culture” (p. 132). Going further, Johnson (1967) indicated that only organized subject matter, that is, the disciplines, not the needs and interests of learners or the values and problems of society, can be considered a source of curriculum items. PHILOSOPHICAL SCREEN.  To develop a subject matter screen, Tyler (1949) advised teachers of

a particular school to formulate an educational and social philosophy. He urged them to outline their values and illustrated this task by emphasizing our democratic goals: • the recognition of the importance of every individual human being regardless of race or national, social, or economic status; • opportunity for wide participation in all phases of activities in the social groups in the society;



Chapter 5  •  Models for Curriculum System Development

• encouragement of variability rather than demanding a single type of personality; and • faith in intelligence as a method of dealing with important problems rather than depending on the authority of an autocratic or aristocratic group. (Tyler, 1949, p. 34) In his discussion about the formulation of an educational social philosophy, Tyler (1949) personified the school. He implied when a school commits to an education and social philosophy, many schools personify their beliefs. For example, a school which establishes its philosophy may use the word we or us when stating its philosophy (Tyler, 1949, pp. 33–36). Therefore, Tyler perceived schools to be dynamic, living entities. In screening for subject matter, the developer should review the list of general objectives and omit those that are not in keeping with the faculty’s agreed-on philosophy. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCREEN.  The application of the psychological screen is the next step in the Tyler

model. To apply the screen, teachers clarify the principles of learning that they believe to be sound. “A psychology of learning,” said Tyler (1949), “not only includes specific and definite findings but it also involves a unified formulation of a theory of learning which helps to outline the nature of the learning process, how it takes place, under what conditions, what sort of mechanisms operate and the like” (Tyler, 1949, p. 41). Effective application of this screen presupposes adequate preparation in educational psychology and in human growth and development by those charged with the task of curriculum development. Tyler (1949) explained the significance of the psychological screen. • A knowledge of the psychology of learning enables us to distinguish changes in human beings that can be expected to result from a learning process from those that cannot. • A knowledge of the psychology of learning enables us to distinguish goals that are feasible from those that are likely to take a very long time or are almost impossible of attainment at the age level contemplated. • The psychology of learning gives us some idea of the length of time required to attain an objective and the age levels at which the effort is most efficiently employed. (Tyler, 1949, pp. 38–39) After the curriculum developer has applied this second screen, his or her list of general objectives will be reduced, leaving those that are the most significant and feasible. Care is then taken to state the objectives in behavioral terms, which turns them into instructional, or classroom objectives. Tyler did not make use of a diagram in describing the process he recommended; however, in 1970, W. James Popham and Eva L. Baker cast the model into the illustration shown in Figure 5.1, The Tyler Curriculum Rationale (p. 87). In applying the Tyler Curriculum Rationale, Popham and Baker advocated for the use of behavioral objectives, and referred to the stage after the philosophical and psychological screenings as identification of “precise instructional objectives.” Tyler saw that stage as the identification of a small number of important objectives that, although general in nature, are still specific enough to incorporate content and behavioral aspects. Tyler left room for curriculum developers to determine educational objectives in keeping with their beliefs about learning. In this respect Tyler’s objectives, though behavioral in nature, may be somewhat less precise than those proposed by other behavioral objectives advocates. For some reason, discussions of the Tyler model often stop after examining the first part of the model, the rationale for selecting educational objectives. Actually, Tyler’s model goes beyond this process to describe three more steps in curriculum planning: selection, organization, and evaluation of learning experiences. He defined learning experiences as “the interaction between the learner and the external conditions in the environment to which he can react” (Tyler, 1949, p. 63). He suggested teachers give attention to learning experiences that develop thinking, information gathering, social dispositions, and expand interests (Tyler, 1949).

97

98

Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

Source

Source

Source

Student

Society

Subject

Tentative general objectives Screen Psychology of education

Screen Psychology of learning

FIGURE 5.1

Tyler’s Curriculum Rationale Figure 5.1 from Establishing instructional goals (p. 87) by J. W. Popham & E. L. Baker (1970). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Based on Basic principles of curriculum and instruction (pp. 3–85) by R. W. Tyler (1949). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Reprinted by permission of the University of Chicago, publisher.

Precise instructional objectives

Although Tyler did not devote a chapter to a phase called direction of learning experiences (or implementation of instruction), you can infer that instruction must take place between the selection and organization of learning experiences and the evaluation of student achievement of these experiences. The Tyler Curriculum Rationale is not without its critics. As long ago as 1970, Herbert M. Kliebard took issue with Tyler’s interpretation of the notions of needs, philosophical screens, selection of learning experiences, and evaluation that the Tyler Curriculum Rationale “has been raised almost to the status of revealed doctrine” (p. 259). Kliebard (1970) concluded, “But the field of curriculum . . . must recognize the Tyler rationale for what it is: Ralph Tyler’s version of how a curriculum should be developed—not the universal model of curriculum development” (Kliebard, 1970, p. 270). The apparent linear nature and lack of interdependence among the various components are criticisms of the Tyler Curriculum Rationale. If curriculum developers consider the components to be separate and fail to understand the interaction among the sources, curriculum development can become too mechanical a process. Tyler himself did not perceive the rationale as a strictly prescribed sequence of steps to be followed without fail by curriculum developers. Evidence of this can be seen in a lesser-known, but more complex, model of the rationale presented with coauthor Mario Leyton Soto. This rendition of the rationale reveals the integration and interdependence of the various components (Soto & Tyler, 1969). Others have taken issue with Tyler too. Although acknowledging that “the influence of Ralph Tyler on the history of curriculum development cannot be underemphasized.” Patrick Slattery (1995) took the position that “postmodern curriculum development is challenging the traditional curriculum development model of Ralph Tyler” (p. 47). He observed that “postmodern curriculum development is concerned with biographical and narrative” (Slattery, 1995, p. 47). However, according to Decker F. Walker and Jonas F. Soltis (2004), the importance of Tyler’s rationale has not waned despite serious criticisms (p. 55). Tyler’s model continues to influence the curriculum development landscape. In 2007, Daniel and Laurel Tanner analyzed the Tyler Curriculum Rationale and noted its relationship to



Chapter 5  •  Models for Curriculum System Development

the progressive thought of John Dewey, H. H. Giles, S. P. McCutchen, and A. N. Zechiel (p. 134). Tanner and Tanner (2007) observed that Tyler’s Basic Principles had been present in curriculum literature since discussions began to take place, from the mid-twentieth century to the present century. EXPANDED MODEL.  Figure 5.2, Tyler’s Curriculum Rationale (Expanded) shows how an

expanded version of Tyler’s model might appear if the selection, organization, direction, and evaluation of the learning experiences were included. Source

Source

Source

Student

Society

Subject

Tentative general objectives Screen Philosophy of education

Screen Psychology of learning Precise instructional objectives Selection of learning experiences Organization of learning experiences Direction of learning experiences Evaluation of learning experiences

FIGURE 5.2

Tyler’s Curriculum Rationale (Expanded)

99

100 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

The Taba Model of Curriculum Development Hilda Taba was a curriculum theorist and developer who promoted an inductive approach to curriculum development. A core tenant, and the reason why Hilda Taba promoted such an approach to curriculum development, is how creativity is promoted at the teacher (local) level. In her book Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice, she stated consideration of learning experiences becomes a major strategy in curriculum design (Taba, 1962, p. 13). Further, she suggested that

5 Introduce and implement new units. Taba called on administrators to arrange appropriate in-service training so that teachers may effectively put the teaching-learning units into practice within their classrooms.

4 Determine a structure. Curriculum planners write a scope and sequence for the unit, including a rationale.

3 Revise and merge. Considering student needs first, the units are adjusted so they meet all students’ needs, the availability of resources, and variations among teaching styles within the staff so that the curriculumis globally appropriate.

2 Practice experimental units. After teachers write pilot units for their own classrooms, these pilots are implemented to evaluate their validity and practicality in real classrooms and to set the requirements for each grade level.

1 Create learning units for each grade level or subject area. Taba saw this step as linking theory and practice.

FIGURE 5.3

Taba’s Model of Curriculum Development Based on Hilda Taba (1962), Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. pp. 456–459.



Chapter 5  •  Models for Curriculum System Development 101

teachers should be involved in the process of curriculum design by creating specific teaching and learning units for their students, rather than by initially engaging in creating a general curriculum design (Taba, 1962, p. 457). Using this approach Taba advocated for an inductive approach by starting with the specifics and building up to a general design as opposed to the more traditional deductive approach of starting with the general design and working to the specifics. Taba endorsed order in decision making and that by using a process which takes variables into consideration will result in a more thoughtfully planned and dynamic curriculum. After creating the instructional unit, teachers implement the unit, make necessary revisions, and determine a structure and sequence for optimum learning. Finally, professional learning for teachers should be provided so they can effectively implement the units in their classrooms. Taba’s Model of Curriculum Development is represented in Figure 5.3. The Oliva Model for Curriculum Development The Oliva Model for Curriculum Development is a deductive model that consists of 12 components. The model (Figure 5.4) illustrates a comprehensive step-by-step process that takes the curriculum developer from the sources of the curriculum through evaluation of instruction and curriculum. Each component (designated by Roman numerals I through XII) is described and explanations are given to guide curriculum developers. You will note that both squares and circles are used in the model. The squares are used to represent planning phases; the circles represent operational phases. The process starts with Component I, at which time the curriculum developers state the aims of education and their philosophical and psychological principles. These aims are beliefs that are derived from the needs of our society and the needs of individuals living in our society. This component incorporates concepts similar to Tyler’s screens. Component II requires an analysis of the needs of the community in which the school is located, the needs of students served in that community, and the exigencies of the subject matter that will be taught in the given school. Sources of the curriculum are seen by cutting across Components I and II. Whereas Component I addresess the needs of students and society in a more general sense, Component II introduces the concept of needs of particular students in particular localities, because the needs of students in particular communities are not always the same as the general needs of students throughout our society. Components III and IV call for specifying curricular goals and objectives based on the aims, beliefs, and needs specified in Components I and II. A distinction that will be clarified later with examples is drawn between goals and objectives. The tasks of Component V are to organize and implement the curriculum and to formulate and establish the structure by which the curriculum will be organized. Instruction begins to be addressed in Components VI and VII. In Components VI and VII an increasing level of specification is sought. Instructional goals and instructional objectives are stated for each level and subject. Once again, a distinction between goals and objectives will be clarified later. After specifying instructional objectives, the curriculum developer moves to Component VIII, at which point he or she chooses instructional strategies for use with students in the classroom. Simultaneously, the curriculum developer initiates preliminary selection of evaluation techniques, phase A of component IX. At this stage a curriculum developer begins to consider ways he or she will assess student achievement. The implementation of instructional strategies, Component X, follows.

Specification of needs of society

IX A

VIII

The Oliva Model for Curriculum Development

FIGURE 5.4

Preliminary selection of evaluation techniques

II

Specification of needs of subject

Specification of needs of particular community

Specification of needs of particular students

Selection of strategies

I

Statement of aims and philosophy of education, including beliefs about learning

Specification of needs of students in general

X

Implementation of strategies

III

Specification of curriculum goals

IX B

Final selection of evaluation techniques

IV

Specification of curriculum objectives

I–IV and VI–IX V X–XII

X I

Evaluation of instruction

V

Organization & implementation of the curriculum

XII

Evaluation of curriculum

VI

Specification of instructional goals

Planning phases Planning and operational phase Operational phases

VII

Specification of instructional objectives

102 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process



Chapter 5  •  Models for Curriculum System Development 103

After the students have been provided appropriate opportunity to learn (Component X), the developer returns to the problem of selecting techniques for evaluating student achievement and the effectiveness of the instruction. Component IX, then, is separated into two phases: the first precedes the actual implementation of instruction (IXA) and the second follows the implementation (IXB). The instructional phase (Component X) provides the developer with the opportunity to refine, add to, and complete the selection of means to evaluate student performance. Component XI is the stage at which evaluation of instruction is carried out. Component XII completes the cycle with evaluation not of the student or the teacher but rather of the curricular program. In this model components I–IV and VI–IX are planning phases, whereas components X–XII are operational phases. Component V is both a planning and operational phase. A scheme for curriculum development (Components I–V and XII) and a design for instruction (Components V–XI) is included. Important features of the model are the feedback that cycles back from the evaluation of the curriculum to the curriculum goals and from the evaluation of instruction to the instructional goals. These lines indicate the necessity for continuous revision of the components of their respective subcycles. USE OF THE MODEL.  The model can be used in a variety of ways. First, the model offers a process for the complete development of a school’s curriculum. The faculty of each subject area or grade level, for example, language arts, can determine a plan for the curriculum of that area and design ways in which it will be carried out through instruction. Or, the faculty may develop school wide, interdisciplinary programs that cross subject areas (Components VI–XI). TWO SUBMODELS.  This 12-phase model integrates a general model for curriculum development

with a general model for instruction. Components I–V and XII constitute a curriculum development submodel that will be referred to as the curriculum submodel. Components VI–XI constitute an instructional submodel. To distinguish between the curricular and instructional components, the instructional submodel is enclosed within broken lines. When the curricular submodel is followed, developers keep in mind that the task has not been completed until the curriculum goals and objectives are subsequently translated by them or by others into instruction. Furthermore, when the instructional submodel is followed, the teachers or team focusing on instruction are aware of the curriculum goals and objectives of the school as a whole or of a given subject area or areas. The Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development You may have noticed throughout the text that there is an expectation of a curriculum system and not curriculum only. The precise language of the Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development encapsulates the idea that all components identified as a part of curriculum or that influence curriculum are included. A curricular system blends the entire process of curriculum development, including a feedback loop, into one model as a holistic approach that is more impactful than as individual components. General systems theory (von Bertalanffy, 1969) is based on the concept that each part has only a unique impact, but that all parts of a system are interdependent and therefore, the combination into a functioning system has an exponential impact on outcomes.

104 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

The model begins with standards or curriculum objectives that have been adopted, developed, or need to be developed by the SEA, LEA, or organization. The development of those items influences the remaining ones to be created and implemented. Specifications for writing standards or curriculum objectives may be developed and then the standards or curriculum objectives written to those specifications or vice versa depending upon the unique context, content, grade levels, and assessments. For that reason, you will see the arrows going both ways among those items. Specifications are developed from the examination of related data and evidence to determine if the rigor or parameters should be adjusted or not. These specifications are very important as they are more precise than the standards or curriculum objectives themselves and may be used in day to day instructional decision making. At this point in the system the curriculum evaluation and the student assessments that all will take place should be designed. It is ideal to design both at this time to align to the standards and specifications so that the system is of one accord. If time elapses and the curriculum evaluation and the student assessments are designed later that will inform the evaluation, then the chance of other variables intervening and influencing the two kinds of documents is greater. During the same time frame, the curriculum objectives and standards should be organized vertically from kindergarten through twelfth grade (or grades that apply) and horizontally across content areas. In the CCSS you have experienced that standards are established vertically and are the same at each grade level; however, they build in the expectation of increases in the rigor of thinking through the grade levels. As an example of horizontal organization in the CCSS, the writing standards apply across multiple content areas of social studies, mathematics, science, and others to provide ample and targeted writing experiences for students. Curriculum guides are developed based on how the standards are bundled together or organized. Some standards are intended to be taught together (reading and writing) and others perhaps are taught as lesser or nonessential but supporting more rigorous ones. As you will see in Chapter  8, curriculum guides today go by many titles and most often are on organization, school districts, and state organization websites. Some are publicly accessible and others are available only to employees of a school district or school. Nevertheless, the guides to be developed include the support needed for successful implementation of associated instruction with differentiation of time and resources but not of the expectations for various learners. Before the Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development can be implemented, professional learning for affected teachers, administrators, and stakeholders should be developed and provided. The professional learning may take the form of videos or online modules, face to face workshops, study groups, or planning sessions. In many situations, professional learning will encompass several ways for teachers, administrators, and stakeholders to develop proficiency with implementation of the new curriculum. Many participants will be particularly interested in how the new curriculum will be assessed. Most probably the specifications will be a part of the professional learning so that over on time knowledge will become deepened on the curriculum, on how to have effective instruction, and on student success on related assessments. Chapters 9 through 11 develop more thoroughly the concepts of effective instruction and evaluation of instruction. As the curriculum system is implemented, data and evidences on instructional outcomes are gathered. Instructional outcomes are thought of as instructional evaluation, but these outcomes also are a part of the curriculum system evaluation. These data and evidences inform continuous improvements of the curriculum, guides, instruction, and the assessment, not just at some future appointed time. With ready access to valid and reliable data and consistent monitoring, decisions to make improvements can take place very quickly to each component of the system.

Chapter 5  •  Models for Curriculum System Development 105



SEA, LEA, or Organization

Examine data.

Develop curriculum objectives or standards.

Organize standards vertically and horizontally.

Create specifications. If none, develop curriculum objectives.

Provide professional learning.

Design curriculum evaluation & student assessments.

Implement curriculum system.

Develop guides.

Provide feedback and revise each process.

Gather data/evidence.

Evaluate curriculum.

FIGURE 5.5

Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development © 2017 William R. Gordon, II and Rosemarye T. Taylor. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without express written permission from the authors.

By reviewing Figure 5.5, The Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development you will be able to consider the various components and reflect upon how the components are developed and implemented in your context, and the extent to which implementation in your context is a systems approach. This model is unique as it is conceptualized as a system and includes specifications of the standards and therefore of the assessment items that have become critical in an era of standards based curriculum and standards based assessment. Similarities and Differences Among Models The models discussed reveal both similarities and differences in approaches to curriculum development. The models of Tyler, Taba, Oliva, and, Gordon and Taylor outline certain steps to be taken in curriculum development. Tyler’s model is deductive and the concept of sources and screens stands out in his model. Taba’s model is inductive and she advocated starting with specifics and then building to a general design. Oliva’s model is deductive and he recognized that the needs of students’ communities are not always the same as the general needs of students throughout society. The most recently developed model, Gordon Taylor, is deductive and reflects a systems approach which includes all parts of curriculum or those influencing curriculum development, including assessment and accountability for student learning outcomes. Models are inevitably incomplete; they do not and cannot show every detail and every nuance of a process as complicated as curriculum development. In one sense, the authors are pointing out key components and actions to follow to provide consistency to the process. To depict every detail of the curriculum development process would require an exceedingly complex drawing or several models. One task in building a model for curriculum development is to determine

106 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

the most essential components in the process and to limit the model to those components. Model builders are often caught between oversimplifying or being too complex to the point of confusion. The following consideration may be given in creating a model: • major components of the process, including stages of planning, implementation, and evaluation; • customary but not inflexible “beginning” and “ending” points; • the relationship between curriculum and instruction; • distinctions between curriculum and instructional goals and objectives; • reciprocal relationships among components; • a cyclical pattern; • feedback processes; • the possibility of entry at any point in the cycle; • an internal consistency and logic; • enough simplicity to be intelligible and feasible; and • components in the form of a visual to aid in implementation. Any one model is not inherently superior to all other models presented in this text. For example, some curriculum developers have followed the Tyler model for years with considerable success. On the other hand, this success does not mean that the Tyler model represents the ultimate in models for curriculum development or that any model is universally accepted as a basis for curriculum development. Before choosing a model or designing a new model as a viable alternative, curriculum developers should outline the criteria or characteristics they look for in a model for curriculum refinement that will result in improved student learning outcomes.

Summary Four models of curriculum development are presented in this chapter. Models can help us to conceptualize a process by showing certain principles and procedures while promoting consistency in actions. Whereas some models are in the form of diagrams, others are lists of steps that are recommended to curriculum developers. Models are linear, step-by-step approaches or allow for departure from a fixed sequence of steps. Both

inductive and deductive approaches in models are presented. Some are prescriptive; others, descriptive. One model, the Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development presents a systems approach to modeling with the intent of having greater impact on student learning outcomes than models that consider components separately.

Application 1. Conduct a needs assessment in your context and develop instructional objectives or learning targets using one of the deductive models discussed in this chapter. 2. Create or analyze a learning unit from a subject area in your context and apply the inductive

model discussed in this chapter to establish a general design of the curriculum. 3. Based on evidence and data, formulate the criteria or characteristics of a model for curriculum improvement in your context.

Chapter 5  •  Models for Curriculum System Development 107



Reflection and Inquiry 1. Research models used in disciplines other than education to determine how new approaches to modeling can be incorporated into curriculum development. What models do industry and business (e.g., hotels, technology companies, banking) use to develop curriculum for their employees’ continuing education?

2. Research curriculum used in online learning, charter schools, home schooling, and early college entry programs. Determine models being used to develop curriculum in areas of choice.

Websites Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: ascd.org

Learning Forward: Learningforward.org

References Johnson, M. (1967). Definitions and models in curriculum theory. Educational Theory, 17(2), 127–140. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1967.tb00295.x Kliebard, H. M. (1970). The Tyler rationale. The School Review, 78, 259–272. doi:10.1086/442905 Popham, J. W. & Baker, E. L. (1970). Instructional goals. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Slattery, P. (1995). Curriculum development in the postmodern era: Teaching and learning in an age of accountability. New York, NY: Garland Publishing. Soto, M. L. & Tyler, R. W. (1969). Planeamiento educacional: Un modelo pedagogico. Santiago, Chile: Editorial Universitaria.

Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace. Tanner, D. & Tanner, L. (2007). Curriculum development: Theory into practice (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. von Bertalanffy, L. (1969). General systems theory: Foundation, development, application (revised edition). New York, NY: George Braziller, Inc. Walker, D. F. & Soltis, J. F. (2004). Curriculum and aims. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

CHAPTER

6

Philosophy and Aims of Education Learning Outcomes

USING THE PROPOSED MODELS

After studying this chapter, you should be able to: 1. Explain how the aims of education are derived. 2. Write statements of the aims of education. 3. Outline major beliefs of four well-known schools of education philosophy. 4. Draft an educational philosophy for a school or school district using a systems approach.

The Oliva Model for Curriculum Development and the Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development were presented in Chapter 5, along with other models. For a moment, take another look at Figures 5.4 and 5.5, and then review the characteristics of the models. Examining the models reveals the following special characteristics.

108

1. The models flow from the most general (aims of education in the Oliva Model; curriculum objectives and standards in the Gordon Taylor Model) to the most specific (evaluation in the Oliva Model; evaluation and feedback in the Gordon Taylor Model). Curriculum development committees or teams may wish to set their own schedules for considering the various components. Those components that are closest to the teaching, involve fewer persons, are more easily managed, and are less costly in time and money might be reassessed with greater frequency than those components that are larger in scope, involve many persons, are more difficult to manage, and are costly (time and resources). 2. The models can be followed by curriculum planning groups (or even to some extent by individuals) in whole or in part. The models allow for a comprehensive, holistic study of the curriculum. Given the many demands on the time of teachers, administrators, and others, it is likely that a complete review of the curriculum will be carried out only periodically. Although somewhat arbitrary, reassessment and revision of the various phases might be considered on the schedule shown in Table 6.1. However, for those with easy access to data bases reflecting student learning outcomes, revisions most probably are on-going as a continuous process. 3. A single curriculum group, such as the curriculum team of an individual school, department, or grade, will not carry out all phases of the models. Various groups, subgroups, and individuals will assume responsibility for different parts of the models.

Chapter 6  •  Philosophy and Aims of Education 109



TABLE 6.1  Sample Schedule for Continuous Improvement of Curriculum In Depth

Limited

Aims of education (mission/beliefs)

Within 10 years

Within 5 years

Assessment of student learning needs

Within 3 years

Continuously

Curriculum goals (big idea)

Within 2 years

Continuously

Instructional goals (essential question)

Every year

Continuously

Instructional objectives (learning target)

Every year

Continuously

Organization and implementation of the curriculum

Within 5 years

Every year

Other components

Continuously

Continuously

Decisions at any phase that have relevance to the entire school or entire school district may be presented to a broad scale audience for review and input through town hall meetings, webinars, and electronic surveys for gathering responses. Throughout the process, decisions made by any of the subgroups would be presented either in person or via virtual meetings so that relationships among the various components can be clearly understood and result in an aligned system. In this respect, the academic leadership team or a designated group would serve as a coordinating body. 4. With modifications, the models can be followed at any level or sector of curriculum planning. Parts of the models may also be applied at the various levels and by entities that provide curriculum. It would be expected that with each data gathering and evaluation of progress towards meeting the curriculum goals that a feedback loop would lead to continuous improvement. Feedback continuously to each component of the Gordon Taylor Model is expected, given accountability for learning outcomes, digital resources for data gathering and analysis, and sites for maintaining curriculum related documents.

AIMS OF EDUCATION: MISSION OR PURPOSE Proliferation of Terms Educational literature uses a proliferation of terms, rather loosely and often interchangeably, to signify terminal expectations of education. Educators speak of outcomes, aims, ends, purposes, functions, goals, and objectives. Although these terms may be used synonymously in every day conversations, it is helpful if distinctions are made in more precise pedagogical and academic language. In this text, the term outcome applies to terminal expectations. Aims are equated with ends, purposes, functions, and universal goals. The aims of education are the very broad, general statements of the purposes of education; they are meant to give general direction to education throughout the country. Decker F. Walker and Jonas F. Soltis (2004) likened aims of education to wishes for “something desirable for people in general that is only possible for them to have because of something they learn” (p. 12). Also, in this text curriculum goals, curriculum objectives, instructional goals, and instructional objectives are separate entities of special relevance to the local school or school district. Curriculum goals are defined as general, programmatic expectations without criteria of achievement or proficiency, whereas curriculum objectives or standards are specific,

110 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

programmatic targets with criteria (specifications) of achievement and, therefore, are measurable. The curriculum objectives stem from the curriculum goals. Both curriculum goals and curriculum standards or objectives trace their sources to the philosophy and the statement of aims of education (e.g., mission and beliefs). Instructional goals are statements of instructional targets or in general targets (no observable terms formulated or without criteria of achievement). Whereas instructional objectives are expected learner behaviors that are formulated in measurable and observable terms, with possible exceptions for those behaviors in the affective domain. Instructional objectives are derived from instructional goals, and both instructional goals and instructional objectives originate from the curriculum goals and objectives or standards. Measureable instructional objectives tend to be those that a teacher implements and quickly formatively assesses in the classroom, in contrast to curriculum standards which are more likely to have state or school district assessments with related metrics for official measurement for monitoring of progress and accountability. The aims of education have special relevance to the nation as a whole. The local education authority (LEA), state education authority (SEA), and regions may have their own aims. In the twenty-first century it would seem an anachronism to promote regional aims as if the broad purposes of education in California, for example, were different from those in New York or the purposes of education in Indiana different from those of Mississippi. Global Aims It is possible, even desirable, to define aims of education on a global scale, and sometimes such definitions are attempted. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is the foremost entity who has attempted on a worldwide scale to state aims of education for humanity. Among the aims of education that UNESCO seeks to promote are these: • fostering international understanding among all peoples of the world, • improving the standard of living of people in the various countries, and • solving continuing problems that plague humanity, such as war, disease, hunger, and unemployment. The citizens of the United States who participate in organizations at the international level find some opportunity for expressing aims of education that can apply across national boundaries. More common are statements of aims of education by the respective nations of the world to guide the development of their own educational systems. In any discipline, the field of curriculum notwithstanding, the specialist seeks to find or develop generalizations or rules that apply in most situations. On the other hand, the specialist must always be aware that exceptions may be found to most rules. Although in this text curriculum development is presented as a group process and is more effective because of that process, there may be individuals who carry out any of the components of the suggested model of curriculum system development. It would seem at first sight that defining aims of education to which the entire country might subscribe would certainly be a group project. However, several significant statements of aims of education have been made over the years by prominent individuals. When statements are generated by individuals instead of groups, members of the social structure for which the aims are intended in effect become consumers and interpreters of the ideas of individuals, certainly a tenable procedure.

Chapter 6  •  Philosophy and Aims of Education 111



That statements of aims, goals, and objectives may originate from individuals rather than groups should not invalidate them. It might be said “while individuals propose, the group will dispose.” Groups should react to coherent statements in a deliberative manner. The model of curriculum system development should not be construed to eliminate spontaneous, individual efforts at curriculum development. Some of the most successful innovations in education have been effected as the result of the work of independently motivated instructional leaders. Statements of Purposes Various organizations propose purposes of education, for example: • • • • •

to inculcate family values, to prepare students to be productive in society, to promote free enterprise, to prepare an enlightened citizenry, and to promote social justice. Aims of education are encountered in a descriptive form with declarations such as:

• • • • • • • •

education is life, not preparation for life; education is the transmission of the cultural heritage; education is providing career and college ready individuals; education is the liberal arts; education is cognitive development; education is personal development; education is socialization of groups and individuals; and education is the development of digital literacy.

Slogans, like those that follow, should not be mistaken for aims and would be considered nonexamples. • If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. • If you can read this sign, thank a teacher. • A sound mind in a sound body. Today, in the USA, the aims generally provide for students to become readers and writers as measured by designated assessments. They are expected to think mathematically and be able to apply concepts of science, technology, and engineering. Overall, the aim is for graduates of PreK–12 education to be college and career ready so that they can provide for themselves. Derivation of Aims The aims of education are derived from examining the needs of students, from analyzing cultures, and from studying the various needs of society. Given the historic development of nations with their own institutions, mores, values, and languages, no two countries exhibit exactly the same needs. Such heterogeneity as is present in the United States, makes it extremely difficult to reach consensus on aims of education and particularly on values central to aims. Many years ago, the National Education Association (1951) attempted to identify moral and spiritual values that members believed should be taught in the public schools. They listed 10 values, among which were moral responsibility and the pursuit of happiness.

112 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

The assumption was made that these were common values held by a majority people of the society at that particular time. On how many of these values would you still find consensus? The specter of indoctrination has loomed so large that educators are often hesitant to identify broadbased, common, secular values to which Americans as a whole can subscribe. Historical Perspective of Educational Aims Statements To gain a historical perspective of educational aims, please review the samples of the betterknown ones proffered by various individuals and groups over the years. In 1916, John Dewey described the functions of education in a number of ways, including its socialization of the child and its facilitation of personal growth. Putting these concepts into the form of aims of education according to Dewey, the aims of education are (a) to socialize students, thereby transforming both them and society; and (b) to develop the individual in all his or her physical, cognitive, moral, and emotional capacities. Dewey made it clear that the school is an agency for socializing the student when he noted both psychological and sociological sides to the process of education and viewed the school as primarily a social institution. Dewey (1929) elaborated on his conception of education as growth when he observed, “Since in reality there is nothing to which growth is relative save more growth, there is nothing to which education is subordinate save more education” (pp. 59–60). The National Education Association’s Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education in 1918 spoke to the role of education in our democratic society in this way: “Education in a democracy, both within and without the school, should develop in each individual the knowledge, interests, ideals, habits, and powers whereby he will find his place and use that place to shape both himself and society toward even nobler ends” (p. 9). The Educational Policies Commission (1937) of the National Education Association in 1937 related the aim of education to democracy as follows. In any realistic definition of education for the United States, therefore, must appear the whole philosophy and practice of democracy. Education cherishes and inculcates its moral values, disseminates knowledge necessary to its functioning, spreads information relevant to its institutions and economy, keeps alive the creative and sustaining spirit without which the latter is dead. (The Educational Policies Commission, 1937, p. 89)

In 1943, during World War II, James B. Conant, president of Harvard University, appointed a committee of professors from the fields of education and the liberal arts and sciences to examine the place of general (i.e., required, liberal) education in American society. The Harvard Committee on General Education (1945) took the position that the aim of education was “to prepare an individual to become an expert both in some particular vocation or art and in the general art of the free man and the citizen” (p. 54). To accomplish this aim, the Harvard Committee recommended a prescribed set of subjects, including English, science, mathematics, and the social studies, for all secondary school students. Statements of aims of education repeatedly address great themes such as democracy and philosophical positions. In 1961, the National Education Association’s Educational Policies Commission (1961) elaborated on the role of education in solving the problems of humanity. Many profound changes are occurring in the world today, but there is a fundamental force contributing to all of them. That force is the expanding role accorded in modern life to the rational powers of man. By using these powers to increase his knowledge, man is attempting

Chapter 6  •  Philosophy and Aims of Education 113



to solve the riddles of life, space, and time which have long intrigued him. (National Education Association, 1961, p. 89)

Before the Committee on Appropriations of the United States House of Representatives of the 87th Congress in 1962, Vice-Admiral Hyman G. Rickover (1962), generally acknowledged as the father of the nuclear submarine, testified on distinctions between education in the USA and Britain and formulated for the committee the aims of education by stating a school must provide substantial learning opportunities so learners can increase, apply and verify their knowledge using facts on problems they will encounter in a later life. Mortimer J. Adler (1982) expressed the aim of education and schooling as follows: “The ultimate goal of the educational process is to help human beings become educated persons. Schooling is the preparatory stage; it forms the habit of learning and provides the means for continuing to learn after all schooling is completed” (Adler, 1982, p. 10). John I. Goodlad (1983) addressed the themes of social purposes served by the schools, educational goals and aims, and school goals. He divided the school goals into four categories: academic, vocational, social and civic, and personal. He and his colleagues analyzed approximately a hundred goals from various sources and refined them into a list of 10 categories that they saw as encompassing generally accepted goals for schooling in the United States: mastery of basic skills and fundamental processes, intellectual development, career education, vocational education, interpersonal understandings, citizenship participation, enculturation, moral and ethical character, emotional and physical well-being, creativity and aesthetic expression, and self-realization. Theodore R. Sizer (1992), who was instrumental in the formation of the Coalition of Essential Schools in 1984, wove into his narrative of the fictitious Franklin High School the purposes of schooling and at the same time pointed out an American dilemma: “some Americans do not see the schools as engines both of information and of intellectual liberation. Indeed, they find the latter, especially when so described, to be intolerable” (p. 127). Conflict over education’s aim dates back to ancient times, as Herbert M. Kliebard (1998) pointed out in quoting from Aristotle’s Politics: At present opinion is divided about the subjects of education. All do not take the same view of what should be learned by the young, either with a view to plain goodness or with a view to the best life possible; nor is opinion clear whether education should be directed mainly to understanding, or mainly to moral character. If we look at actual practice, the result is sadly confusing; it throws no light on the problem whether the proper studies to be followed are those which are useful in life, or those which make for goodness, or those which advance the bounds of knowledge. Each sort of study receives some votes in favor. (Kliebard, 1998, p. 21)

This amazingly pertinent observation from ancient Greece more than 2000 years ago might well have come from an author in the twenty-first century. Statements from the Federal Government In recent decades, the federal government has issued several influential statements of aims in the form of statutes: America 2000 (1990), Goals 2000: The Educate America Act (1994), the No Child Left Behind Act (2001), the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009), and the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015).

114 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process AMERICA 2000.  In September 1989 at the University of Virginia, President George H. W. Bush and the National Governors’ Association developed a statement of six performance goals. The president presented this statement to the nation in his State of the Union address in January 1990 and announced in the following spring proposals for implementing the goals. Known as America 2000, the proposals included the creation of 535 experimental schools (one in each congressional district) for the purpose of demonstrating effective curricula and instructional techniques; voluntary national examinations in English, mathematics, science, history, and geography at the fourth, eighth, and twelfth grades; and parental choice of school. The six performance goals to be reached by the year 2000 follow.

1. All children in America will start school ready to learn. 2. The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent. 3. American students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter, including English, mathematics, science, history, and geography, and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our modern economy. 4. U.S. students will be first in the world in science and mathematics achievement. 5. Every adult in the United States will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and to exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. 6. Every school in the United States will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning. (U.S. Department of Education, 1990) The proposals for implementing the goals were in keeping with recommendations of the 1990 Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce (1991), which advocated national standards and national examinations. Many educators welcomed realization of these noble goals but doubted very much that they could be reached in the short time to the year 2000. Educators expressed concern about the lack of federal funding to implement the proposals, the effects of parental choice on the public schools, the expenditure of more than $500 million for experimental schools, and the burden of new national examinations. Some educators wondered about the need for new national assessments, since the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) already assessed student achievement in 37 states. Objecting to national assessments, some educators feared that national assessments could lead to a national standardized curriculum, which they found unacceptable in principle. The Congress moved to implement America 2000 by creating the National Council on Education Standards and Testing. Its duty was to oversee development of (a) national standards, beginning in the five disciplines: English, mathematics, science, history, and geography, with the possibility of adding other disciplines at a later date; and (b) a voluntary system of national assessment based on the standards. Piloting of new assessments began in 17 states in the spring of 1992 under the direction of the New Standards Project formed by the University of Pittsburgh’s Research and Development Center and the National Center on Education and the Economy. The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation provided substantial financial support to the New Standards Project. That not all curriculum theorists subscribed to America 2000 can be seen in the remarks of Henry A. Giroux (1993): Under the guise of attempting to revitalize the language of leadership and reform, these reports signify a dangerous attack on some of the most fundamental aspects of democratic public life and the social, moral, and political obligations of responsible, critical citizens. (Giroux, 1993, p. 14)



Chapter 6  •  Philosophy and Aims of Education 115

GOALS 2000: THE EDUCATE AMERICA ACT.  Following the initiative begun in the Bush admin-

istration, in the spring of 1994 the Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Goals 2000 authorizing federal support to the states for plans to improve the schools, reiterating in slightly edited form the six national goals earlier proposed, and adding the following two goals calling for professional learning for teachers and increased parental involvement. • The nation’s teaching force will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepare all American students for the next century. • Every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children. (Earley, 1994) Addressing the Goals 2000, Maxine Greene (1995) saw problems with this “new national agenda for education” that called for achievement of subject-matter standards and for national assessment: (a) the presumption that “it is realizable, poverty and inequality notwithstanding”; (b) “the implication that standards and tests can simply be imposed”; and (c) the “untapped diversity among American youth today” (p. 17). She suggested that new ways of thinking about serving all learners was in need. Citing the family as the crucial element in raising educational standards, critics of the legislation decried the expenditure of millions of dollars, which they maintained would not guarantee improvement in the schools. They objected to involvement of the federal government in education, which they believed would take autonomy away from the states and local schools, thus depriving them of their uniqueness. Many educators predicted that the goals of the ambitious America 2000 and Goals 2000 would not be realized by the year 2000. In fact, none of the goals had been fully achieved by that date. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001.  Recognizing continuing concerns about student achieve-

ment by particular populations or student subgroups, Congress ventured once again into the field of PreK–12 education, reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in the form of the comprehensive PL 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush in January 2002 and implemented during the same year. State educational agencies received federal funding through grants to address the 10 titles of the act, which reflected the intent of assuring that all student subgroups would be provided excellent educational opportunities and that states and school districts would be held accountable for improvement, not only of the overall student population or the mean, but also of discrete student subgroups such as: economically disadvantaged, special needs, English learners, and so on. This change in metrics for determining achievement at a more in-depth level was a significant change for states and school districts as many had relied on the achievement of high performing students to bring up the means upon which schools and school districts had been previously measured. The 10 titles are listed with brief descriptors. Title I: Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged with special attention to reading and literacy. Title II: Preparing, training, and recruiting high-quality teachers and principals. Title III: Providing language instruction for limited English-proficient and immigrant students.

116 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

Title IV: Promoting twenty-first century schools: Safe and drug-free schools and communities. Title V: Promoting informed parental choice and innovative programs. Title VI: Improving academic achievement through accountability, flexibility, voluntary partnerships among the states, and the development of state assessments and standards. Title VII: Meeting the educational and culturally related academic needs of American Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native students. Title VIII: Payments related to federal acquisition of real property and grants for school repairs and modernization. Title IX: Provision regarding daily membership and attendance and definition of the terms used. Title X: Provisions related to repeals, redesignations, and amendments to other statutes. NCLB had been up for either reauthorization, revision, or termination by Congress but with no action taken, President Barak Obama by executive order in September 2011 gave states the opportunity to select to option out of some of the requirements of NCLB. The states in return were required to demonstrate efforts to improve student academic achievement. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 In February of 2009 President Barack Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which offered financial incentives for states to improve academic performance by creating the Race to the Top (RTTT) Fund. This $4.35 billion RTTT fund was established to reward states that increased student achievement and demonstrated that they had a plan to sustain growth. Specifically, the federal government sought to reward states that achieved significant improvement in student outcomes, including making substantial gains in closing achievement gaps among student subgroups, improving high school graduation rates, ensuring student preparation for success in college and careers, and in implementing ambitious plans in four core education reform areas. As a result of ARRA and RTTT funding, the Common Core State Standards were developed and consortiums (Smarter Balance and Partnership for Assessment and Readiness for College and Careers [PARCC]) were funded to develop accountability assessments, although states had the decision-making authority whether to adopt the standards and to belong to an assessment consortium or not. The four areas of focus were: 1. Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy; 2. Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction; 3. Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and 4. Turning around the lowest achieving schools. The first states to receive RTTT grants were Delaware and Tennessee, followed in the second round by nine states (Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Rhode Island) plus the District of Columbia (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).

Chapter 6  •  Philosophy and Aims of Education 117



Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA) In December of 2015, President Barack Obama signed into law the Every Student Succeeds Act, which was a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. This largely bipartisan bill became effective in the 2017–2018 school year. Key provisions of ESSA included: • promoting equity while upholding high standards for America’s disadvantaged and highneed students; • requiring all students in America to be prepared to succeed in college and careers; • requiring states to redirect funds to reduce the achievement gap, to support low achieving schools, and to support high schools with high dropout rates; • accountability to parents, educators, and to the public while reducing the burden of testing on teachers and students; and • increasing access to high-quality preschools. (U.S. Department of Education, 2015) The federal government plays and will continue to play a fundamental role in identifying and promoting the aims of education in America. Aims are related to national standards and national assessments which are addressed as appropriate throughout this text. You will note that the statements of aims of education cited in this chapter vary from advocacy of cognitive competencies alone to concern for the development of cognitive, affective, and psychomotor competencies.

PHILOSOPHIES OF EDUCATION Greene (1973) defined philosophy as “a way of framing distinctive sorts of questions having to do with what is presupposed, perceived, intuited, believed, and known” (Greene, 1973, p. 7). Greene (1973) wrote, statements of aims of education are positions taken that are based on a set of beliefs, a philosophy of education. Clearly, the authors of the illustrations of aims cited in the preceding section held certain assumptions about education, society, and how people learn. An aim of education, then, is a statement of beliefs central to the author’s philosophical creed that is directed to the mission of the school or school district. Educational organizations (school districts, schools, professional organizations, and higher education institutions) generally formalize their philosophy as written belief statements and mission statements found on their publications and websites. Four major philosophies of education have demanded the attention of educators. Only two of these philosophies appear to have large followings today. The four philosophies discussed in these pages are reconstructionism, progressivism, essentialism, and perennialism. These four schools of thought can be charted from the most liberal to the most conservative as shown in Figure 6.1, Four Philosophies of Education. Reconstructionism at the far left is the most liberal of these four philosophies, and perennialism at the far right is the most conservative. Although essentialism and progressivism have been widely accepted and practiced by educators, neither reconstructionism nor perennialism has found widespread endorsement in the schools. Since reconstructionism and perennialism have had less impact on the schools than the two other philosophies, they are discussed first and then the two more pervasive philosophies, essentialism and progressivism, are discussed. Although this text elaborates on philosophies of education, it is important to remember that they stem from more general philosophies of life. As J. Donald Butler (1968) commented, “aims

118 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process FIGURE 6.1

Four Philosophies of Education

Progressivism Reconstructionism

Essentialism Perennialism

of education cannot just be pulled out of a hat, but must be derived from more fundamental and general thinking about value, reality, and knowledge” (p. 487). Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins (2004) attributed the curriculum specialist’s philosophy to “his or her life experiences, common sense, social and economic background, education, and general beliefs about himself or herself and people” (p. 31). Discussion of general philosophies is beyond the scope of this text. Numerous books describe various schools of philosophy. Reconstructionism Hilda Taba points out that John Dewey viewed the function of the school through a psychological and social lens. Taba (1962) contends that Dewey and his disciples viewed education as an artist might view clay: as the medium through which culture can continually be shaped and reshaped, as the impetus of social reconstruction, moving from maintaining the status quo to igniting change (p. 23). Branching out from Dewey’s philosophy, the reconstructionists followed a path that led them to propose using the school to achieve what they considered to be improvements in society. George S. Counts (1932), in his much-discussed book, Dare the School Build a New Social Order? challenged educators to reconsider the role of schools in our society. In essence, reconstructionism holds that the school should not simply transmit the cultural heritage or simply study social problems, but should become an agency for solving political and social problems. The subject matter with which all students should be engaged consists of unsolved, often controversial, problems of the day such as unemployment, health, housing, and urbanization. Group consensus is the methodology by which solutions to the problems are sought. Theodore Brameld (1971) made clear the values of the reconstructionists, referring to 12 needs including companionship, health, nourishment, and shelter (p. 418). There are educators who agree that students should consider pressing social, economic, and political problems and even attempt to reach consensus on possible solutions. They do take exception, however, when public school teachers propose their own specific solutions, raising the specter of indoctrination, a practice unacceptable to most schools of philosophy, and to the students’ families. With its heavy emphasis on controversial social issues and its major premise to make the school a primary agency for social change, reconstructionism has not made great inroads into the largely middle-class, public schools of the United States. Perennialism In the tradition of Plato, Aristotle, and the scholasticism of the Catholic thinker St. Thomas Aquinas, the contemporary perennialists see the aims of education as the disciplining of the mind, the

Chapter 6  •  Philosophy and Aims of Education 119



development of the ability to reason, and the pursuit of truth. Unlike progressivists, who hold that truth is relative and changing, the perennialists believe that truth is eternal, everlasting, and unchanging. In their pursuit of truth, the secular perennialists joined hands with the sectarian perennialists. The secular perennialists advocated a highly academic curriculum with emphasis on grammar, rhetoric, logic, classical and world languages, mathematics, and, at the heart of the perennialist curriculum, the great books of the Western world. In the great books of the past, one searched for truth, which in perennialist thinking is the same today as it was then and always shall be. To these academic disciplines the sectarian perennialists would add study of the Bible and theological writings. Robert M. Hutchins, former president of the University of Chicago, was perhaps the bestknown proponent of the philosophy of perennialism. Hutchins and other perennialists eschewed immediate needs of the learners, specialized education, and vocational or career education. Hutchins (1963) made these points clear when he stated: “The ideal education is not an ad hoc education, not an education directed to immediate needs; it is not a specialized education, or a preprofessional education; it is not a utilitarian education. It is an education calculated to develop the mind” (Hutchins, 1963, p. 18). The perennialist agrees with the essentialist that education is preparation for life but opposes the progressivist who holds that education is life. If taken seriously, perennialism would afford an education suitable to a small percentage of students who have interest and aptitude to pursue the intended learning. The perennialist looks backward for the answers to social problems. Do you wonder how useful Lucretius’s De Rerum Natura is for this and future generations in solving environmental problems? One criticism that appears to be overlooked in most critiques of perennialism is its ethnocentricity. The perennialist showcase features the great books of the Western world, considered by them as the greatest works of all humanity. Excluded are the great writings of the Eastern world. An outstanding curriculum project would bring together, perhaps under the auspices of UNESCO, a group of world scholars who would draw up a set of great books of the entire world. In conclusion, perennialism has not proved an attractive philosophy for public education in the United States. Essentialism Historically, essentialism and progressivism have succeeded in commanding the allegiance of American public education. Both have been and remain potent contenders for public and professional support. Walker and Soltis (2004) highlighted the conflict between the two schools of thought when they said: The first half of the twentieth century witnessed a running battle between progressive educators, who saw in the ideas of Dewey and other progressives new ways to think about the curriculum, and the traditionalists, who were sure that the basic curriculum did not need change because it had proven itself essential to the education of individuals who would maintain an intellectually sound and civilized society. Many battles were fought over these opposing views, leaving a profound mark on elementary school practices especially and curriculum theory generally that is still visible today. (Walker & Soltice, 2004, p. 18)

From 1635 with the establishment of the Boston Latin School to 1896 with the creation of John Dewey’s Laboratory School at the University of Chicago, a period of 261 years, the doctrines of essentialism (with a patina of sectarian perennialism from 1635 to the advent of the English High School in 1824) held sway. Starting in 1896, moving slowly and gathering steam

120 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

in the 1930s and 1940s until 1957 (the year of Sputnik), progressivism emerged for a short time as the most popular educational philosophy. Its path was somewhat rocky, however, strewn as it was with the loss of the Progressive Education Association and with essentialist criticisms from sources such as the Council on Basic Education, Arthur Bestor, Max Rafferty, John Keats, Albert Lynd, and Mortimer Smith. Since 1957 essentialism has reclaimed its predominant position. However, since the late 1990s the fostering of student self-esteem has been strongly emphasized, contemporary essentialist critics of education would say, overemphasized. The aim of education according to essentialist tenets is the transmission of the cultural heritage. Unlike the reconstructionists, who would actively change society, the essentialists seek to preserve it. Again, unlike the reconstructionists, who would seek to adjust society to its populace, the essentialists seek to adjust men and women to society. COGNITIVE GOALS.  The goals of the essentialist are primarily cognitive and intellectual. Organized courses are the vehicles for transmitting the culture, and emphasis is placed on subject matter. The three Rs (reading, writing, and arithmetic) and the academic subjects form the core of the essentialist curriculum. In one sense, the essentialist tailors the student to the curriculum, whereas the progressivist tailors the curriculum to the student. The subject-matter curriculum is an essentialist plan for curriculum organization, and the techniques of Assign-Study-Recite-Test are the principal methods. Erudition, the ability to reproduce that which has been learned, is highly valued, and education is perceived as preparation for some future purpose, for college, career, and life. In spite of the mitigating influence of Jean Jacques Rousseau, Johann Pestalozzi, and Friedrich Froebel, essentialism has for generations dominated European education and all the areas of the globe to which it has been exported. Essentialist thinking fits in well with centralized administrative structures as represented in the European and most of their colonial ministries of education. The ministries, following essentialist concepts, can select, proffer, and control the content students are to learn. They can reward and promote the students in respect to their mastery of subject matter. They can screen students for the universities or continuance in secondary education on the basis of stringent examinations that call for recapitulation of subject matter. William C. Bagley, one of the foremost advocates of essentialistic philosophy, strongly criticized the student-centered approach and urged teachers to follow essentialistic principles. Championing emphasis on the academic disciplines in the late 1950s and 1960s, James B. Conant revealed an essentialistic outlook in his major recommendations in a series of reports on the junior and senior high school. BEHAVIORISTIC PRINCIPLES.  The essentialists found the principles of the behavioristic school

of psychology to be particularly harmonious with their philosophical beliefs. V. T. Thayer (1960) called attention to the urbanization of America and immigration taking place in the late 1800s and the early 1900s in explaining the reason for the essentialists’ espousal of behavioristic principles: The changes in American society to which we have drawn attention affected education on all levels. But the contrast between programs of education, keyed, on the one hand, to the inner nature of the young person and, on the other hand, to the demands of society, were most obvious on the junior high school level. Here genetic psychology was emphasizing the dynamic and distinctive potentialities of the young person, with the clear implication that nature was to be followed; whereas life outside the school, in the home and community, in business and industry, stressed the importance of education for adjustment, one that would give specific and

Chapter 6  •  Philosophy and Aims of Education 121



detailed attention to the formation of desirable habits and skills and techniques. Confronted with this necessity of choice, educators turned to a psychology that would further education for adjustment. (Thayer, 1960, pp. 251–252)

Behaviorism casts the learner in a passive role as the recipient of the many stimuli to which he or she must respond. Known in its variants as connectionism, association, S-R (stimulusresponse) bond, and conditioning, behaviorism brought into the classroom drill, programmed instruction, teaching machines, standardized testing, and, of course, behavioral objectives. The movement toward specification and demonstration of competencies in both general and teacher education owes a debt to the behaviorists. Selection of content by the adult for the immature learner and reinforcement, preferably immediate and positive, are central to behavioristic thought. Noted among the behaviorists are Ivan Pavlov, the Russian scientist who performed the classic experiment in which a dog was taught to salivate at the ringing of a bell; John B. Watson, who maintained that with the right stimuli he could shape a child into whatever he wished; Edward L. Thorndike, who is considered by many to be the father of the controversial standardized test; and B. F. Skinner, who popularized teaching machines. Teachers of the behavioristic-essentialist school fragment content into logical, sequential pieces and prescribe the pieces the learner will study. Typically, they begin instruction by giving the learners a rule, concept, or model, for example, the formula for finding the area of a rectangle, and then provide many opportunities to practice (drill) using this guide. With adequate practice, the learner can presumably use the rule, concept, or model whenever he or she needs it. The learning has become a habitual part of the individual’s behavior. Though human beings are prone to forget content not used regularly, the behaviorists and essentialists maintain that if the content has been thoroughly mastered, it can easily be retrieved. Continuing emphasis on the core curriculum of English language, mathematics, and other academic disciplines clearly derives from the essentialists. However, with current cognitive research and understanding of how learning takes place and becomes a part of long-term memory, today’s recommended instructional practices are not essentialitic. Progressivism In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries progressivism swept through the educational structure of America, challenging the time-honored doctrines of essentialism. Led by John Dewey, William H. Kilpatrick, John Childs, and Boyd Bode, the progressivists maintained that it was time to subordinate subject matter to the learner. Borrowing from some European philosophers like Rousseau, who advocated rearing a child in a relaxed environment without forcing learning, the progressivists created the child-centered school. Its prototype was the University of Chicago Laboratory School. Moving east from Chicago to New York, John Dewey formulated progressive beliefs in a series of publications that included Democracy and Education, Experience and Education, How We Think, and My Pedagogic Creed. By insisting that the needs and interests of learners must be considered and by recognizing that learners bring their bodies, emotions, and spirits to school along with their minds, progressivism captured the attention and allegiance of educators. Dewey (1902) clearly stated the differences between the essential and the progressive curriculum: The fundamental factors in the educative process are the immature, underdeveloped being; and certain social aims, meanings, values incarnate in the matured experience of the adult. The educative process is the due interaction of these forces. . . . From these elements of conflict grow up different educational sects. One school fixes its attention upon the importance of subject matter

122 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process of the curriculum as compared with the contents of the child’s own experience. . . . Hence the moral: ignore and minimize the child’s individual peculiarities, whims, and experiences. . . . As educators our work is precisely to substitute for these superficial and casual affairs stable and well-ordered realities; and these are found in studies and lessons. Subdivide each topic into studies; each study into lessons; each lesson into specific facts and formulae. Let each child proceed step by step to master each one of these separate parts, and at last he will have covered the entire ground. . . . Problems of instruction are problems of procuring texts giving logical parts and sequences, and of presenting these portions in class in a similar definite and graded way. Subject matter furnishes the end, and it determines method. The child is simply the immature being who is to be matured; he is the superficial being who is to be deepened; his is narrow experience which is to be widened. It is his to receive, to accept. . . . Not so, says the other sect. The child is the starting point, the center, and the end. His development, his growth, is the ideal. It alone furnishes the standard. To the growth of the child all studies are subservient; they are instruments valued as they serve the needs of growth. Personality, character, is more than subject matter. Not knowledge or information, but self-realization, is the goal. . . . Moreover, subject matter never can be got into the child from without. Learning is active. It involves reaching out of the mind. It involves organic assimilation starting from within. . . . It is he and not the subject matter which determines both quality and quantity of learning. The only significant method is the method of the mind as it reaches out and assimilates. Subject matter is but spiritual food, possible nutritive material. It cannot digest itself; it cannot of its own accord turn into bone and muscle and blood. The source of whatever is dead, mechanical, and formal in schools is found precisely in the subordination of the life and experience of the child to the curriculum. It is because of this that “study” has become a synonym for what is irksome, and a “lesson” identical with a task. (Dewey, 1902, pp. 7–14)

To the progressives then, education is not a product to be learned, for example, facts and motor skills, but a process that continues as long as one lives. To their way of thinking a student learns best when actively experiencing his or her world, as opposed to passively absorbing preselected content. If experiences in school are designed to meet the needs and interests of individual learners, it follows that no single pattern of subject matter can be appropriate for all learners. Brameld (1971) explained this point of view held by progressivists such as Dewey and Harold Rugg (1947): The proper subject matter of a curriculum is any experience that is educative. This means that the good school is concerned with every kind of learning that helps students, young and old, to grow. No single body of content, no system of courses, no universal method of teaching is inappropriate. For, like experience itself, the needs and interests of individuals and groups vary from place to place, from time to time, from culture to culture. (Dewey & Rugg, 1947, p. 133)

The progressivist position that the student should undergo educative experiences in the here and now has led to the cliché-like indicators of progressive philosophy: “education is life” and “learning by doing.” The progressivists urged schools to provide for learners’ individual differences in the broadest sense of the term, encompassing cognitive, physical, emotional, spiritual, social, language, economic, and cultural differences. In both thought and practice, progressivism shows concern for the student, society, and subject matter, placing the student at the center of the learning process, thus it is student-centered or learner-centered. At the heart of progressive thinking is an abiding faith in democracy. Hence, the progressivists see little place for authoritarian practices in the classroom and the school. They do not hold with the essentialists that the learners are immature subjects of adult preceptors and administrators, but rather consider them partners in the educational process. Teachers influenced by progressive thinking see themselves as counselors to students and facilitators of learning,

Chapter 6  •  Philosophy and Aims of Education 123



rather than expounders of subject matter. Cooperation is fostered in the classroom rather than competition. Individual growth in relationship to one’s starting point is considered more important than growth in comparison to others. A concern for the many unresolved problems of democracy led to a split in the progressive camp, with reconstructionists advocating that the schools become the instrument for improving society. It has been mentioned that the perennialist considers truth to be absolute, enduring, and found in the wisdom of the past; the essentialist presents the cultural heritage as truth; in contrast, the progressivist holds truth to be relative and changing and, in many cases, as yet to be discovered. Espousing principles of pragmatism, progressivists see education as a continuing search for the truth utilizing whatever sources are needed to discover that truth. SCIENTIFIC METHOD.  The scientific method, known also as reflective thinking, problem solving, and practical intelligence, became both a goal and a technique in the progressive school. The scientific method was both a skill to be achieved and a means of finding solutions to problems. In its simplest elements, the scientific method consists of five steps:

• • • • •

identifying a problem, forming a hypothesis or hypotheses, gathering data, analyzing data, and drawing conclusions.

The progressivists proposed the scientific method as a general method to be applied in any area of human endeavor. It is generally accepted for both unsophisticated problem solving and for sophisticated research. Taba (1962) offered a very legitimate caution about accepting this method of problem solving as complete preparation for thinking: Attempting to solve all problems using the scientific method ignores other critical thinking skills, such as analysis, synthesis, application, evaluation, and inference. Reducing all problem solving to the scientific method shortchanges the importance of abstractions and the formation of theory, law, and axioms. (Taba, 1962, p. 184) EXPERIMENTALIST PSYCHOLOGY.  In behaviorism the essentialists found learning theories to

be harmonious with their philosophy. The progressivists did not have to look far for theories of learning compatible with their views on education. They found a wealth of ideas in the experimentalist psychology of Charles S. Peirce and William James; in the field (gestalt) psychology of Max Wertheimer, Wolfgang Köhler, Kurt Koffka, and Kurt Lewin; and in the perceptual psychology of Earl Kelley, Donald Snygg, Arthur Combs, Abraham Maslow, and Carl Rogers. The experimentalists encourage the active involvement of the learner in all his or her capacities in the educational process. Noting the influence of James throughout the twentieth century, Brameld (1971) credited James’s Principles of Psychology as “still, in various respects, the foremost single achievement in the field by any American scholar–scientist” (pp. 96–97). GESTALT PSYCHOLOGY.  In contrast to the behaviorists’ presentation of subject matter in parts,

the gestaltists concentrated on wholes, the big picture, so to speak. They advised teachers to organize subject matter in such a way that learners could see the relationships among the various parts. This advice fit in perfectly with the progressivists’ concern for the whole child. The unit method of teaching in which content from all pertinent areas is organized into a holistic plan in order to study a particular topic or problem became a popular and enduring instructional technique.

124 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

Writing unit plans is common practice among teachers and continues to bring together various standards or objectives to be learned. The gestaltists pointed out that the learners achieve insight when they discern relationships among elements of a given situation. The gestaltists encourage inquiry to sharpen the skill of insight. Both the experimentalists and gestaltists agree that the closer content to be mastered is to real life situations and the closer problems are to the previous experiences of the learner, the more likelihood there is for successful mastery of the learning targets. PERCEPTUAL PSYCHOLOGY.  Of more recent vintage, perceptual psychology focused on the development of the learner’s self-concept. The goal of the perceptualists is the development of the selfactualizing or fully functioning personality. Abraham H. Maslow (1962) defined self-actualization as:

Self-actualization is defined in various ways, but a solid core of agreement is perceptible. All definitions accept or imply: (a) acceptance and expression of the inner core of self, i.e., actualization of these latent capacities and potentialities, “full functioning,” availability of the human and personal essence; and (b) minimal presence of ill health, neurosis, psychosis, or loss or diminution of the basic human and personal capacities. (Maslow, 1962, p. 36)

The perceptualists concentrate their efforts on developing persons who feel positive about themselves. Combs, Kelley, and Rogers (1962) listed “four characteristics of the perceptual field which always seem to underlie the behavior of truly adequate persons” (p. 51). These four characteristics are: (a) a positive view of the self, (b) identification with others, (c) openness to experience and acceptance, and (d) possession of a rich field of perceptions gained from both formal schooling and informal sources (p. 51). According to the perceptual psychologists, teachers are to be willing to help students to develop a positive concept of themselves and to deal with both their perceptions of the world and the world as it is. The perceptualist maintains that it is more important to know how the learner perceives the facts or their world than what the facts of a given situation are. The perceptualists emphasize dealing with people’s perceptions of the world around them. An individual’s positive or negative feeling of adequacy or inadequacy can often be attributed to other people’s perceptions. If a student is told by a parent that he or she is a weakling, the student may agree that it is so. If a student is told by teachers that he or she has an artistic talent, the student may seek to develop that ability. If a student is told that he or she is a poor reader, lacks aptitude for mathematics, or is short on musical talent, the students may accept these perceptions and internalize them. The student is exemplifying then what is referred to in the literature as the self-fulfilling prophecy. Students may believe what adults or authorities tell them and act on those beliefs. Combs, Kelley, and Rogers (1962) described how the self-concept is learned in the following passage. People learn who they are and what they are from the ways in which they have been treated by those who surround them in the process of their growing up. . . . People discover their self-concepts from the kinds of experiences they have had with life; not from telling, but from experience. People develop feelings that they are liked, wanted, acceptable, and able from having been liked, wanted, accepted, and from having been successful. One learns that he is these things, not from being told so, but only through the experience of being treated as though he were so. Here is the key to what must be done to produce more adequate people. To produce a positive self, it is necessary to provide experiences that teach individuals they are positive people. (Combs, Kelley, & Rogers, 1962, p. 53)



Chapter 6  •  Philosophy and Aims of Education 125

The perceptualists attacked the notion that students must experience failure. Combs, Kelley, and Rogers (1962) said, “Actually, the best guarantee we have that a person will be able to deal with the future effectively is that he has been successful in the past. People learn that they are able, not from failure, but from success” (p. 53). The progressive philosophers identified readily with the experimentalist, gestalt, and perceptual schools of psychology. Their combined efforts to humanize education captured the imagination of educators (particularly instructors in teacher education in universities and colleges), flourished for a relatively brief period, and peaked, but left an indelible mark on our educational system. Because of progressivism, essentialism will never be the same. CRITICAL INQUIRY.  You will encounter in your readings discussions of critical inquiry. According to Kenneth A. Sirotnik (1998),

critical inquiry is a rigorous, time-consuming, collaborative, informed, school-based dialectic around generic questions such as: What is going on in the name of X? (X is a placeholder for things like educational goals and schooling functions; instructional practices like the use of time, tracking students, and achievement testing; organizational practices like leadership, decision making, and communication, etc.). How did it come to be that way? Whose interests are being served (and not being served) by the way things are? What information and knowledge do we have, and need to get, that bear upon the issues? . . . Is this the way we want it? . . . What are we going to do about all this? (Sirotnik, 1998, pp. 66–67)

Noting that goal statements for the public schools often differ from classroom realities, Sirotnik (1998) might view the following as more accurate statements of what goes on: “to develop in students’ abilities to think linearly, depend on authority, speak when spoken to, work alone, become socially apathetic, learn passively and nonexperientially, recall information, follow instructions, compartmentalize knowledge, and so on” (Sirotnik, 1998, p. 64). “At the heart of critical inquiry, therefore,” said Sirotnik in 1998, “is the willingness and ability of people to engage in competent discourse and communication” (p. 67). Given that the twenty-first century standards include inquiry and complex thinking at high levels that require students to examine multiple sources to gather evidence, and draw conclusions supported with textual evidence, it may be that critical inquiry will be more frequently observed in classrooms (Coleman & Pimentel, 2011). CONSTRUCTIVIST PSYCHOLOGY.  Like experimentalist, gestalt, and perceptual psychology, con-

structivism complements progressive philosophy. Constructivists hold that the teacher is a facilitator of learning; students must be taught to take responsibility for their own learning; learning is an active process (recall the progressives’ “learning by doing”); learning must be presented in ways meaningful to students; and basic skills will be learned in authentic situations, not by separate concentration on the skills themselves. Kenneth T. Henson (2006) defined constructivism as “the belief that learning occurs only when the learner ties newly acquired information to previously gained understandings” (p. 4–5). Numerous programs and practices in schools today follow constructivist doctrine. Nell Noddings (1995) noted, “Constructivists in education trace their roots . . . to [Jean] Piaget” (p. 115). Like other schools of psychology, constructivism does not dictate any particular program or method of instruction to accomplish its aim: the development of thinking individuals able to use knowledge effectively in society. Constructivism is accepted by many educators and rejected by others. As examples of constructivist practices whole language, authentic assessment, inquiry in mathematics and science, holistic grading, and integrated curriculum can be noted. Karen H.

126 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

Harris and Steve Graham (1994) pointed out that the back-to-basics movement was a backlash against constructivist practices. As often happens, teachers blend elements of constructivism with more traditional approaches. THE EIGHT-YEAR STUDY.  The cause of the progressives was boosted by the Eight-Year Study, conducted by the Progressive Education Association between 1933 and 1941. Many educators recognize this study as one of the most significant pieces of educational research ever conducted in the United States. There have been few longitudinal studies that followed participants over a period of years. Few studies have been as sweeping or have involved as many people. Students, high school teachers and administrators, curriculum consultants, researchers, and college professors all played significant roles in the study. The Progressive Education Association was disenchanted with the typical high school college preparatory curriculum with its customary prescribed constants required for college admission. The Association wanted to see more flexibility in the secondary school curriculum but realized that such a change would not be possible as long as the colleges demanded a prescribed set of courses. It therefore enlisted the cooperation of more than 300 colleges and universities that agreed to accept graduates from a limited number of high schools without regard to the usual college entrance requirements. Obtaining the cooperation of so many colleges and universities for an experiment of this nature, which might shatter traditional notions of what is needed to succeed in college, was a feat in itself. Wilford M. Aikin, H. H. Giles, S. P. McCutchen, Ralph W. Tyler, and A. N. Zechiel (1942) were instrumental in conducting the study. The colleges and universities consented to admit graduates from 30 public and private schools regardless of their programs for a 5-year period, from 1936 to 1941. Beginning in 1933 these 30 experimental schools were able to modify their programs in any way they saw fit. Once admitted to cooperating colleges and universities, graduates of the experimental schools were matched with counterparts in the same institution who came from conventional high schools, and their performance in college was analyzed. More than 1,400 matched pairs of students were involved in this study. The summary findings of the Eight-Year Study are:

The graduates of the experimental schools did as well as or better than their counterparts in college in all subjects except foreign languages. The graduates of the experimental schools excelled their counterparts in scholastic honors, leadership positions, study habits, intellectual curiosity, and extra class activities. The Eight-Year Study showed rather conclusively that a single pattern of required courses is not essential for success in college. (Aikin, Giles, McCutchen, Tyler & Zechiel, 1942, p. 120)

The Eight-Year Study gave impetus to curriculum innovations, such as the core curriculum, which, along with the progressivist experience curriculum. DECLINE OF PROGRESSIVISM.  In spite of its contributions, placing the student at the center of the educational process, treating the whole child, appealing to students’ needs and interests, providing for individual differences, and emphasizing reflective thinking, progressivism has declined in acceptance by both the public and educators. It is probably not too far from the truth to maintain that the public was never completely enamored of progressive doctrines. It was not the Soviet Union’s Sputnik in 1957, followed by the panicky rush to the substantive courses, science, mathematics, and world languages, that caused the turn away from progressivism. Trouble had been brewing for a number of years prior to the Soviet achievement in space.



Chapter 6  •  Philosophy and Aims of Education 127

The essentialist curriculum has always been the easiest to understand, and the simplest to organize and administer. It appears clear-cut and can be readily preplanned by teachers and administrators drawing on their knowledge of the adult world. The essentialist curriculum has been the one to which most Americans have been exposed and the one, therefore, they know best and wish to retain. There can be no doubt that some of the so-called progressive schools went to extremes in catering to the needs and interests of children. The high school graduate who wrote in block printing because he or she was not required to master cursive writing raised eyebrows among the American public. Appealing to the student’s immediate needs and interests, some progressive schools seemed to sacrifice long-range needs and interests of which the young learner was unaware. A perception developed that the graduates of progressive schools were not learning the basic skills or the elements of the nation’s cultural heritage. The public was uncomfortable with assertions from educators such as “The student should be taught to read only after he or she expresses a felt need for reading” or “There’s no need to memorize the mathematics facts; you can always look them up or use a calculator.” Compared to the apparent tidiness of the essentialist curriculum and the relative ease of measuring achievement of subject matter, the progressivist curriculum appeared at times disorganized and impossible to evaluate. In attempting to deal with the whole child, the progressive school seemed to many parents to be usurping the functions of the home, and many harried teachers agreed with them. Some of the more zealous progressivists led even Dewey (1913) to warn: Apart from the question of the future, continually to appeal even in childhood to the principle of interest is eternally to excite, that is, distract, the child. Continuity of activity is destroyed. Everything is made play, amusement. This means overstimulation; it means dissipation of energy. Will is never called into action. The reliance is upon external attractions and amusements. Everything is sugar-coated for the child, and he soon learns to turn everything that is not artificially surrounded with diverting circumstances. (Dewey, 1913, pp. 4–5)

The expectation in the United States that all citizens should be educated, has contributed to the decline of progressive practices. Instructional approaches that might work in small classes will not necessarily work in large classes. Criticisms of progressive education by the essentialists, the behaviorists, and the scholars converged to restore essentialism to its currently strong position. However, the numerous reports on educational reform in the 1970s and 1980s,some of which will be discussed in Chapter 9, revealed dissatisfaction with the essentialist curriculum. Some contemporary curriculum theorists characterize the historic role of schools as an outmoded, inappropriate factory or industrial model, imposed by society on students who are its products destined for the workforce, rewarding conformity and deemphasizing the preparation of, in the words of George H. Wood (1990), “independent thinkers who are committed to the public good and willing to act on their own initiative” (p. 100). There are advocates of private education who portray public schools in a negative light, labeling them government schools. Linda Darling-Hammond (1997) described the present school structure, whose origins lie in principles of top-down organizational management, as a conveyor belt wherein impersonal treatment of students and rote learning predominate. Efforts at improvement such as “required courses, textbooks, testing instruments, and management systems,” based on a “manufacturing industries” model, according to Darling-Hammond, have been assumed to

128 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

lead to student learning and have sought to produce a standard product (pp. 16–17). She held that factory-model schools erect barriers to democratic education, commenting: Relatively few schools offer all their students a rich, active curriculum that teaches for understanding. Even fewer manage to educate a diverse set of students for constructive social interaction and shared decision making . . . [T]he right to learn in ways that develop both competence and community has been a myth rather than a reality for many Americans. (Darling-Hammond, 1997, p. 7)

Critical of education tied to economic goals, Michael W. Apple (1996) commented, “the most powerful economic and political groups in the United States and similar nations have made it abundantly clear that for them a good education is only one that is tied to economic needs (but, of course, only as these needs are defined by the powerful)” (p. 5). Noting that democratic ideals have long been featured in school reform, Jean Anyon questioned their adequacy in the restructuring of urban schools. Anyon (1997) argued that “until the economic and political systems in which the cities are enmeshed are themselves transformed so they may be more democratic and productive for urban residents, educational reformers have little chance of effecting long-lasting educational changes in city schools” (pp. 12–13). Dissatisfaction emanates also from a small group of curriculum theorists known as the reconceptualists. This group of theorists, for the most part college professors of curriculum, has expressed concern about the hidden curriculum, the values that are not directly taught but that children nevertheless experience in school. These values include the rules students live by, their relationships with peers and adults in the school, and the values embedded in the content of their studies. The reconceptualists argue for fundamental changes in curriculum and instruction. Some view curriculum development as outdated and offer in its place curriculum understanding. They draw support for their position from the humanities, especially history, philosophy, and literary criticism. William Pinar (1975) explained the interests of reconceptual theorists: The reconceptualists tend to concern themselves with the internal and existential experience of the public world. They tend to study not “change in behavior” or “decision making in the classroom,” but matters of temporality, transcendence, consciousness, and politics. In brief, the reconceptualist attempts to understand the nature of educational experience. (Pinar, 1975, pp. xii–xiii)

Pinar noted in 1975 that reconceptualists constituted 3 to 5 percent of all curriculum theorists. Another 60 to 80 percent were what Pinar called traditionalists, whose primary mission is guiding practitioners in the schools. The others were conceptual empiricists, whose interests lie in the behavioral sciences, of which the curriculum is one. Although percentages for each of these three groups may vary somewhat, observation of the current curriculum scene leads to the conclusion that the “traditionalists” still constitute the largest group, followed by the “conceptual empiricists,” with the “reconceptualists” composing the smallest. Pinar, Reynolds, Stattery, and Taubman (1995) saw reconceptualization as still underemphasized in traditional curriculum textbooks (p. 17). CRITICAL THEORY.  In discussing the reconceptualization of the curriculum field, Peter S.

Hlebowitsh (1993) observed that “many contemporary challenges in curriculum studies have been inspired by a critical theory of education” (p. 4). Influenced by the Institute of Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, critical theorists are concerned with injustices in society and the part the school plays in sustaining those injustices, for example, in “tracking, vocational education, special education, and teacher education” (Giroux, 1993, p. 4). Nell Noddings (1995) explained, “From



Chapter 6  •  Philosophy and Aims of Education 129

the perspective of critical theorists, philosophy must be engaged with the great struggles and social movements of its times” (p. 67). The critical theorists offer no prescribed programs or pedagogical processes, stressing instead the need for empowerment of the individual with the goal of improving both the school and society. Noddings (1995) observed that “[p]hilosophers of education have been greatly influenced by critical theory” (p. 67). An example would be that some of the critical theorists may describe their philosophy as a social justice philosophy of education; one that is just for all learners by providing everyone excellent learning opportunities that are due them. In spite of the many conflicting philosophical views and at the risk of overgeneralizing, it might be concluded that the public and a majority of present-day educators endorse educational programs and practices in schools that represent a judicious mixture of essentialist and progressive philosophy.

FORMULATING A PHILOSOPHY In a systems approach to curriculum development (holistic approach in which all parts influence one another and the system’s impact is greater than that of each part) the curriculum committee designated to lead the process examines statements of aims of education, chooses those that appear most significant for their context, and then creates statements reflecting uniqueness of the context. The curriculum team should be cognizant of the major principles of the leading schools of philosophy, particularly essentialism and progressivism. They should know where they stand as individuals and as a group in the philosophical spectrum. Perhaps they may discover that they have adopted an eclectic approach to philosophy, choosing the best from several philosophies. They may find that there is no such thing as a pure essentialist or a pure progressivist, but rather, more commonly, one is an essentialist who leans toward progressive thinking (a progressive essentialist) or, conversely, a progressivist who leans toward essentialist ideas (an essentialistic progressivist). Curriculum specialists should take the time to think through their own philosophies and to formulate them into a coherent statement that can be shared with others when engaging in curriculum decision making. The formulation of philosophy is not an activity that most Americans, pragmatists as they are, engage in with either zeal or frequency. Educators should reexamine their beliefs periodically to be self-aware of their own alignment with changes in the education context, society, and research. At the school and school district levels, the leadership team should work with the school community to develop statements upon which school-based decisions are made. These practices are generally required for regional accreditation and independent school accreditation. School teams should formulate a philosophy that will probably be expressed as a mission and belief statements, to establish a framework for the practices of that school. To guide professional practice a school or school district philosophy, mission, and beliefs should emerge from a collaborative process that includes all stakeholders. Through consensus building around the philosophy development, divergent thinkers will discuss the aims and values that they have related to the school and the students’ learning. In a very real sense, the statement of philosophy becomes a manifesto signifying “This is what we believe” or “This is where we stand” as of now. Value in Writing a Philosophy The school or school district’s philosophy provides a statement of the intent of the work that will take place within the organization so that those who aspire to be employed are clear on the work to be accomplished. To be meaningful, the statements will be authentic with a commitment from the top of the organization to make decisions that reflect the beliefs and mission represented.

130 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

If administrators and teachers believe that the major purposes of schools are to develop cognitive skills, to preserve the social status quo, or to direct the growth and development of the gifted and academically talented, it should say so. A frank statement of philosophical beliefs is much more defensible than a sanctimonious statement of platitudes that many organization members may not support and therefore are not reflected in the daily practice in schools and school districts. The formulation of a school district or school philosophy can be a valuable professional learning experience, giving teachers and administrators a chance to exchange views and to find a common meeting ground. A school’s philosophy should include statements of belief about the purposes of education, society, the learner, and the role of educators. Examples of statements of philosophy follow. These statements are typical of philosophies throughout the United States. They reflect values of democracy, the individual, and the learning process. Statements of some schools are brief; others are lengthy. Some educational philosophies are written as mission statements and beliefs; others include curriculum goals and objectives. This chapter is concerned primarily with a school or school district’s philosophy. These statements of philosophy reveal the schools of thought to which the developers subscribe. In spite of the essentialistic turn in American education, progressive beliefs are still strong. Despite the current emphasis on developing the intellect, these examples show concern for the whole student. In spite of increased stress on the development of cognitive abilities, the examples provided give attention to the affect. Ornstein and Hunkins (2004) addressed the importance of philosophy to educators in that it “helps them answer what schools are for, what subjects are of value, how students learn, and what methods and materials to use. It provides them with a framework for broad issues and tasks, such as determining the goals of education, the content and its organization, the process of teaching and learning, and in general what experiences and activities they wish to stress in schools and classrooms” (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004, p. 31). Problems in Developing and Implementing a Philosophy Before examining the examples of educational philosophies, it should be mentioned that curriculum specialists may encounter two sets of problems in developing and implementing a philosophy. First, those who are charged with drafting a statement usually enter into the process with differing assumptions, sometimes unexpressed, about the learning process, the needs of society, and the roles of individuals in that society. The various participating individuals may well espouse differing and conflicting philosophies of life that color their beliefs about education. Everyone should have a voice and all voices are to be respected for participants to feel valued and to authentically engage in the process. A second set of problems arises from the statement of philosophical beliefs in rather general, often vague, terms that permit varying interpretations. To be useful the statements need to be specific enough to provide guidance to those who will be making decisions based on the statements. When a statement of philosophy has been completed and presumably consensus has been reached on the wording, curriculum leaders will experience the continuing problem of striving to achieve consensus (sometimes even among those who drafted the statement) on interpretations of the wording. An addendum that provides explanations and intent may be helpful for broad implementation aligned with the intent.

Chapter 6  •  Philosophy and Aims of Education 131



EXAMPLES OF EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHIES Scan the three examples of educational philosophies. One is based on that of a large urban school district, Des Moines Public Schools, in Iowa (Table 6.2 and Figure 6.2), another is the statement of mission and beliefs of a school in a smaller community in Statesboro, Georgia, public schools (Table 6.3), and the third is that of an online school in the Florida Virtual School (FLVS) (Table 6.4). Increasingly common in addition to statements of philosophy are statements of mission and specifications of aims or goals and subgoals. In these examples, you will notice references to democratic concepts, to respect for the individual, and to the necessity of providing programs to develop the student in all his or her capacities. Although some may fault the style or prose of a given philosophy, keep in mind the purpose of the statement, to communicate to professionals and the public the beliefs held by the personnel of a school or a school system. A philosophy serves its purpose when significant beliefs are successfully communicated. From beliefs about education, schooling, learning, and society, specialists can proceed to subsequent steps of the curriculum development process. Component I of the Oliva model for curriculum development calls for a statement of educational aims and philosophy. In respect to aims of education, curriculum specialists should: • be aware that educational aims are derived from and are part of one’s educational philosophy; • be cognizant of national statements of aims of education made by prominent individuals and groups; • evaluate national statements and select from those statements, revising as they deem necessary, the aims of education that they find acceptable; and • draw up a statement of educational aims (in keeping with pronounced statewide aims) to which they subscribe or, alternately, incorporate the aims of education they have selected into a statement of philosophy. In respect to the philosophical dimension of Component I in the Oliva model, curriculum specialists should: • identify major beliefs of leading schools of educational philosophy; • analyze statements of philosophy and identify the schools to which they belong; and • analyze and clarify their own educational philosophies. TABLE 6.2  Des Moines Public Schools Educational Philosophy Mission Statement. The Des Moines Public Schools equip students for life by challenging each one to achieve rigorous standards in academics, arts, and career preparation. Belief Statement. Public education is imperative to support and sustain a diverse democratic society. To this end, we believe: • • • • • •

All students can and must learn. Schools must meet the unique learning needs of each of their students. The home, school, and community must serve and support one another. Teaching and learning require a healthy, safe, and orderly environment. Resources and services are essential for effective instruction. All staff must continue to learn, and all schools must continue to improve.

132 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process FIGURE 6.2

Des Moines Public Schools Every student can and must learn.

All staff must continue to learn, and all schools must continue to improve.

Safe, healthy, and organized contexts allow for learning and teaching.

MISSION STATEMENT: Our schools prepare students for real life by motivating all students to reach high standards in academics, arts, and career preparation. BELIEF STATEMENT: Public education upholds and maintains a diverse democratic society.

Schools must attend to the individual learning needs of each of their students.

The home, school, and community are co-entities needing to help and sustain one another.

Effective instruction depends on resources and services.

Source: Based on Des Moines Public Schools, Educational Philosophy, website: old.dmps.k12.ia.us/ schoolboard/6philosophy.htm, accessed November 5, 2011. Public domain.

TABLE 6.3  STATESBORO PUBLIC SCHOOLS Mission Statement At Sallie Zetterower, our mission is to inspire every student to think, to learn, to achieve, and to care. Our Beliefs Our belief is that every person: • • • •

deserves to work and learn in a safe environment. can learn and experience success. is responsible for his/her own actions and words. deserves to be treated with dignity.

The attitudes and habits of teachers, students, and parents affect the quality of learning. Source: Sallie Zetterower Elementary School, Statesboro, Georgia, Mission Statement and Our Beliefs, website: szes-bcss-ga.schoolltoop.com/cms/page_view?d=x8pid=8vpid=1283580802403, accessed February 7, 2011. Reprinted by permission.

Chapter 6  •  Philosophy and Aims of Education 133

TABLE 6.4  The Florida Virtual School Purpose:

The purpose for FLVS is legislatively prescribed. From Florida statute (1002.37 F.S.): “The Florida Virtual School is established for the development and delivery of online and distance learning education. . . The school shall serve any student in the state who meets the profile for success in this educational delivery context and shall give priority to: 1. Students who need expanded access to courses to meet their educational goals, such as home education students and students in inner-city and rural high schools who do not have access to higher-level courses. 2. Students seeking accelerated access to obtain a high school diploma at least one semester early.” District Mission: To deliver a high quality, technology-based education that provides the skills and knowledge students need for success. FLVS Full Time K-8 Mission: To help each student maximize his or her potential and meet the highest performance standards through a uniquely individualized learning program. Vision: To transform education worldwide—one student at a time. FLVS Full Time K-8 Vision: Our vision is for teachers, students, and parents to be empowered to create a safe, engaging, positive, and supportive student-centered environment. In this collaborative setting they are respected, motivated, and challenged through authentic learning embedded in a relevant and rigorous curriculum. Positive communication will be used to foster efficacy and interest in life-long learning. Values: • • • •

Student Focus Innovation Quality Integrity

Commitment: The student is at the center of every decision we make. Source: Florida Virtual School, Orlando, Florida, retrieved from 2014–2015 Legislative Report at https://www.flvs.net/docs/defaultsource/district/legislative-report-2014-15.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Summary In this chapter, you examined four philosophies of education, reconstructionism, progressivism, essentialism, and perennialism, two of which, essentialism and progressivism, are deemed to have special significance for schools. A systems approach to curriculum development begins with an examination of the aims of education

in society. Aims are perceived as the broad purposes of education that are national and, on occasion, international in scope. Over the years a number of prominent individuals and groups have expressed their positions on the appropriate aims of education for America. The curriculum specialist should not only be able

134 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

to formulate his or her own statement of aims, but should also be knowledgeable about historic and significant statements of aims. Essentialism, with its emphasis on subject matter, has been the prevailing philosophy of education throughout most of America’s history. Progressivism with its emphasis on the student’s needs and interests, has had a profound impact on educational programs and practices. Curriculum specialists are urged to clarify their own philosophies and to draw up a statement of their school district’s philosophy that can be communicated to other professionals and to the

public. Samples of philosophies are included in this chapter not as models of content, that is, statements to be borrowed, but rather as examples resulting from the development process. Curriculum developers should put together their own statement of beliefs in their own words. It is very likely that their statements will be eclectic in nature, borrowing from both essentialism and progressivism. The development of a statement of aims of education and an education philosophy is seen as the first phase or component of a model for curriculum system development.

Application 1. Create a philosophy for a school or school district that you will lead. Be sure to address the mission and beliefs upon which the curriculum will be based. 2. Examine the mission, beliefs, and strategic goals of an education organization and consider if they

are systematically aligned. To which school of thought are these aligned and based on student learning outcome data, how do you propose to rewrite the mission, and strategic goals to improve student learning outcomes?

Reflection and Inquiry 1. To what school(s) of thought do you belong? Cite evidence from daily practice to support your claim and the systematic influence that your school of thought has on your practice. 2. Investigate several school district vision, mission, and belief statements and compare the utility of each for systematic curricular and other related decision making. What do you infer is the relationship among the vision, mission, and belief statements and resulting student learning outcomes in each school district?

Websites National Center for Improvement of Educational Assessment: Nciea.org

3. As a school district leader, you may choose to require that a school’s mission and/or beliefs statements be identical to the school district’s mission and beliefs statements. What are the pros and cons of the requirement compared to allowing each school community to create a unique set of statements? From readings in this text and beyond support your position statements.



Chapter 6  •  Philosophy and Aims of Education 135

Suggested Readings Broudy, H. S. (1961). Building a philosophy of education (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Tanner, D. & Tanner, L. N. (2007). Curriculum development: Theory into practice (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Walker, D. F. (2003). Fundamentals of curriculum: Passion and professionalism (2nd ed.). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wiles, J. & Bondi, J. C. (2011). Curriculum development: A guide to practice (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

References Adler, M. J. (1982). The paideia proposal: An educational manifesto. New York, NY: Macmillan. Aikin, W. M., Giles, H. H., McCutchen, S. P., Tyler, R. W., & Zechiel, A. N. (1942). The story of the eight-year study. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Apple, M. W. (1996). Cultural politics and education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Brameld, T. (1971). Patterns of educational philosophy: Divergence and convergence in culturological perspective. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Butler, J. D. (1968). Four philosophies and their practice in education and religion (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row. Colman, D. & Pimentel, S. (2011). Publishers’ criteria for the common core state standards in English language arts and literacy, grades 3–12. www.sde.ct.gov/sde/ cwp/view.asp?a=322592 Combs, A. (1962). A perceptual view of the adequate personality. In Combs, A. W, Kelley, W. C. & C. R. Rogers (Eds.), (1962). Perceiving, behaving, becoming. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. (1991). America’s choice: High skills or low wages Washington DC: Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. Counts, G. S. (1932). Dare the school build a new social order? New York, NY: John Day. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Des Moines Public Schools. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.dmps.k12+.ia.us/AboutDMPS/Educational+ Philosophy.aspx Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Free Press. Dewey, J. (1929). My pedagogic creed. Washington, DC: Progressive Education Association. Earley, P. M. (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America act: Implications for teacher educators (ERIC document ED367661). Educational Policies Commission. (1937). The unique function of education in American democracy. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Educational Policies Commission. (1961). The central purpose of American education. Washington, DC: Educational Policies Commission. Giroux, H. A. (1993). Living dangerously: Multiculturalism and the politics of difference. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Goodlad, J. I. (1983). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Greene, M. (1973). Teacher as stranger: Educational p hilosophy for the modern age. Belmont, CA: ­ Wadsworth. Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1994). Constructivism: Principles, paradigms, and integration. The Journal of Special Education, 28(3), 233–247.

136 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process Harvard Committee on General Education. (1945). General education in a free society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Henson, K. T. (2006). Curriculum planning: Integrating multiculturalism, constructivism, and education reform. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Hlebowitsh, P. S. (1993). Radical curriculum theory: A historical approach. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hutchins, R. M. (1963). On education. Santa Barbara, CA: Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions. Kliebard, H. (1998). The effort to reconstruct the modern American curriculum. In L. Beyer & M. Apple (Eds.), The curriculum: Problems, politics, and possibilities (2nd ed.). (p. 21). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Maslow, A. (1962). Some basic propositions of a growth and self-actualization psychology. In A. Combs (1962). Perceiving, behaving, becoming (p. 36). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. National Education Association. (1951). Moral and spiritual values in the public schools. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Noddings, N. (1995). Philosophy of education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2004). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Pinar, W. F. (1975). Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Pinar, W. F. (1995). Understanding curriculum. New York, NY: P. Lang. Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman. P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum (17th ed.), New York, NY: P. Lang.

Rickover, H. G. (1962). Education for all children: What we can learn from England. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print Office. Rugg, H. (1947). Foundations for American education. Yonkers, NY: World Book Company. Sirotnik, K. (1998). What goes on in classrooms? Is this the way we want it? In L. Beyer & M. Apple (Eds.), The Curriculum: Problems, politics, and possibilities (2nd ed.). (pp. 66–67). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Sizer, T. R. (1992). Horace’s school: Redesigning the  ­American high school. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World. Thayer, V. T. (1960). The role of the school in American society. New York, NY: Dodd, Mead. U.S. Department of Education. (1990). National goals for education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Nine states and the District of Columbia Win Second Round Race to the Top Grants. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/ press-releases/nine-states-and-district-columbia-winsecond-round-race-top-grants U.S. Department of Education (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/ ESSA. Walker, D. F., & Soltis, J. F. (2004). Curriculum and aims (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Wood, G. (1990). Teachers as curriculum workers. In J. Sears & J. Marshall (Eds.), Teaching and thinking about curriculum: Critical inquiries (p. 100). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

CHAPTER

7

Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making CHANGING EXPECTATIONS

Learning Outcomes

A nation’s effort to compete in a global economy is not new and continues to shape the debate on effectiveness of public education and how the curriculum contributes to perceived effectiveness. As many countries have evolved from being agrarian to industrial to informatic, urban centers have developed and different curriculum and school organizational structures have emerged. The USA is no different and has transitioned from manufacturing to an information and thinking society and therefore curriculum, organizational structures, and delivery modes have continued to adapt at a rapid pace. The accelerated pace in many aspects of life in the USA is transforming how students will become ready for success in their careers or in college. While the rapid rate of change impacts daily lives, changes also impact the way that curriculum specialists and developers view the sources that are to be considered when evaluating curriculum needs. Some of the sources include student achievement data, demographic data, graduates’ successes, teacher effectiveness, and community employment data. There are other sources of evidence that are helpful to consider that will emerge from teachers, instructional coaches, and administrators in schools and across school districts. The curriculum developer’s facility in determining student curricular needs, based on a variety of data and evidence sources, will influence the effectiveness of the curriculum that is generated and perhaps even the fidelity of its implementation. These and other changes support the importance of understanding how to develop forward thinking curriculum that addresses the challenges students will face in an ever-changing global environment. Consider these queries. How will the focus areas be determined? How do developers shape curriculum, based on the needs and predicted needs of society, so that graduates are competitive in their selected and potentially changing careers? Which data and evidence sources should curriculum developers consider to develop an effective curriculum? How will leaders know if the curriculum has met the learning needs or not, and for which students under which conditions? Curriculum developers’ understanding of the level of transparency that is expected

After studying this chapter, you should be able to: 1. Identify and describe major sources of data for informing curriculum needs and content. 2. Outline levels and types of needs in models of curriculum development. 3. Outline data and evidence informed needs related to curriculum system development. 4. Show how needs are derived from the structure of a discipline. 5. Construct a plan for assessing curriculum needs.

137

138 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

in (a) the selection of sources upon which to determine curricular needs, (b) the development processes, and (c) how the curriculum’s effectiveness will be measured may influence the success of implementation outcomes. The curriculum developer has a plethora of decisions to make when designing content that will positively impact learning. By understanding the needs of society and by using data and evidence to make informed curriculum and instructional decisions, educators can systematically approach these opportunities and challenges. Tony Wagner (2010), Harvard professor and founder of the Change Leadership Group, stated that due to the changing nature of the workplace, students need to master communication and thinking skills to become productive citizens in the twenty-first century, particularly those in urban environments. Critical thinking, problem solving, entrepreneurialism, and effective communication are just a few of the skills that students need to be proficient and to be successful. Learning environments that promote twenty-first century skills will be flexible, infuse inquiry, generate student thinking, and will incorporate digital tools. Table 7.1 demonstrates how Wagner (21stcenturyschools.com) envisions classrooms.

CATEGORIES OF NEEDS In this section the needs of students and society, classified by levels and types, and needs derived from the subject matter are shared. Following is a description of a process for conducting a

TABLE 7.1   Twentieth Century Classroom versus the Twenty-First Century Classroom Twentieth Century Classrooms

Twenty-First Century Classrooms

Time based

Outcome based

Low level thinking

Higher, more complex thinking

Text book driven

Standards driven

Passive learning

Active learning

Learners and teachers work in isolation

Collaborative work

Teacher centered

Learner centered

Fragmented curriculum

Integrated and interdisciplinary curriculum

Teacher evaluates

Self and peer feedback

Curriculum irrelevant

Curriculum connected to students’ interests, experiences, talents

Print is primary mode for learning and assessment. Performances, projects, and online learning for learning and assessment Diversity in students is ignored.

Student diversity reflected

Literacy is reading and writing in isolation.

Literacy: reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing, and thinking in all subjects

Factory model based upon needs for the Industrial Age

Flexible model for rapidly evolving global and technological economy

Source: 21st Century Schools, 20th century classroom vs. the 21st century classroom. Retrieved from: 21stcenturyschools.com

Chapter 7  •  Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making 139



curriculum needs assessment. When carrying out this process through data and evidence collection and analysis, curriculum planners study the needs of learners, society, and subject matter. With stakeholders’ help, teachers, and administrators identify and place in order of priority programmatic needs for the system of curriculum development to address. In the preceding chapter, it was established that statements of educational aims and philosophy are based on needs of students and society in general. The needs of both students and society are evident in the following examples of statements of aims and philosophy: • • • • • • •

to develop linguistic, technological, and cultural literacy; to develop communication skills; to develop the ability to think; to promote concern for protecting the environment; to develop a well-rounded individual; to develop skills for competing in a global economy; and to develop respect for others.

Statements of aims and philosophy point to common needs of students and society and set a general framework within which a school or school district will function. In formulating curriculum goals and objectives for a particular school or school district, curriculum developers give their attention to five sources as shown by Components I and II of the Oliva Model for Curriculum Development in Chapter 5, Figure 5.4: (1) the needs of students in general, (2) the needs of society, (3) the needs of the particular students, (4) the needs of the particular community, and (5) the needs derived from the subject matter. You can expand on the needs of both students and society in a greater level of detail than is shown in the model for curriculum development by classifying the needs of students and society into two broad categories, levels, and types, thereby emphasizing points that curriculum planners should keep in mind. In the Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development, the standards or curriculum objectives are developed based on the data and evidence informed needs as determined by the SEA, LEA, or organization. Specifications for curriculum standards and objectives are developed. Organization of the resulting curriculum is determined and a feedback loop established to assure ongoing revisions, as necessary.

A CLASSIFICATION SCHEME To expand on the needs of both students and society, consider the four-part classification scheme which defines: • • • •

needs of students by level; needs of students by type; needs of society by level; and needs of society by type.

Before analyzing each category, think about how the needs of the student cannot be completely divorced from those of society, or vice versa. The needs of one are intimately linked to those of the other. True, the two sets of needs sometimes conflict. For example, an individual’s need may be contrary to society’s need when he or she shouts “Fire” to gain attention in a crowded theater when there is no fire. On the other hand, the needs of the person and the needs of society are often in harmony. An individual’s desire to amass wealth, if carried out legally and fairly, is compatible with a democratic, productive society. The wealth may benefit society in the form

140 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

of investment or taxes. Consequently, it is sometimes difficult to categorize a particular need as a need of the person or of society. That degree of refinement is not necessary. If the curriculum planner recognizes the need, its classification is secondary. To prevent a misunderstanding, the needs of a particular student can be similar to or vary from other students’ needs in general. Likewise, the needs of a particular community do not completely vary from those of society in general, but they do differ in some respects from those of other communities that share the same general societal needs. The thousands of communities in the USA are, in spite of local distinctions of needs, resources, and cultural idiosyncrasies, parts of the total culture linked by transportation and media, including the Internet. Interests and Wants Before proceeding with a discussion of needs of students, student interests and wants in curriculum development will be distinguished from data and evidence generated needs. Interest refers to attitudes or predisposition toward something, for example, auto mechanics, history, dramatics, or basketball. Want includes wishes, desires, or longings for something, such as the want for an automobile, spending money, or stylish clothes. None of the models for curriculum development in Chapter 5 has built into it either the interests or wants of students. The reasons why interests and wants of students are not shown in the proposed models for curriculum development follow. • Interests and wants can be immediate or long range, serious or ephemeral. Immediate and ephemeral interests and wants have less relevance than long-range and serious interests and wants. • Both interests and wants may be the basis of needs. For example, a want may be a need. The want to be accepted, for instance, is in fact the psychological need to be accepted. Alternatively, the want for a pair of expensive, designer jeans is not a need, though some may possibly argue otherwise. If, then, interests and wants can be the basis for needs and are sometimes needs themselves, it would be redundant for them to be shown separately in a model for curriculum improvement. • It would be unduly complex, burdensome, and confusing for interests and wants to be shown separately in a model for curriculum development. Certainly, as far as interests go, the literature is filled with admonitions for educators to be concerned with student needs and interests to the point where the two concepts, needs and interests, are one blended concept, “needs-and-interests.” Interests and wants of students must be continuously considered and sifted in the processes of both curriculum development and instruction, for they can be powerful motivators.

NEEDS OF STUDENTS: LEVELS The levels of student needs of concern to the curriculum planner may be identified as (a) human, (b) national, (c) state or regional, (d) community, (e) school, and (f) individual. Human The curriculum should reflect the needs of students that are common to all such as food, c­ lothing, shelter, and good health. Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his State of the Union address to the U.S. Congress in 1941, iterated four universal needs of humanity, widely known as the Four Freedoms. These are freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom to worship in one’s own way, and



Chapter 7  •  Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making 141

freedom of speech and expression (Roosevelt, 1941). The American student has common interests to those of other students from all over the world, as well as fundamental human needs that the curriculum should address. National At the national level, efforts are made to assess the general needs of students in American society through statements of aims of education. Students throughout the USA have need to: think, be literate in English, prepare to be college and career ready, and to have broad general knowledge. Some of the national needs that might be identified are ones held in common with all nations. For example, few would argue that literacy in a nation’s official language is not essential to the development and growth of any nation. In that sense literacy is a worldwide but not a human need, because men and women do not need to read or write to exist. Human beings, however, cannot exist without food and water or with overexposure to the elements. To become aware of nationwide needs of students, the curriculum planners should be up to date in understanding related research and literature and it is helpful to be networked nationally with other curriculum developers. The curriculum planner should recognize changing needs of students. For example, students use digital tools and resources to access information, to organize information, to share information, and to receive feedback. Generally, with family mobility, students are expected to develop proficiency at similar levels aligned to curriculum standards across the USA. However, as in past decades there remain some state and regional needs, particularly for those who as adults remain in the same community in which they attended prekindergarten through twelfth grades. With readily available national achievement data, such as data provided from results of the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), some of the USA’s curriculum needs can be identified. As an example, disparities among student subgroups by race, ethnicity, and economic status continue to exist. According to the 2012 NAEP mathematics assessment, there remain similar Black–White and Hispanic–White achievement gaps (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). While these data point to student needs, it may also provide insight that stimulates further analysis of subject level needs. State or Regional Curriculum planners should determine whether students have needs specific to a state or region. Whereas preparing for a career is a common need of all students in the USA, preparing for specific careers may be more appropriate in a particular community, state, or region. General knowledge and specialized preparation in certain fields, such as health care, auto mechanics, digital design, and data analytics, may be applied throughout the country. However, states or regions may require students to be equipped with specific knowledge and skills for geographic specific specializations. Hospitality industry jobs may be more prevalent in the Sunbelt region, due to the tourism industry. Likewise, a high concentration of agricultural science careers may exist in the Midwest due to national agribusiness enterprises. Environmentally sensitive states, like Florida, may have a high need for environmental engineers, water management specialists, and varying types of biologists, including marine biologists as specific as those who study and protect sea turtle nesting. Community The curriculum developer studies the community served by the school or school district and investigates the student needs in this particular community. Students growing up in a mining town in West Virginia have some demands that differ from those of students living among the

142 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

cherry orchards of Michigan. Students who graduate from high school and choose to remain in their communities will need career preparation or college readiness appropriate for their unique environments, in addition to preparation that addresses the more global and technological needs. School The school level curriculum planner typically probes and excels at analyzing the needs of students in a particular school, grade level, and subject area. These needs command the attention of curriculum specialists to such an extent that sometimes the demands of the individual students may be obscured. The need for intervention for non-proficient students in reading and mathematics is obvious upon examination of student level data. English learners have need for curriculum for their success. If a school has a program that is identified as a magnet for students from other schools or a specialization within a school, such as the arts, then those identified areas of expertise will be cause for curriculum development. Other student level data that should inform curriculum development would be those to address the potential of all students and not at the expense of any individual or group of students, including those who are proficient or gifted and talented in a variety of ways. Individual Finally, the needs of individual students in a particular school are to be examined. Can it be that the needs of individual students go unattended while focus is on the needs of the many? Has the school addressed the needs of the average, the gifted, the academically talented, the challenged, the diabetic, the hyperactive, the withdrawn, the aggressive, and the creative? Too what extent are the needs of individuals being addressed? Each level of student needs builds on the preceding level and makes a cumulative set. Consequently, the individual student presents needs that emanate from his or her (a) individuality, (b) membership in the school, (c) residence in the community, (d) living in the state or region, (e) residing in the USA, and (f) belonging to the human race.

NEEDS OF STUDENTS: TYPES Another dimension is added when the curriculum planner analyzes the needs of students by types of needs. Four broad types of needs can be established: physical/biological, socio-psychological, educational, and developmental. Before examining the four types, think about Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (www.udlcenter.org). Although the UDL framework emerged from the needs of learners with special needs, the concepts apply to all curriculum development and implementation. To assure that all students have opportunities to learn and be successful in school, UDL addresses flexibility in how curriculum is organized and delivered, how students demonstrate that they know or can perform at proficient levels, and how students are motivated or engaged in learning. Furthermore, UDL assures that barriers to learning are removed and support, accommodations, or scaffolds are provided, while maintaining high expectations (Universal Design for Learning, n.d.). Universal Design for Learning is accepted as the standard in considering how to assure access for all to quality learning experiences. Physical/Biological Biologically determined, the physical needs of students are common within the culture and generally constant across cultures. Students need movement, exercise, rest, nutrition, and adequate



Chapter 7  •  Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making 143

medical care. As an example, in the pre-adolescent years they will learn about the harmful effects of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco, along with how to make decisions. A sound curriculum aids students to understand and meet their physical needs, not only during the years of schooling but into adulthood as well. Socio-psychological Some curriculum developers might divide this category into social and psychological needs, yet it is often difficult to distinguish between the two. For example, an individual’s need for affection is certainly a psychological need. Affection, however, is sought from other individuals and in that context becomes a social need. At first glance, self-esteem seems a purely psychological need (Kelley, 1962). Among the common socio-psychological needs are affection, acceptance, and approval, belonging, success, and security. Furthermore, each individual has the need to be engaged in meaningful work reflecting that their thoughts are valued, which may result in motivated students, who see the expectations as worth striving towards (Pink, 2011). Curriculum designers who provide the expectation that students are engaged in thinking, in creating, and in wondering, will assist teachers in meeting the motivational needs of students, as motivation is natural unless the learning experiences are boring, in which case students may become demotivated (Jensen, 1998). The needs of emotionally exceptional students fit clearly into the psychological category. Attention is paid to the wide range of exceptionalities including but not limited to: the gifted, the creative, the emotionally disabled, the learning disabled, and the autistic. Curriculum specialists are to use appropriate resources to identify socio-psychological needs of students and incorporate ways to meet these needs into the curriculum. For students who have an individual education plan, flexibility in the curriculum must provide for these requirements to be met. Educational Curriculum planners ordinarily view their task of providing for the educational needs of students as their primary concern. The educational needs of students shift as society changes and as more is learned about the physical and socio-psychological aspects of growth and development. Historically, schools have gone from emphasizing a classical and theocratic education to a career and secular education. They have sought to meet the educational needs of students through general education, sometimes as the study of contemporary problems of students and/or society. Career education and technical education have been features from time to time and from geographic location to location. Emphasis on reading, writing, and thinking processes, along with the academic disciplines are currently preferred and are driven by curriculum standards, when they exist. The curriculum specialist should keep in mind that educational needs do not exist outside the context of students’ other needs and society’s needs. Developmental Robert J. Havighurst made popular the concept of developmental tasks, which he viewed as tasks that had to be completed by an individual at a particular time in his or her development if that individual is to experience success with later tasks (1948). He traced the developmental tasks of individuals in our society from infancy through later maturity and described the biological, psychological, and cultural bases, as well as the educational implications of each task.

144 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

Found between individual needs and societal demands, developmental tasks do not fall neatly into the schemes developed in this chapter for classifying the needs of students and the needs of society. These tasks are, in effect, personal-social needs that arise at a particular stage of life and that must be met at that stage, according to Havighurst (1948). In middle childhood, for example, students learn to live, work, and socialize harmoniously with each other. Havighurst (1948) addressed the question of the usefulness of the concept of developmental tasks in the following way. In adolescence, students learn to be independent and assume responsibility for themselves. There are two reasons why the concept of developmental tasks is useful to educators. First, it helps in discovering and stating the purposes of education in the schools. Education may be conceived as the effort of society, through the school, to help the individual achieve . . . certain of his developmental tasks. The second use of the concept is in the timing of educational efforts. When the body is ripe, and society requires, and the self is ready to achieve a certain task, the teachable moment has come. Efforts at teaching which would have been largely wasted if they had come earlier, give gratifying results when they come at the teachable moment, when the task should be learned. (Havighurst, 1948, p. 8)

Curriculum planners fashion what is referred to as the scope and sequence of instruction or a scope and sequence chart. This chart assigns standards or content to be learned at each grade level aligned with learners’ academic growth and development. Today, it is recognized that developmental appropriateness is important and curriculum provides learning experiences that are suitable for the age and academic background of learners. In contrast to the original intent of scope and sequence documents, they are more than reflections of developmental appropriateness and are intended to assist teachers in aligned reasonable time frames for instruction with the school year calendar and assessment calendar. Most probably, they include specified times and opportunities for re-teaching or reviewing critical content and skills. Addressing the fit between the curriculum and the needs of learners, George S. Morrison extended the needs of learners to multicultural and gender issues. Morrison saw four types of appropriateness: developmental, in terms of growth and development; individual, in terms of special needs of learners; multicultural, in terms of cultural diversity; and gender, in terms of avoiding discriminatory content or practice (Morrison, 1993). Readers are to be aware that all of Morrison’s four types of appropriateness relate to practices that could be considered discriminatory or even illegal if not addressed properly.

NEEDS OF SOCIETY: LEVELS The curriculum developer not only examines the needs of students in relation to society, but also the needs of society in relation to students. These two levels of needs sometimes converge, diverge, or mirror each other. When the needs of students are the focal point, the perspective may differ from that accorded in studying the needs of society. In analyzing the needs of society, the curriculum developer will bring a particular set of skills to the task. Grounding in the behavioral sciences is especially important to the analysis of the needs of the individual, whereas a background in the social sciences is pivotal to the analysis of the needs of society. As in the case of assessing students’ needs, two simple taxonomies of the needs of society have been constructed: first, as to level, and second, as to type. The levels of needs of society from the broadest to the narrowest are classified: human, international, national, state, community, and neighborhood.



Chapter 7  •  Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making 145

Human What needs do human beings throughout the world have as a result of their membership in the human race? Humans as a species possess the same needs as individual human beings: food, clothing, and shelter. Collectively, humankind has a need for freedom from want, from disease, and from fear. As a civilized society, presumably thousands of years removed from the Stone Age, human beings have the need, albeit often unrealized, to live in a state of peace. Human society, by virtue of its position at the pinnacle of evolutionary development, has a continuing need to maintain control over subordinate species of the animal kingdom. When devastation is wrought by earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, and drought, everyone is reminded of the need to understand and control the forces of nature. Some of the needs—or demands, if you will—of society are common to the entire human race. International Curriculum developers should consider needs that cut across national boundaries and exist not so much because they are basic needs of humanity but because they arise from a loose confederation of nations. The study of world languages is a response to the need for peoples to communicate with each other. Businesses are international as are banking, education, health care, and many aspects of society. There are needs to develop more effective means of sharing expertise and discoveries for the benefit of all nations. Respectful and continual address of understanding, embracing, and valuing the diverse cultures within the USA and external to the USA is a global need. Surely, curriculum developers need to be aware of former and current challenges countries in our world face. Ethnic and religious wars, such as those experienced in recent years in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda along with terrorist actions and starvation in countries such as Somalia represent needs for internationally related curriculum considerations. Anticipation of changes in the business and travel relationship between the USA and Cuba, a communist country, may influence curricular change in 2018 and beyond. These examples and others are related to diverse student populations within many regions of the USA and therefore in schools and communities. With the intensification of diversity of cultures the need for globally influenced curriculum may be more essential than previously. National The form of government of the USA rests on the presence of an educated and informed citizenry. Consequently, the curriculum planner must be able to define the needs of the nation. Education in citizenship is to a great extent the function of the school. One means of identifying national needs is to examine national social and economic problems. The economy of the USA has an urgent need to prepare persons for occupations that appear to be growing, rather than declining. The curriculum planner must be cognizant of careers that are subject to growth and decline, such as education and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Employment opportunities vary and have experienced an increase in demand, like areas of nanoscience and nanomedicine. On the other hand, semiskilled positions have experienced a decrease in demand. Projecting employment opportunities between 2008 and 2018, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported professional and related occupations, computer and mathematical occupations, health care practitioners and technical occupations, and education and library occupations, would grow faster than any other major occupational group. Service occupations constitute the second

146 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

largest rate of growth, health care service occupations were expected to add the most jobs among service occupations, whereas agriculture, fishing, and forestry jobs were anticipated to decrease. Employment in management, business, financial, and construction occupations were also predicted to increase (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d.). Schools have responded to career needs through career and technical education either in comprehensive high schools, career-technical schools, or magnet schools. Since World War I, emphasis on career and technical education has waxed and waned. The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, the George-Reed Act of 1929, the George-Dean Act of 1936, the Vocational Education Act of 1963, Charles Prosser’s resolution calling for “life adjustment education” and the creation of the Commission on Life Adjustment Education in the post–World War II years, the Carl D. Perkins Act of 1984, and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 all addressed career and life needs of youth. The Carl D. Perkins Act (Public Law No. 98-524, The Vocational Education Act of 1984) furnishes an interesting example of the effects of changing curricular emphases on the U.S. Congress. Amended in 1990, it became the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act; renewed in 1998, it appeared as the Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act; and reauthorized in 2006, it dropped the older and now less-popular label “vocational” and has become the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006. Tracing the transition of this funding source, is a good example to note of how curriculum language changes which also reflects expectations within the curriculum area of focus. Renewed programs in career education continue to take note of areas needing updates in the workforce and seek to help students gain skills necessary for successful employment. Among means of strengthening career education are: analysis of the business and industrial needs of the community; specification of outcomes needed by graduates; integration of academic and career education; school-to-work transition programs; establishment of partnerships with business and industry; on-the-job experiences concurrent with schooling; and guidance of students in examining a chosen set of occupations, e.g., business, health, communications, a practice known as career clustering. An example of career needs and partnership as a part of a solution that readers may relate to is the teacher shortage experienced in Florida in recent years. School districts began partnering with state colleges and universities to develop pipelines of potential teachers from high school experiences, to open access state colleges, and on to university teacher preparation programs. Throughout these education experiences the partnerships are smoothing the way for flexibility in college coursework, internships, and college funding for teacher preparation. The intent of the partnerships is to provide long-term solutions to the need for teachers who want to stay in their ­community upon completing a teacher preparation program. In addition to a renewed interest in technical education, progressive schools have responded by ramping up their curricula as a means to afford students opportunities to attend college. Not too surprising to persons in education is the finding by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics that “Among the 20 fastest growing occupations, a bachelor’s or associate degree is the most significant source of postsecondary education or training for 12 of them” (2003), increasing the national trend for students to get a college degree. Employment needs will change and technology will continue to develop along with changes in consumer demands, population shifts, global competition, and outsourcing intensification—all which will influence curriculum development needs. The successful curriculum developer will remain up to date in economic and political trends in the USA and globally to accurately perceive the needs of the nation.



Chapter 7  •  Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making 147

State States also have special needs and have a responsibility to provide for their citizenry on a variety of levels. Consequently, states play a major role in influencing curriculum offerings at the local level. To attract industry to create jobs in a complex and evolving global marketplace, states have a stake in determining the curriculum. In the early years of the twenty-first century, there was a downturn in the economy which impacted some state populations. For example, when the sale of automobiles manufactured in the USA declined, the state of Michigan experienced economic difficulties. When the booming housing market encountered financial challenges revenues declined as homeowners who were not able to pay mortgages, also did not pay property taxes, which represented significant portions of revenue for education in some states. When whole industries moved from the Northeast to sunnier climates in the USA or to Mexico where labor and other costs were lower, the abandoned states felt the economic loss. As states experience economic booms and downturns, leaders have a responsibility to provide stability and economic opportunities for their populations. As the data and evidences become more transparent, student performance on state required tests is compared and measured by stakeholders. The federal government’s effort to impact the curricula, The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, required states to have all students perform on grade level as determined by state standards, benchmarks, and performance measures, by the year 2013. To comply with the requirements of No Child Left Behind of 2001, states tested reading, mathematics, and science at stipulated grade levels and made available publicly the results (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). As you recall from reading about Race to the Top Fund (RTTT), it provided financial incentives to states in an effort to sustain increased student achievement. RTTT focused on (a) improving data collection to promote data-informed decision making, (b) improving the college readiness of students, (c) assisting with highly qualified teacher and administrator recruitment and (d) turning around low performing schools (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). The expectations that come with large amounts of funding can be overwhelming. The impact of the narrowing of curriculum offerings to comply with these high demands should be considered by the curriculum planner. Employment opportunities, needs for preparation of specialized employees, and types of schooling needed differ from state to state and pose areas of concern for curriculum developers. Thus, curriculum planners should consider the needs of the state from a variety of influences when establishing the curricula. Community Curriculum developers are more frequently able to identify the needs of a community because they are usually aware of changes in its major businesses and industries. They know whether the community’s economy is stagnant, depressed, or booming. On the other hand, changes are sometimes so gradual that leaders neglect to adapt academic programs to changing community needs. For example, is it possible to find schools that offer traditional agriculture although the communities shifted to small business and light industry long ago or the former fields and groves are now subdivisions? On the other hand, with federally and privately supported STEM education funding, many school districts and states have accessed resources to update the expectations to include introductory engineering and bio-medical program courses, like Project Lead the Way (www.pltw.org), even in middle and high schools. Shifts of population within a state create problems for communities. During the 1970s, many disenchanted urbanites moved to rural areas to seek a better quality of life, only to move back to

148 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

metropolitan areas in the 1980s, as evidenced by the United States Census Bureau figures. Many communities have witnessed high levels of home foreclosures, causing families to move and at times, the demographic variables of a community rapidly change. In warm climates, the students who are homeless, live in cars, tents, motels, are a growing trend and homelessness influences the curriculum of the affected communities. Shifts in population create challenges for school leaders, in the same way the tax base, which schools rely on for partial funding, may affect the quality of education in a community. As the Serrano v. Priest (1971) decision of the California Supreme Court in 1971 and the Edgewood v. Kirby (1989) decision of the Texas Supreme Court in 1989 clearly demonstrated, wealthier communities with the ability to raise funds through taxes on property can provide a higher quality of education than can communities with a poorer tax base. In this respect, community need becomes a state need because education, through the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is a power reserved for the states. Parenthetically it might be added that community needs, including schools, become state and federal needs when communities are hit by natural disasters, like hurricanes Harvey and Irma of 2017. School leaders solve societal problems by themselves. Communities turn primarily to state legislatures for help in equalizing financial support for educational opportunities throughout the state. On the other hand, school leaders can make an impact on the citizens of the community whom they are educating by making local politicians and the community they serve aware of the challenges so that they may be resolved. Neighborhood Urbanites have needs that differ from those who live in the suburbs. Density of population creates needs that are different from areas in which the population is spread far apart. Crime may be more common in some neighborhoods than in others. The needs of a community of migrant workers are much different from communities of executives, physicians, and lawyers. Children who are economically disadvantaged often have health and nutrition needs (food insecurity) which should influence the curriculum, as well as literacy enrichment needs (Gallagher, Goodyear, Brewer, & Rueda, 2012). While housing location preferences (urban, rural, or suburban) change over time, there is a trend to develop new communities designed to create a congenial small-town atmosphere in a suburban-type setting. Master planned communities often employ the concept of a community center surrounded by a mixture of single-family and multifamily residences and apartments. Schools and commercial and recreational facilities are planned to be within walking distance of the homes. Mass transit may even link: an urban center to the planned community, wherein schools, shops, jobs, and services can be found within walking distance of homes. Even this trend may influence curriculum developers as they observe and gather evidences related to changes.

NEEDS OF SOCIETY: TYPES The curriculum planner is to examine the needs of society from the standpoint of types. For example, each of the following types of societal needs has implications for the curriculum: • • • •

political, social, economic, educational,

Chapter 7  •  Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making 149



• • • •

environmental, defense, health, and cultural norms.

A curriculum team studying the needs of society would be well advised to try to generate its own system for classifying societal needs. The team might then compare its classification system with some of those found in the literature. For example, The Seven Cardinal Principles and the Ten Imperative Needs of Youth, mentioned in Chapter 3 and in Chapter 8 respectively, were efforts to identify needs of students as a function of the needs of society in the past; however, these historical classification systems may not be relevant today. Researching and comparing is a wise practice for a curriculum team in creating its own system. Social Processes Numerous attempts have been made throughout the years to identify societal needs or demands under the rubrics of social processes, social functions, life activities, and social institutions. Needs may be dual in nature, such as understanding economics relates to personal and societal needs. Curriculum specialists who seek to delineate social processes or functions do so to identify individual needs that have social origins. It might be argued that all personal needs, except purely biological ones, are social in origin. Long ago, Robert S. Zais credited Herbert Spencer for the beginning of the practice of studying society empirically (1976, p. 301). The 1934 Virginia State Curriculum Program was identified as one of the better-known attempts to organize a curriculum around life processes (Taba, 1962). O. I. Frederick and Lucile J. Farquear reported the following nine areas of human activity that the state of Virginia incorporated into the curriculum of the schools: • • • • • • • • •

protecting life and health; getting a living; making a home; expressing religious impulses; satisfying the desire for beauty; securing education; cooperating in social and civic action; engaging in recreation; and improving material conditions. (Frederick & Farquear, 1937, pp. 672–679)

The Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction (1950) Guide to Curriculum Building was highly regarded for its social functions approach. The Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction listed the following social functions in its guide for a core curriculum at the junior high school level: • • • • • • •

to keep the population healthy; to provide physical protection and guarantee against war; to conserve and wisely utilize natural resources; to provide opportunity for people to make a living; to rear and educate the young; to provide wholesome and adequate recreation; to enable the population to satisfy aesthetic and spiritual values;

150 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

• to provide sufficient social cement to guarantee social integration; and • to organize and govern in harmony with beliefs and aspirations. (Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction, 1950, p. 74) Florence B. Stratemeyer, Hamden L. Forkner, Margaret G. McKim, and A. Harry Passow (1957) proposed a plan for organizing curriculum experiences around activities of human beings, as shown in the following. SITUATIONS CALLING FOR GROWTH IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES 

Health Satisfying physiological needs Satisfying emotional and social needs Avoiding and caring for illness and injury Intellectual power Making ideas clear Understanding the ideas of others Dealing with quantitative relationships Using effective methods of work Moral choices Determining the nature and extent of individual freedom Determining responsibility to self and others Aesthetic expression and appreciation Finding sources of aesthetic satisfaction in oneself Achieving aesthetic satisfactions through the environment SITUATIONS CALLING FOR GROWTH IN SOCIAL PARTICIPATION

Person-to-person relationships Establishing effective social relations with others Establishing effective working relationships with others Group membership Deciding when to join a group Participating as a group member Taking leadership responsibilities Intergroup relationships Working with racial, religious, and national groups Working with socioeconomic groups Dealing with groups organized for specific action SITUATIONS CALLING FOR GROWTH IN ABILITY TO DEAL WITH ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AND FORCES

Natural phenomena Dealing with physical phenomena

Chapter 7  •  Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making 151



Dealing with plant, animal, and insect life Using physical and chemical forces Technological resources Using technological resources Contributing to technological advance Economic-social-political structures and forces Earning a living Securing goods and services Providing for social welfare Molding public opinion Participating in local and national government. (Stratemeyer, et al., 1957, pp.146–172) Taba (1962, p. 399) pointed out that the strength of the Stratemeyer, Forkner, McKim, and Passow scheme is its unification of both the learner’s and society’s needs by combining practical concerns with theoretical social goals. In sum, the curriculum developer should analyze both the needs of learners and of society. The study of both sources, as Ralph Tyler called them, provides clues for curricular implementation and organization.

NEEDS DERIVED FROM THE SUBJECT MATTER One major source of curriculum objectives remains to be considered: needs as derived from the subject matter or, as Jerome S. Bruner and others would say, from the “structure of a subject.” Bruner refers to the structure of a subject as the “basic ideas” or “fundamental principles.” “Grasping the structure of a subject,” said Bruner, “is understanding it in such a way that permits many other things to be related to it meaningfully. To learn structure, in short, is to learn how things are related,” (1960, p. 6). As examples of elements of the structure of subjects, content, or disciplines, Bruner (1960) mentioned tropism in the field of biology; commutation, distribution, and association in mathematics; and linguistic patterns in the field of language. Each subject contains certain essential areas or topics, the bases for determining the scope of a course, that, if the learner is to achieve mastery of the field, must be taught at certain times and in a certain prescribed order (sequence). The sequence could be determined by increasing complexity, as in mathematics, world languages, grammar, science, by logic, as in social studies programs that begin with the student’s immediate environment—the home and school—and expand to the community, state, nation, and world, or by psychological means, as in career education programs that start with immediate interests of learners and proceed to more remote ones. Although these scope and sequences are historical as delineated many remain similar and are considered to be logical today. Changes in the Disciplines Changes in the major disciplines are not new. The scholarly ferment of the 1950s, precipitated by the National Defense Funds, changed the content to be taught in a course. The New Math, the New Science, and the widespread development of the audio-lingual, using oral recordings for practice, method of teaching foreign languages, now called world languages, created definitions and structures in those disciplines.

152 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

To understand how a discipline can change, think about how the world languages curriculum developers of the past broke out of the mold of the reading-translating objectives that dominated foreign language study for generations. The following passage called attention to the change in objectives of foreign language study. The objectives, in order of priority, among foreign language teachers are: (a) aural comprehension, (b) speaking, (c) reading, and (d) writing. . . . The four above-mentioned linguistic objectives are integrated with the general cultural objectives, understanding of the foreign customs and foreign peoples. (Oliva, 1969, p. 11)

World language study provides an excellent illustration of a sequenced instruction of grammar structure when the concept of singular nouns and pronouns, is presented before the concept of plural, plural nouns and pronouns and so on, moving from the simple to the more advanced. As noted, today the accepted academic terms are the study of world languages and cultures. Focus is on a target language experience in speaking and then reading and writing, versus reading and translating to English. Curriculum Objectives or Standards State education agencies (SEA) and local education agencies (LEA) publish sample courses of study, unit instructional plans, lesson plans, and curriculum guides developed by teacher or administrator curriculum specialists in particular fields. These publications outline the standards to be taught that are the structure of a subject in particular grade levels or courses. Resources that may also be included are specifications for standards and examples of how proficiency on the standards may be measured on assessments. Also included may be sample essential questions or big ideas, along with learning targets or daily objectives, and suggestions for instructional strategies. One of the aspects regarding the standards movement that is attractive to politicians and stakeholders alike is the ability for large-scale assessments to be incorporated by states to determine learning gains or annual changes in student learning by individual student, by student subgroups, e.g., economically disadvantaged or English learner, by teacher, by school, and by school district. According to Robert E. Blum, instituting more rigorous content standards and establishing a standards based assessment create a system for states to set benchmarks and performance expectations for student achievement. The underlying theme of standards based curriculum and instruction is the premise that all students have the same expectations for learning (Blum, 2000, p. 90–113). Although the standards based curriculum has been accused of narrowing the curriculum, it continues to move forward along with associated assessments, analyses of results, sanctions, and rewards by policy makers. An example of how standards based curriculum can be developed begins with strands, which initiate in kindergarten and progressively become more complex through the grade levels. In the English Language Arts (ELA) standards of the CCSS there are four reading and three writing strands which combine for seven ELA strands. ELA strands are: Strand 1: Reading and Writing: Habits & Dispositions (HD), Strand 2: Reading/Making Meaning at the Word Level (RWL), Strand 3: Reading Literature/Making Meaning at the Text Level (RL), Strand 4: Reading Informational Tests/Making Meaning at the Text Level (RI), Strand 5: Writing Literary Texts/Communicating Ideas and Experiences (WL),



Chapter 7  •  Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making 153

Strand 6: Writing to Inform/Communicating Ideas through Informational Texts (WI), and Strand 7: Writing Persuasively/Communicating Opinions, Critiques, & Arguments (WP). (Hess, 2011, p. 5) An example of a sixth grade Strand 3 RL is: cite textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text (NGA & CCSSO, 2010, p. 36). From the ninth and tenth grade level Strand 3 RL you can see that the complexity has increased to: cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text (NGA & CCSSO, 2010, p. 38). This comparison of the same strand at the sixth grade and ninth/tenth grade shows how the complexity increases with the grade level. The purpose of the discussion of needs up to this point is to direct the curriculum developer to consider three major sources of needs: the learner, the society, and the subject matter. Although Ralph Tyler discussed these three sets of needs as sources from which tentative general objectives are derived, a sound procedure, they are examined and illustrated here as a preface to a systematic procedure for studying needs and identifying those not met by the school district’s or school’s curriculum. Such a procedure is usually referred to in the literature as a curriculum needs assessment. In its simplest definition, a curriculum needs assessment is a process for identifying programmatic needs that must be addressed by curriculum planners. Fenwick W. English and Roger A. Kaufman (1975) offered several interpretations of the term needs assessment. This earlier work published by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development remains a thorough description of a process that school districts engaged in at that time, before the plethora of data were readily available. English and Kaufman described needs assessment as a process in which a school can define its mission and goals and can be measured using defined outcomes. By using a needs assessment as a logical problem-solving tool, gaps can be identified, prioritized, and addressed to obtain desired results. The objectives of a needs assessment are twofold: (a) to identify needs of the learners not being met by the existing curriculum, and (b) to form a basis for revising the curriculum in such a way as to fulfill as many unmet needs as possible. Conducting a needs assessment is not a single, one-time operation, but a continuing and periodic activity. Some curriculum developers perceive a needs assessment as a task to be accomplished at the beginning of an extensive study of the curriculum, such as may take place when applying for accreditation. Since the needs of students, society, and the subject matter change over the years and since no curriculum has reached a state of perfection in which it ministers to the educational needs of all students, a thorough needs assessment should be conducted periodically with ongoing adjustments annually. Before the availability of data warehouses or large-scale data sets, revisions took place periodically and began with such a needs assessment. In the twenty-first century with monitoring data, End of Course Exams (EOC), and annual assessments required by the SEA or LEA, examination should be continual with revisions emanating from the data and evidence identified needs. English and Kaufman (1975), years before data were easily accessible, pointed out that most school districts required six months to two years to complete a full-scale needs assessment. In contrast, today a needs assessment is not time-specific such that it takes place only at the beginning of a comprehensive study of the curriculum. Instead, a needs assessment is a continuing activity that takes place (a) before specification of curricular goals and standards, (b) after identification of curricular goals and standards, (c) after evaluation of instruction, and (d) after evaluation of the curriculum (Wiles & Bondi, 2011). Not all school districts conduct full-scale needs assessments.

154 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

The scope of the needs assessments varies from simple studies of perceived needs to thorough analyses using extensive data. Perceptual Needs Data and Analysis Some schools limit the process of assessing needs to an online or paper survey of the needs of learners as perceived by (a) teachers, (b) students, and (c) parents. Instead of turning to objective data, curriculum planners in these situations pose qualitative and open-ended questions that seek opinions from one or more of these groups. Or, a survey can be constructed with Likert type items for rating a statement with a range of values, generally 1–4 or 5, such as never (1) to always (5) or strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). A combination of the two types of items, qualitative and quantitative, will probably provide the most helpful data. Responses to the quantitative Likert style items can be analyzed with software and more easily than responses to qualitative items. Qualitative analysis takes time to examine and for themes and categories of responses to emerge that lead the investigator to draw conclusions, Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). When similar items are on surveys for different populations, e.g., students, teachers, parents, then perceptions can be compared across the three groups to identify similar and different perceptions. Data as noted can also be analyzed by sub groups in each of the populations to provide insight into perceptions of different neighborhoods, grade levels, and demographic variables. This kind of survey is probably most frequently employed at the school level, but can also be helpful at a larger level. Parents might be asked questions like these. Likert style item example: How often do you think your student’s school meets his academic needs? (Choices: All of the time, Most of the time, Some of the time, Never) Open-ended item examples: Please provide an example of when the teacher’s expectations were too easy, too challenging, and just right for your student. What content or programs do you believe the school should offer that are not now being offered? What suggestions do you have for improving the school’s academic programs? Of the learning experiences your student has had in this school, which were the two best? Why? Teachers and students may be asked to respond to similar questions to gain their perceptions of the school’s curriculum and of needed improvements. The perceived needs approach is the first stage of the process. An opportunity to hear the voices of stakeholders is provided through such a survey that can be compared across the various groups of parents, students, and teachers. The perceived needs approach becomes an effective communications device, particularly if when changes are made their input is referenced. As a first step, the perceived needs approach is worthwhile. On the other hand, the perceived needs approach is limited because the scope of any one person’s input is narrow and therefore return rates are important to determine trends across populations. Although the curriculum planner will learn the perceptions of various groups, he or she must also know data and evidences. The needs of learners as perceived by the various groups may be quite different from needs as shown by more objective data. Jon W. Wiles and Joseph C. Bondi (2011) commented, “In many school districts a failure to assess the true needs of the



Chapter 7  •  Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making 155

learners’ results in a dysfunctional curriculum” (p. 82). Consequently, a needs assessment must be carried beyond the gathering of perceptions. Data Collection and Analysis Those charged with conducting a needs assessment should gather data and evidence about the curriculum implementation’s outcomes from the sources of data available locally, and at the state and national levels. Necessary data include background information about the community, the student body, and the staff. Curriculum planners will need information on programs offered, student performance in those programs, and available facilities. They will need to have access to all assessment data by student subgroups, schools, and grade levels. Algebra I may be taught in various grades such as sixth through tenth. In addition to assessment data there are other data sources on attendance of teachers and students, disciplinary infractions and resulting time out of class or school, teacher given grade distributions, and numbers of students who repeat a course or grade. Data may be obtained from sites at the school, school district, state, and/or national levels. National resource sites, such as the National Center for Educational Statistics (nces.ed.gov) has a multitude of data on various topics, e.g., achievement, facility, student subgroups, that can be useful in providing a national context for situating local and state data. Quantified data alone are not enough. As administrators observe teachers and code the observed behaviors and ratings using their digital devices, these data points are compiled and can provide a picture of the effectiveness of a curriculum across a grade, subject, school, or schools. Such trend data and evidences can also provide insight into the teachers’ understanding of the standards or learning targets from day to day. Are the teachers teaching at the level of rigor of the standard? Are some students within the same class or different classes being asked to learn at lower levels of thinking or complexity? Which groups of students are learning and which ones are not and under what conditions? In closing the achievement gap among student subgroups, the question of who is learning and achieving at the level of proficiency and who is not, is of primary importance. Keep in mind that other important evidences lie in the alignment of the instructional resources, teacher made assessments, and accountability assessment with the curriculum to form a curriculum system (Taylor, 2010; 2007; 2002; 1999). Examining alignment will provide evidence that there is an aligned curriculum system or that there is not an aligned system which needs attention. Similarly, English described a process for collecting data in a school through examination of appropriate policies, documents, and practices, which he referred to as a curriculum audit (1988, p. 33). Adequate data and evidences are necessary for making decisions about the selection of subjects, topics, and grade levels to be identified as priorities for curriculum development. All of these data and evidences should be put together in a coherent fashion, most probably in a digital and searchable format, so that they can be analyzed, and decisions regarding priorities can be made (National Study of School Evaluation, 2006). Additionally, a needs assessment is customarily carried out in schools seeking accreditation whether public or independent/private. Schools desiring accreditation normally conduct a full-scale self-study and are visited by an external committee periodically. Interim studies may also take place. Schools applying for accreditation follow criteria established by their accrediting association, often in conjunction with materials produced by their state department of education and the National Study of School Evaluation (2006).

156 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

STEPS IN THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT PROCESS The needs assessment process includes the following steps: • • • • • • • • •

setting and validating curriculum goals, based on data and evidence; prioritizing curriculum goals; converting prioritized curriculum goals to curriculum objectives or standards; prioritizing curriculum objectives or standards; gathering achievement data, non-achievement data, and evidence; identifying unmet curricular needs; prioritizing curricular development needs; implementing prioritized needs by redeveloping the curriculum; and evaluating success of prioritized curriculum objectives and standards. (English & Kaufman, 1975, pp. 12–48)

These steps may look simple but in reality they are complex. They involve many people: school boards, administrators, teachers, students, parents, and other stakeholders. Intimate knowledge of the school, school district, and community, even of the state and nation are necessary for a successful needs assessment outcome. Although leaders will be identified and charged with leading the process, needs assessment is primarily an activity requiring the participation of many groups. Those assigned leadership roles should come to the needs assessment process with a firm grounding in curriculum, sociology, psychology, data analytic skills, and predictive analytic knowledge. Those conducting a needs assessment must gather extensive data about the school and community and make use of multiple means of assessment, including perceptions, observation, predictive instruments, and assessments. They should follow constructive techniques for involving and managing individuals and groups throughout the process, and must apply effective methods for sharing information to keep participants and the community abreast of the process. They may seek out the help of persons experienced in curriculum development, instruction, staff development, budgeting, data and evidence gathering, data analysis, predictive analytics, measurement, and evaluation. The needs assessment process is designed to inform those impacted by the process as to which curriculum features should be kept as is, kept with revision, removed, and/or added, and for which students. Thus, you can see that a thorough needs assessment is more than a survey of perceived needs or one year’s assessment results. When done properly, it is a time-consuming, repetitive process that requires the commitment of human and material resources sufficient to accomplish the job. A systematic process for discovering the unmet needs of learners is an essential phase of curriculum improvement.

Summary Curriculum planners must attend to the needs of students and society. These needs may be classified as to level and type. Various attempts have been made to identify the social processes, functions, and institutions that have impact on the curriculum. Each discipline has its own unique set of elements or structure that impacts decisions about scope

and sequence. The structure of a subject is shown by exposition of the basic ideas, fundamental principles, broad generalizable topics, competencies, and performance objectives and/or standards. In addition to studying empirically the needs of students, groups of students, society, and the disciplines, curriculum planners should conduct

Chapter 7  •  Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making 157



systematic needs assessments to identify gaps, ­discrepancies between desired and actual student performance. Identified unmet needs should play a major role in curriculum revision. A curriculum needs assessment permits school district leaders to discover alignment issues in their

curricula. In addition, it creates a vehicle for school and community collaboration, builds community understanding of the school district’s programs, and provides support for the school district’s efforts to close achievement gaps.

Application 1. Design an instrument that will allow you to gather and analyze the curriculum development needs for a subject area and grade range. Provide explanation of how you will analyze resulting data. Who will you involve to ensure a fair and transparent process?

2. Design a template for inclusion of survey data gathered, along with other important data and evidences. 3. Analyze the alignment of society and individual needs and a selected curriculum subject document. Use evidences and other data to support your analysis.

Reflection and Inquiry 1. Think about the concept of UDL and how it aligns with learning experiences of diverse students within your context. If there are any areas not aligned with UDL, what steps will you take to assure a positive adjustment? 2. What data sources are not usually cited that should be considered in curriculum development in your context. How will you go about remedying the omission?

3. Reflect on your own curriculum needs assessment skills and knowledge. Of those identified in this text, which do you want to learn more about? Who would you seek out to learn more about predictive analytics or how to construct an online valid and reliable survey that will have a high return rate?

Websites Center on Education Policy: cep-dc.org/ Advanced Ed: advanc-ed.org/ National Center for Educational Statistics: nces.ed.gov

National Center on Education and the Economy: ncee.org Project Lead the Way (STEM K–12): www.pltw.org

Suggested Reading Bondi, J. & Wiles, M. T. (2006). The essential middle school (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Goodlad, J. I. (1979). Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Helmer, O. (1968). Analysis of the future: The Delphi method. In James R. Bright (Ed.), (1968). Technological forecasting for industry and government: Methods and applications (pp. 116–122). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

House, E. R. (1998). Schools for sale: Why free market policies won’t improve America’s schools and what will. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Kaplan, B. A. (1974). Needs assessment for education: A planning handbook for school districts. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Education, Bureau of Planning, ERIC: ED 089 405. Morrison, H. C. (1940). The curriculum of the common school. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

158 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process National Study of School Evaluation. (1997). Improvement: Focusing on student performance. Schaumburg, IL: National Study of School Evaluation. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Rose, D. H. & Meyer, A. (Eds). (2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning. Boston, MA: ­Harvard Education Press.

References Blum, R. E. (2000). Standards-Based reform: Can it make a difference for students? Peabody Journal of E ­ ducation, 75(4), 90–113. doi:10.1207/ s15327930pje7504_5 Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Edgewood Independent School District et al., v. William Kirby et al., 777 S.S. 2d 391 (Texas, 1981) English, F. W., & Kaufman, R. A. (1975). Needs assessment: A focus on curriculum development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. English, F. W. (1988). Curriculum auditing. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company. Fereday, J. & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. Frederick, O. I., & Farquear, L. J. (1937). Areas of human activity. The Journal of Educational Research, 30(9), 672–679. doi:10.1080/00220671.1937.10880709 Gallagher, K. S., Goodyear, R., Brewer, D. J., & Rueda, R. (2012). Urban education: A model for leadership and policy. New York, NY: Routledge. Havighurst, R. J. (1948). Developmental tasks and education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Hess, K. K. (2011 December). Learning progressions frameworks designed for use with the common core state standards in English language arts & literacy K–12. Dover, NH: National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment (NCIEA.org) Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Kelley, E. C. (1962). The fully functioning self. In A. W. Combs, W. C. Kelley, & C. R. Rogers (Eds.), (1962). Perceiving, behaving, becoming. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Morrison, G. S. (1993). Contemporary curriculum K–8. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The nation’s report card: Trends in academic progress 2012. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. National Governor’s Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects: Appendix A. Washington, DC: Authors. National Study of School Evaluation. (2006). Breakthrough school improvement: An action guide for greater and faster results. Schaumburg, IL: National Study of School Evaluation. Oliva, P. F. (1969). The teaching of foreign languages. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books. Roosevelt, F. (1941). Annual Message to Congress, Four Freedoms. Retrieved from https://fdrlibrary.org/ four-freedoms. Serrano v. Priest, 487 P. 2nd 1241 5 Cal. (1971). Stratemeyer, F. B., Forkner, H. L., McKim, M. G., & Passow, A. H. (1957). Developing a curriculum for modern living (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, & Jovanovich. Taylor, R. T. (2010). Leading learning: Change student achievement today! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Taylor, R. T. (2007). Improving reading, writing, and content learning for students in grades 4–12. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Taylor, R. (2002, September). Creating a system that gets results for the older, reluctant reader. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(1), 85–87. Taylor, R. (1999, December). Missing pieces, aligned curriculum, instruction and assessment. Schools in the Middle, 9(4), 14–16.



Chapter 7  •  Data and Evidence Informed Decision Making 159

Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. United States Department of Education. (2001). E ­ xecutive summary of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov./print/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html United States Department of Education. (n.d.). Race to the top program, executive summary. ­Developing a comprehensive security program. doi:10.1016/ b978-0-12-800930-7.00007-6 Universal Design for Learning. (n.d.). The concept of UDL. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/ whatisudl/conceptofudl.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2003). Occupational outlook handbook. Retrieved from www.bls.gov/oco/oco2003.html Wagner, T. (2010). The global achievement gap. New York, NY: Basic Books. Wiles, M. J., & Bondi, J. (2011). Curriculum development: A guide to practice (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction. (1950). Guide to curriculum building, Bulletin No. 8. (1950). Madison, WI: State Department of Instruction. Zais, R. S. (1976). Curriculum: Principles and foundations. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

CHAPTER

8

Curriculum Goals or Overarching Ideas and Curriculum Objectives or Standards Learning Outcomes After studying this chapter, you should be able to: 1. Distinguish between curriculum goals and curriculum objectives. 2. Distinguish between aims of education and curriculum goals and curriculum objectives. 3. Distinguish between curriculum goals and objectives and instructional goals and instructional objectives. 4. Write curriculum goals and curriculum objectives.

160

HIERARCHY OF CURRICULUM SYSTEM COMPONENTS In Chapter 6 you encountered the terms “aims of education,” “curriculum goals,” “curriculum objectives,” “instructional goals, and “instructional objectives” as used in this text. If you recall, Table 1.1 in Chapter 1 was presented to provide the curriculum developer a crosswalk of terminology from traditional based academic language to standards based academic language which denotes shifts in academic terminology due to the national movement to standards. Additionally, a hierarchy of purposes of education from the broadest to the narrowest was discussed. The hierarchy is essential both to this chapter on curriculum goals and curriculum objectives and to Chapter 10 which presents instructional goals and instructional objectives. Figure 8.1 is a visual of the hierarchy and the crosswalk of terminology for the curriculum developer to use in conceptualizing the development of the curriculum system. Aims, Goals, and Objectives The practitioner who seeks to carry out curriculum development following principles established by the experts should understand the contexts within which they appear. Successful curriculum developers select the terms used in their context, clearly define them, and are consistent with their usage. The curriculum developer should understand the differences among aims of education, curriculum goals, and curriculum objectives. Aims of education are broad purposes such as, all students will be college and career ready. The distinction drawn between aims of education and curriculum goals is one of generality. The example noted, all students will be college and career ready is general and no single program or school can accomplish these extremely broad purposes. A school can contribute to preparing students to be college and career ready in PreK-12 since those broad areas develop over many years of learning. A specific school, whether elementary, middle, or high school, may also adopt as the mission to prepare all students to be college and career ready. Following, the school district or school’s



Chapter 8  •  Curriculum Goals or Overarching Ideas and Curriculum Objectives or Standards 161 FIGURE 8.1

Aims of education

Mission or purpose

Curriculum goals

Overarching idea

Curriculum objectives

Standards

Instructional goals

Essential question (big idea)

Instructional objectives

Learning targets (short-term measureable outcomes)

Hierarchy of Outcomes

mission statement may be very large overarching curriculum goals like, students will read, write, and communicate mathematically and linguistically. This very large statement leads to the aim or mission of preparing students to be college and career ready. In this text distinctions are made between curriculum goals and curriculum objectives and instructional goals and instructional objectives to help practitioners facilitate the natural flow of curriculum development from general aims of education to precise instructional objectives. Specifying curriculum goals and curriculum objectives, then, is viewed as an intermediate planning step between these two poles. Defining the terms is the first step, followed by examples and guidelines for writing.

DEFINING CURRICULUM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Curriculum Goals A curriculum goal is a purpose or end stated in general terms without criteria of achievement. Curriculum goals are derived from a statement of philosophy, defined aims of education, and data on student needs (needs assessment) and their achievement. Curriculum developers, in their context, wish students to accomplish the goal; however, they leave the instructional decision making to others. An example to consider of a state’s strategic effort to establish goals in which localities can align their curriculum is from Michigan. In 2015, The Michigan Department of Education (MDE) established seven goals to focus learning for children. Goal 1, “Provide every child access to an aligned, high-quality P-20 system from early childhood to post-secondary attainment—through a multi-stakeholder collaboration with business and industry, labor, and higher education—to maximize lifetime learning and success,” gives stakeholders autonomy while providing direction in which to align the curriculum (Michigan Department of Education, 2015). To further the example, East Lansing Public Schools (ELPS) Strategic Plan’s Vision Statement declares: “ELPS strives to provide every student with exemplary instruction in equitable learning environments designed to educate the whole child. In partnership with the community,

162 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

ELPS endeavors to affirm cultural differences and nurture intellectual curiosity, collaboration, creativity, critical thinking, and effective communication so every student graduates to become a productive member of society” (East Lansing Public Schools, 2017). From this vision statement the school board established five goals to align with the MDE. Goal 1 of East Lansing’s Strategic Plan states: Goal 1. Challenging and engaging curriculum that provides extraordinary learning experiences (cross content, thoughtful inquiry, students operate on the cusp of their ability, conceptual depth). (East Lansing Public School, 2017)

As you can see from the two examples, curriculum goals are broad terms that are established strategically to guide stakeholders as they develop curriculum, instruction, and measures for the students they serve. Curriculum Objectives or Standards Once curriculum goals are established, curriculum objectives or standards are derived. A curriculum objective or standard is a purpose or end stated in specific, measurable terms. Curriculum developers have the intention that students will develop proficiency on the curriculum objectives or standards as a result of learning experiences. States and school districts may use the term standard or curriculum objective, synonymously. Standards may be named as officially adopted expectations and curriculum objectives may be used for content areas that do not have standards and may not be measured officially for state level accountability purposes; therefore, the words are interchangeable depending upon each context. Two examples of standards developed in 2010 and revised in 2017 by the MDE for eighthgrade mathematics are presented in Table 8.1. The MDE presented the two standards as a means for curriculum developers at the LEA to set learning targets (instructional objectives) that will move students towards proficiency of this curriculum objective or standard. Therefore, instructional practices by teachers are to be established to realize desirable student learning outcomes related to the standard. It is important to note; standards do not dictate the instructional method, inquiry versus direct instruction, or mode, f­ ace-to-face or online. Standards unlike curriculum goals that are stated in general terms without criteria of TABLE 8.1  Domain: The Number System 8. N S Michigan Department of Education Cluster: Know that there are numbers that are not rational, and approximate them by rational numbers. Standards: 1. Know that numbers that are not rational are called irrational. Understand informally that every number has a decimal expansion; for rational numbers show that the decimal expansion repeats eventually, and convert a decimal expansion which repeats eventually into a rational number. 2. Use rational approximations of irrational numbers to compare the size of irrational numbers, locate them approximately on a number line diagram, and estimate the value of expressions (e.g., p 2). For example, by truncating the decimal expansion of U2, show that U2 is between 1 and 2, then between 1.4 and 1.5, and explain how to continue on to get better approximations. Source: Michigan Department of Education, 2017



Chapter 8  •  Curriculum Goals or Overarching Ideas and Curriculum Objectives or Standards 163

achievement, are measurable and their specifications are the basis for items on assessments. Chapter 12 provides more detail related to how standards and their specifications lead to accountability assessment of student learning. Learning targets are short-term and measurable instructional objectives. They provide the direction for instructional planning and formative assessments, usually made by teachers but may also be developed at the school district level. Multiple learning targets will emanate from the same standard and naturally would be organized in a sequence of instruction leading to student proficiency of the focus standard. Proficiency levels or levels indicating progress towards proficiency on standards are set by the state for state standardized assessments and state end of course (EOC) exams. Levels of proficiency may also be set for school district developed summative and formative assessments. Formative assessments to measure progress on learning targets leading to proficiency on the standard should provide a reasonable measure for intervention and instructional differentiation to achieve proficiency. These formative assessments may also be used for predictive analytics, data mining, predictive modeling, and machine learning. Artificial intelligence allows machine learning without being programmed, to make predictions on student learning outcomes, or to hypothesize student performance on state accountability assessments. Learning targets can be set by both the school district and teachers at the school level. Alignment of the curriculum goals and standards, with instructional goals and instructional objectives provides for a systematic framework of curriculum that supports success on state and other accountability assessments. If you review Figure 5.5, The Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development, you will notice that instruction is not explicitly noted within the system, as suggestions are included in the curriculum guide and the implementation of the curriculum represents the instructional goal, instructional objective, and instructional methods. These ideas are addressed in more depth in later chapters. This systematic framework represents instruction and curriculum meeting in the implementation to benefit the student. Implementing the Needs Assessment In Chapter 7, the necessity of a needs assessment and curriculum goal was described: A needs assessment is a continuing activity that takes place (a) before identification of curricular goals and objectives, (b) after identification of curricular goals and objectives, (c) after evaluation of instruction, and (d) after evaluation of the curriculum. Once curriculum goals and objectives have been written, the needs assessment (data and evidence gathering and analysis) process reveals other unmet needs. It will also serve to clarify the work needing to be done. Once identified, these data informed needs will result in the creation of more curriculum goals and curriculum objectives or a modification of those already specified. Keep in mind that standards may be specified by the SEA or LEA and for content areas not having standards, curriculum objectives may be specified at the school level or SEA. A state may formulate both broad aims and curriculum goals, and in some cases curriculum objectives, instructional goals, and instructional objectives as well, for all schools and all students in that state. In practice, school districts and individual schools may accept the state’s formulation of curriculum goals and curriculum objectives verbatim or may independently develop their own statements. Not only do the states and school districts establish curriculum goals and curriculum objectives, but the individual schools also enter into the process by specifying their own

164 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

philosophy, goals, and objectives. Generally, statements of the school districts and individual schools align with those of the SEA and policy.

CONSTRUCTING STATEMENTS OF CURRICULUM GOALS In school districts, curriculum goals may be phrased in a way that stresses the role of the curriculum of the school or school district. The following examples of curriculum goals demonstrate a variety of forms of expression. • To teach students to express themselves clearly and correctly in written and oral English or official language. • To develop the students’ abilities to purchase goods and services wisely. • To help students develop respect for cultures other than their own. Although an expression that stresses the role of the school or school district is common, focusing on student learning is preferable for several reasons: • philosophically, it places the student at the center of learning; • it is in keeping with instructional design, which focuses on student learning outcomes, rather than on the performance of the teacher or school; • student outcome statements parallel writing instructional goals and instructional objectives or learning targets. Thus, curriculum goals may be better understood and the process of curriculum development better aligned; and • evaluation design can be aligned for systematic curriculum and instruction and serve as feedback. Writing curriculum goals that focus on the students would result in revisions of the preceding illustrations in the following manner. • Students will express themselves clearly and correctly in written and oral English or official language. • Students will demonstrate the ability to purchase goods and services wisely. • Students will exhibit understanding of cultures other than their own. Characteristics of Curriculum Goals The characteristics of curriculum goals as conceptualized in this text may be summarized as follows. • They relate to the aims, mission, or education philosophy. • Although they speak to one or more areas of the curriculum, they do not delineate the specific courses or specific items of content. • Reference is to the accomplishment of all students rather than the achievement of individual students. • They are broad enough to lead to specific curriculum objectives or standards.

CONSTRUCTING CURRICULUM OBJECTIVES OR STANDARDS Like curriculum goals, curriculum objectives or standards that relate to the educational aims and philosophy of the school district are programmatic, and refer to accomplishments of groups. Unlike curriculum goals, curriculum objectives or standards are stated in specific terms and are measurable.



Chapter 8  •  Curriculum Goals or Overarching Ideas and Curriculum Objectives or Standards 165

With the adoption of CCSS by most states, and the remaining few states developing their own variation of standards, instructors are provided with the expectation of what is to be taught. Larry Ainsworth (2010) described standards as the means for achieving a desired end. These means include the culling and prioritizing of the standards, personalizing instruction, formative assessments, and data analysis. Curriculum objectives or standards contain characteristics which should be considered. Characteristics of Curriculum Objectives or Standards Curriculum objectives are refinements of the curriculum goals. They delineate performance specifications for the students for whom the curriculum is designed. A curriculum goal can be revised to be a curriculum objective by adding the following three elements: 1. performance or behavioral terms—that is, those skills and knowledge the students are expected to demonstrate at the level of proficiency; 2. precise degree of mastery or proficiency; and 3. conditions under which the performance will take place. To accomplish the transition from a curriculum goal to curriculum objective, you may find it helpful to establish several indicators or specifications of student performance that will serve as guides for writing the curriculum objectives. A curriculum goal in science could be: students have a fundamental understanding of the scientific method. A curriculum objective or standard may be: students will apply the scientific method including use of academic language, basic elements of research, and generation of conclusions using textual and other evidence. The demonstration of proficiency on the standard as written would be in an expected sequence of instruction that makes sense to the teachers. You may expect demonstration of learning to be guided by instructional objectives or learning targets such as these: • students will apply the terms associated with research and discovery to an investigation; • students will demonstrate basic elements of sound research when provided a problem to solve; • students will generate hypotheses from textual and other evidences; and • students will draw reasonable conclusions supported by textual and other evidence and research. The indicators or specifications of the standard lead to the instructional objectives or shortterm learning targets. In the CCSS and in SEA developed standards, you will find specifications that lead to their development. These same specifications align with the accountability assessment items. By knowing the specifications for the standard and assessment items, the teacher is provided guidance to narrow the range of choices in designing instruction so that students are prepared for success.

VALIDATING AND DETERMINING PRIORITY OF CURRICULUM GOALS, CURRICULUM OBJECTIVES OR STANDARDS As stated earlier, the assessment of curriculum needs is a continuing process that starts after the formulation of the philosophy and clarifies aims of education. The identified needs give rise to initial statements of curriculum goals and curriculum objectives. After these curriculum goals and curriculum objectives have been identified, the needs assessment process is continued to determine if any data and evidence informed needs have not been met. When unmet needs are exposed,

166 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

a revised list of curriculum goals and curriculum objectives is prepared. These curricular goals and objectives require validation and placement in order of priority. For instance, with the SEA developed standards, school district and school collaborative curriculum teams may prioritize them in order of their representation on the accountability assessment or on the success of students on similar previous items. Think about how collaborative curriculum teams use data analytics to inform ongoing curriculum development in this manner. In past decades the curriculum needs’ influence on curriculum goals, standards and objectives may have taken place over quite a length of time, in contrast to the current time with readily available disaggregated data from various sources. Validation is the process of determining whether the curriculum goals and curriculum objectives are accepted as appropriate for the school (or school district, if conducted on a school districtwide level) proposing them. Determining priority is the placing of the curriculum goals and objectives in order of relative importance to the data informed needs of students. Groups concerned with the progress should be enlisted to collaborate on the validation and prioritization process. Curriculum developers seek to validate both curriculum goals and curriculum objectives and others may choose to limit the process to validating curriculum goals on the presumption that once the curriculum goals are identified, a collaborative team will develop the curriculum objectives or standards, if needed. Function of the Collaborative Curriculum Team The generation of curriculum goals and curriculum objectives or standards is highly analytical work. Curriculum developers are encouraged to approach the identification of curriculum goals and curriculum objectives collaboratively with others who are expert in the content, grade levels, and curriculum system design, including assessments. The collaborative curriculum team is needed to assure that all perspectives and voices are considered to serve all students. Curriculum system organization is to be developed in alignment with these curriculum goals and curriculum objectives and should serve as a resource across the state or school district. In the discussions of statements of philosophy, aims, standards, goals, and objectives in this text, you have seen variation in styles and approaches. From examination of examples from various school districts throughout the country you may conclude: • a great deal of thought plus an intimate knowledge and data related to the students and community have gone into the statements; and • with the implementation of CCSS or standards developed by a state, the variations among statements are less than prior to the standards and accountability movement. The validation process, whether carried out by the SEA, LEA, or school, assumes the formation of a collaborative curriculum team charged with the task. The collaborative curriculum team will share with groups who are concerned with the progress of the students. SEAs and LEAs may have specified times for public input, during which stakeholders may go to a website and review proposed documents of policy and implementation guidelines and then enter responses. Generally, there are also face-to-face meetings in various publicized locations for further official input gathering. Submitting curriculum goals and any already identified curriculum objectives or standards to stakeholders is good practice. The effort should be made to learn whether there is widespread acceptance of the goals formulated by the curriculum developers and to ascertain the groups’ priorities. Curriculum objectives or standards that are developed after a broad sampling of opinion



Chapter 8  •  Curriculum Goals or Overarching Ideas and Curriculum Objectives or Standards 167

that has been gathered and can be submitted to either a more limited sampling of the same groups or to the curriculum teams for validation and ranking is wise. Generally, in the development of the CCSS this process was used and supported by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA) (http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/development-process/). You may recall that there was widespread input on the development of CCSS and disagreement continues over implementation of these standards. Resources and support for curriculum system development, including assessments for accountability can be found on the website cited. Data and evidence should be gathered, analyzed in multiple ways, disaggregated by students, by student subgroups, by teacher, by school, etc., and interpreted, preferably by a collaborative curriculum team representative of various stakeholders. Such teams will be called on to make judgments that will tax their collective wisdom. They cannot treat the data in a simplistic fashion, using only overall means or responses from a majority population as may have been past practice. Data should be disaggregated and assurance that all voices are represented is to be provided and diverse input considered. Keeping in mind that the expectation is for all students to be college and career ready and not a percent or particular student subgroup only, is imperative in curriculum development in the twenty-first century. WEIGHING DATA AND EVIDENCE.  The goals of a state, school district, or school should be

validated and ranked by numbers of educators and stakeholders. If curriculum objectives are developed for grades or departments in a school and are not developed by an entity beyond the school, then there is no practical need for validation beyond the teachers and instructional leaders in the school. The process of validation and determining priorities should be repeated often by teachers and the collaborative curriculum team, with modifications and repeated rankings made as student performance data are accessible. After the curriculum goals and curriculum objectives have been validated and placed in rank order, the developers turn to the next phase in the curriculum development process: putting the curriculum goals and curriculum objectives into operation, which is the instructional planning and teaching phase of the Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development (Figure 5.5) to be addressed in Chapter 11.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Prior to the standards movement, a curriculum objective may have been written as “The process of Scientific Method includes strategies based on sound research principles.” A degree of mastery would have been added to the curriculum objective and used to create an assessment item, with a time element and a measurement dimension, such as: by the end of April, 80 percent of the students will demonstrate knowledge of the research components associated with the Scientific Method with 95 percent proficiency as determined by state provided end of course exams. You can readily see that the time limit is not needed today, since the scheduling of the assessment sets the time limit. The degree of success, 95 percent proficiency, is not used because there are proficiency levels set and all students are expected to move toward proficiency of the standard, not 80 percent of them. In 1992, Theodore R. Sizer presented a different approach toward specifying curriculum objectives. At the fictitious Franklin High School that Sizer referred to as Horace’s School, the Committee’s Report cast curriculum objectives (which the Committee called specific goals) into an authentic assessment framework. Said the Committee, “We believe that our school should be driven by specific goals in the form of Exhibitions through which the students can display their

168 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

grasp and use of important ideas and skills. The school’s program would be to the largest practical extent the preparation for these Exhibitions” (Sizer, 1992, p. 143). Explaining U.S. Supreme Court decisions, preparing nutritious menus for the school cafeteria, preparing a portfolio on a human emotion, completing an Internal Revenue Service Form 1040, drawing a map of the United States and placing a dozen states on it, and running a community service program are examples of exhibitions possible at Horace’s School (Sizer, 1992). In this context curriculum objectives are equated with Exhibitions, tasks by which students demonstrate achievement through performance. Today, they may be called performance objectives or examination by performance. Followers of outcomes based education specified curriculum objectives in the form of expected outcomes to be achieved by the learners (Spady, 1994). For political reasons outcomes based education moved into disfavor, although the concept of being responsible for student learning outcomes, rather than teaching or content coverage, may have been a precursor to the standards based accountability that is in place now. You may want to review the national standards movement actions during the 1990s noted in Chapter 6. An early example of a set of national curriculum goals based on perceived needs of students was The Seven Cardinal Principles—health, command of fundamental processes, worthy home membership, vocation, citizenship, worthy use of leisure, and ethical character (Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, Seven Cardinal Principles, 1918). In 1944, The Ten Imperative Needs of Youth, listed by the Educational Policies Commission, established a set of curriculum goals that included such goals such as learning useful skills, maintaining physical fitness, recognizing the importance of emotional well-being, practicing civic and social responsibility, valuing family and consumer sciences, providing relaxation time, and prioritizing values education and core academics, such as art, literature, music, language arts skills, and the physical sciences (Education Policies Commission, Education for All American Youth, 1944). Consider the following statement from Goals 2000: Educate America Act (Goals 2000) which meets this definition of a recent national curriculum goal: “By the year 2000, all children in America will start school ready to learn” (United States Department of Education, 1994a). 1994 marked a year in which the federal government embarked on a mission to stimulate a standards based school reform movement at the state and local levels. Congress established the Goals 2000 which focused on reauthorizing then current education policy and aimed at promoting national education goals. The underlying theme was the premise that all students should be immersed in curriculum of high expectations, instead of educators relying on remedial programs as a means of educating students (U.S. Department of Education, 1994b). Core tenants of Goals 2000 included school readiness, school completion, student achievement and citizenship, teacher education and professional development, mathematics and science, adult literacy and lifelong learning, safe, disciplined, and alcohol- and drug-free schools, and parental participation (United States Department of Education, 1994c). National goals may no longer be relevant or necessary with the development of CCSS developed through support of the CCSSO and the NGA. At the time of the publication of this text, 42 states, the District of Columbia, four territories, and the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) had adopted the CCSS (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2016). It is wise for curriculum developers to be acutely aware if a state participates in CCSS or not. States may develop their own standards and provide flexibility for school districts to lead the



Chapter 8  •  Curriculum Goals or Overarching Ideas and Curriculum Objectives or Standards 169

curriculum development when there are not adopted CCSS. Furthermore, it is important for the curriculum developer to understand the distinction between national goals and federal statutes or acts. National goals are established to influence the landscape by promoting concepts; however, no criteria of achievement are attached. Federal statutes or acts are a result of the legislative process and generally have criteria, funding, and in some cases penalties attached, such as those associated with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and Every Student Succeeds Act (ESAA). The key nuances of both should be considered when working on curriculum initiatives.

CURRICULUM DOCUMENTS AND ARTIFACTS Curriculum developers create documents and artifacts to be used as resources or guides for implementation (instruction) and assessment. They are meant to be put into practice and revised as needed. Resources should be perceived as living documents that have functional value the production of a plan or tool for implementing or evaluating the curriculum. Readers may have used large binders of curriculum documents to support implementation and the development of instructional plans. Because curriculum resources are impermanent, nonstandardized, and primarily for local use, the variations among them are considerable across states, school districts, and even among schools. Today, such resources are best maintained on a school district or organization’s intranet for ease of access and editing when necessary. To put the creation of curriculum documents into perspective, visualize collaborative curriculum teams and individuals in thousands of school districts all over the United States constructing materials that they believe will be of most help to their teachers, instructional coaches, and instructional leaders. Terms for these resources may be quite different and sound like curriculum guides, school district curriculum resources, or instructional planning tools. The curriculum documents that will be considered in this chapter are curriculum guides and other resources, such as standards and their specifications along with sample connections among subjects or grades. Curriculum resources discussed in other chapters will not be discussed in this one, such as instructional unit plans, lesson plans, and tests. All share the common purpose of serving as aids to teachers and specialists in organizing, implementing, and evaluating curriculum. Although state and national standards have influenceded the creation of curriculum guides and other curriculum artifacts, there are subjects for which there are no state standards and school districts develop their own curriculum goals, curriculum objectives, and curriculum guides or leave the responsibility to individual teachers in schools.

CURRICULUM GUIDES A curriculum guide may relate to a single course or subject area at a particular grade level (e.g., ninth-grade English); all subjects at a particular grade level (e.g., ninth grade); a sequence in a discipline (e.g., mathematics); or an area of interest applicable to two or more courses or grade levels (e.g., speaking standard English). When a curriculum guide relates to a single course, it may also be called a course of study. However, most often a curriculum guide is a teaching aid with suggestions for instructional strategies and learning experiences, rather than a complete course of study. In Figure 5.5, Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development,

170 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

you saw that the guides are created after the curriculum standards and curriculum objectives are determined and the student summative assessment created so that resources to support instructional implementation can be included. Curriculum Guide Formats Curriculum guides are used in at least two ways. In less structured situations where teachers have a great deal of flexibility in planning, a curriculum guide provides many suggestions to teachers who wish to use it. In that case the curriculum guide is one source from which teachers may derive ideas for developing their own instructional units and lesson plans. In more structured situations a curriculum guide specifies standards or curriculum objectives to be mastered within a grade or subject area. It may provide a sequence of instruction of standards or curriculum objectives for a time period or for which ones to cluster together. The guide may identify teaching resources and student learning experiences. Formative assessments may also be included. Depending upon the state, school district, school, and curriculum subject, a variety of print and nonprint resources may be available and referred to as the curriculum guide, even if the guide has transitioned to a digital resource. A curriculum guide may be written by a group or by an individual. In the latter case, the guide is often reviewed and edited by other specialists and intended end users before it is disseminated within the school district. For those who write a curriculum guide, the process is almost as important as the final document and resources. The task of constructing a guide forces the writers to clarify the intended learning outcomes through analysis of data and evidence, teacher and student resources needed, and to hypothesize the resources that will be most helpful to teachers and instructional leaders. Examination of curriculum guides from various school districts will reveal a variety of formats. Examples of the various formats can be found on an LEA’s intranet, SEA website, publisher’s website, education organization’s website, and various professional organization websites. As an example, from the Florida Department of Education’s CPALMS website (www.cpalms.org) is what officially may be called the curriculum guide for the state. This interactive resource is searchable for the standard, subject, grade level, and other factors. Once the user finds the standard or subject and grade level other resources are available that may be helpful. They include the subject, strand, cluster, content complexity, grade, related courses (such as English for Speakers of other Languages [ESL]), related resources (student learning centers), lesson plans, and formative assessments. Other teacher resources including tutorials and videos for professional learning are found on the site. Student resources for individual use, teacher directed instructional differentiation, or for home use are also available. From this brief description of the kinds of resources available on the CPALMS website you can see that curriculum guides available today are light years away from the printed volumes that had minimal resources of the past. Excerpts from a first grade language arts Florida Standard LAFS.1.L.1.2 are provided in Table 8.2 (cpalms.org). As you review this excerpt, imagine that if you clicked on any of the lines or phrases, that other resources would appear. In the authors’ experience in collaborating with principals and school district leaders, resources like this one are readily accessed and used to investigate relationships among standards and for clarification of misconceptions. In this example, the cluster reveals links to capitalization of the first word in a sentence or the word I and other first grade related standards. The original tutorial icon provides a tutorial to assist teachers in deepening understanding of the standard and how it may be taught. The student resources are interactive tools for practicing the learning targets within the standard (Table 8.2, a–e).

Chapter 8  •  Curriculum Goals or Overarching Ideas and Curriculum Objectives or Standards 171



TABLE 8.2  Florida Standard LAFS.1.L.1.2 Demonstrate command of the conventions of English capitalization, punctuation, and spelling when writing. a. Capitalize dates and names of people. b. Use end punctuation for sentences. c. Use commas in dates and to separate single words in a series. d. Use conventional spelling for words with common spelling patterns and for frequently occurring irregular words. e. Spell untaught words phonetically, drawing on phonemic awareness and spelling conventions. Subject Area: English Language Arts Grade: 1 Strand: Language Standards Cluster: Conventions of Standard English Date Adopted or Revised: 12/10 Content Complexity Rating: Level 1: Recall Date of Last Rating: 02/14 Status: State Board Approved Related Courses: English for Speakers of Other Languages, Language Arts Grade 1 Lesson Plan Text Resources Student Center Activity (12) Original Tutorial Student Resources Source: (cpalms.org)

Similar resources or documents that may serve the purpose of curriculum guides are most probably available in every state or region. In fact, anyone in any state can access this website and its resources. Furthering examination of curriculum guides takes you to a school district level Instructional Management System (IMS). Elements in curriculum guides during the 2016–2017 school year in Orange County Public Schools (OCPS), Florida included detailed digital resources that were more specific than at the state level, indicating school district expectations. The primary curriculum document, the Measurement Topic Plan (MTP) is digital and interactive. It begins with the specific time frame (dates) expected for this particular unit of instruction. The pacing guide provides specific recommended time frames for units to assure that all students have the opportunity to learn all measured standards prior to assessment. Following the time frame are the essential standards and learning targets. Achieving proficiency on one standard may require proficiency on previous or prerequisite standards, which OCPS labels as embedded standards. Within the MTP is a learning scale document for teachers’ use (not for student use) which identifies the student work evidence recommended for evaluating students’ progress towards proficiency on the essential standard (Marzano, 2007; Taylor & Watson, 2013; Taylor, Watson, & Nutta, 2014). The intent of identifying evidence to expect (what proficiency looks and sounds like), is to assist teachers in developing common understandings of how proficiency looks. An Additional Resources (AR) document is also available and linked to the MTP. The AR provides associated vocabulary, tutorials for using resources together and for teaching, inquiry to use to foster student thinking, additional trade books, texts, passages or texts of different genres,

172 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

and digital resources. There is also a model instructional plan that may be used as an aid in instructional planning, but not as a requirement to be used. Specificity of the curriculum guide is important and as long ago as 1996, E. D. Hirsch, Jr. warned that curriculum guides could have a lack of specificity by stating, “It might be wondered how it is possible for states and localities to produce lengthy curriculum guides that, for all their bulk, fail to define specific knowledge for specific grade levels” (Hirsch, 1996, p. 28). It is a good idea to have enough specificity that teachers have guidance to support student success on accountability assessments. Curriculum developers following a comprehensive format would include the following components in a curriculum guide for a particular level of a discipline which intend to provide adequate specificity: 1. Standard or curriculum objective. The introduction includes the standard or the curriculum goal, the subject and grade level for which the guide is designated, and any suggestions that might help users. Some statement should be included as to how the curriculum guide relates to prespecified statements of philosophy and aims. 2. Instructional goals. In this section, instructional goals or essential questions are stated in nonbehavioral terms. Instructional goals should relate to the school’s curriculum goals and curriculum objectives. 3. Instructional objectives. Instructional objectives or learning targets for the particular grade level of the subject. 4. Learning experiences. Learning experiences and instructional strategies that might be used by the teacher with students are usually included. 5. Evaluation techniques. Suggestions should be given to teachers on how to evaluate student progress towards proficiency of the standard or curriculum objective at the expected level of rigor. 6. Resources. Texts and nonprint resources. Curriculum guides tend to offer the maximum flexibility to the teacher, who may choose or reject any of the suggested learning experiences, evaluation techniques, or resources when student learning evidence supports such decisions. However, standards and approved curriculum goals are not optional in most school districts. The curriculum guide is broader in scope than the unit plan and offers more alternatives. Instructional planning is discussed in Chapter 11. THE SEQUENCING FORMAT.  Some curriculum developers prefer to cast comprehensive guides in the sequencing format. The purpose of a specific sequence and perhaps calendar for teaching, is keeping teachers who teach the same grade and subject together to be sure that all students have the opportunity to develop proficiency in the same standards. In schools or school districts in which students are not performing as expected on accountability assessments, there may be monitoring by school leaders or school district teams of the pacing of instruction according to the calendar guide. Guides of this nature:

• specify content and grade level standards or curriculum goals in the sequence for teaching that is expected; and • relate the standard to specifications and perhaps to assessments and outcomes. In some cases, teachers may retain the opportunity for making decisions on when and how the standards will be taught at each grade level and in others, teachers may not have the authority to do so.

Chapter 8  •  Curriculum Goals or Overarching Ideas and Curriculum Objectives or Standards 173



THE TEST-CODING FORMAT.  Generally, curriculum guides at the school and school district level

should be clearly linked to any assessments that are required, whether state accountability assessments or LEA/school monitoring or benchmark assessments. Coding would assure that when teachers instruct particular standards or curriculum objectives that they have the assessment in mind, which even may include the item format within the assessment. Basically, such coding or notations would include: • standards or curriculum objectives to be mastered by the learners at each marking period of each grade level of a given discipline; and • coding or notation to school district, state, and national criterion-referenced and/or normreferenced tests that are required. Though teachers may exercise choice of learning activities and supplementary resources, they are held accountable for student achievement at least annually. Locally developed tests or common assessments to assess student proficiency of the standard or curriculum objective may be administered at the end of each unit or time period required. The three formats (comprehensive, sequencing, and test coding) can, of course, be combined and expanded as would be recommended. No matter which format is followed by a school district, curriculum guides should be used and revised periodically most probably in a digital format. In the past curriculum guides may have been developed to satisfy accreditation or state requirements, but now they are necessary for supporting teachers in guiding students to proficiency on standards and curriculum objectives. Keep in mind that even those guides that are written by teachers, rather than by curriculum consultants, will be accepted only if teachers perceive the task as useful to them rather than as a response to directives from superordinates (Fenwick, 1986).

Summary Curriculum goals or overarching ideas are derived from a statement of philosophy, defined aims of education, and data on the students’ needs (needs assessment), and their achievement. Curriculum goals are broad programmatic statements of expected outcomes without criteria of achievement. They apply to students as a group and are often interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary. Curriculum objectives or standards are specific statements of outcomes with degree of mastery and conditions either inferred or stipulated to be achieved by students as a group in the school or school district. Curriculum goals and curriculum objectives are essential for: • conducting a complete needs assessment to identify unmet needs; • carrying out subsequent phases for curriculum improvement;

• generating instructional goals and instructional objectives; • providing a basis for evaluating the curriculum; and • giving direction to the program. Curriculum goals and curriculum objectives should be validated and put in order of priority by the school’s or school district’s collaborative team after review by representatives of the various constituencies served. Curriculum developers and teachers should engage in developing curriculum documents and artifacts that will be of use to teachers, instructional coaches, and instructional leaders in their school districts. In this chapter curriculum guides and formats for usefulness were discussed. Curriculum guides should include instructional goals, instructional objectives, learning experiences, evaluation techniques, and resources.

174 Part III  •  Curriculum Development: Components of Curriculum System Development Process

In the creation of curriculum documents, both the process and documents are important. Examples of curriculum materials can be acquired

from a variety of sources, particularly from interactive websites.

Application 1. In your context, research a familiar school district and identify a curriculum goal or standard with which schools can align. Use the suggested format in this chapter and transfer the curriculum goal into curriculum objectives. 2. In your context, participate in SEA or LEA electronic public input sessions regarding curriculum by reviewing proposed documents of policy and

implementation guidelines and then enter responses. 3. In your context, analyze student performance data of a school of your choice. Make a transition from the school district goal to a curriculum objective or standard to address a gap in performance, based on your analysis.

Reflection and Inquiry 1. Locate a curriculum guide from a school or school district with which you are familiar and one from a school or school district that is not located in your area. Conduct a side by side comparison of the guides to determine similarities

and differences and propose improvements, if necessary. Which guide would be most helpful to teachers in supporting students in achieving proficiency?

Websites Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: www.ascd.org. The Nation’s Report Card: https://nces.ed.gov/nation sreportcard/

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): https:// nces.ed.gov/

Multimedia Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2007). Moving forward with understanding by design: Examples of ways to implement understanding by design. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.



Chapter 8  •  Curriculum Goals or Overarching Ideas and Curriculum Objectives or Standards 175

References http://elps.k12.mi.us/our-district/board-of-education/strategic-plan/Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. (1918). Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education, Bulletin 35. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education. East Grand Rapids Public Schools. (2012). K–12 Mathematics with common core state standards. Retrieved from http://www.egrps.org/documents/Curriculum/ K12MathCurriculum2015.pdf East Lansing Public Schools. (2017). Strategic plan. Retrieved from http://elps.k12.mi.us/our-district/boardof-education/strategic-plan/ Educational Policies Commission. (1944). Education for all American youth. Washington, DC: National ­Education Association. Hirsch, E. D. Jr. (1996). The schools we need: And why we don’t have them. New York, NY: Doubleday, 28. Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Michigan Department of Education. (2015). State board adopts strategic goals to make Michigan a top 10 education state in 10 years. Retrieved from www.michigan. gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-5373_5379-370853—,00.html. Michigan Department of Education. (2017). Michigan K–12 standards mathematics, revised. Retrieved from www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/K-12_MI_Math_ Standards_REV_470033_7.pdf National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2016). Common core state standards initiative: About the standards. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/ about-the-standards/.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2016). ­Standards in your state. Common core state standards initiative. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/ standards-in-your-state. Sizer, T. R. (1992). Horace’s school: Redesigning the American high school. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Spady, W. G. (1994). Outcome-based education: Critical issues and answers. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators. Taylor, R. T., & Watson, R. (2013). Raising rigor for struggling students. Principal Leadership, 14(2), 56–59. Taylor, R. T., Watson, R., & Nutta, J. (2014). Leading, teaching, learning the common core standards: Rigorous expectations for all students. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. United States Department of Education. (1994a). National Education Goals, Sec. 102. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/ sec102.html U.S. Department of Education. (1994b). Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheACT/intro.html. U.S. Department of Education. (1994c). Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/ legislation/GOALS2000/TheACT/intro.html.

This page intentionally left blank

A01_OLIV0387_09_SE_FM.indd 1

3/21/18 8:28 PM

PART

IV

Curriculum Implementation Chapter 9

Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets

Chapter 10

Evidence Based Instruction

177

CHAPTER

9

Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets Learning Outcomes

PLANNING FOR INSTRUCTION

After studying this chapter, you should be able to: 1. Explain the relationships among curriculum goals or the overarching ideas and curriculum ­objectives or standards, and ­instructional goals or essential questions, and instructional objectives or learning targets. 2. Distinguish between instructional goals or essential questions and instructional objectives or learning targets. 3. Write instructional goals or essential questions and instructional objectives or learning targets for standards.

With the curriculum decisions made, leaders are ready to address instruction. Historically, instructional decision making has been the responsibility of individual teachers. However, as the expectation for instruction has become standards and evidence based with accountability for student learning outcomes, planning has become more of a shared responsibility. It may be shared among the school district curriculum and instructional specialists, the school instructional leaders and administrators, and the school instructional personnel including instructional coaches and classroom teachers. Depending upon the school district size and resources, curriculum guides may include instructional plans, sequence of standards to be learned, pacing guides, and recommended or required resources as reviewed in Chapter 8. Curriculum guides that have instructional plans may include the standard, instructional goal or essential question instructional objective or learning target, and evidence based teacher instructional practices to promote student proficiency on the target standard. Even with these extended supports it is always a good idea for collaborative teams of teachers to work together with instructional coaches and administrators to make the instructional plan explicitly understood, agreed upon, and implemented in a consistent manner across those with the same responsibility. In independent schools, charter schools, and education organizations instruction may continue to be an individual teacher responsibility or teachers may plan collaboratively with those who teach the same course or grade, just as is desirable in other contexts. The challenge is that even when there is less support, the same decisions need to be made, e.g., essential question, learning target, for evidence based instruction. Planning for instruction begins with identifying the instructional goals and instructional objectives. You may have heard of instructional goals referred to as essential questions and the instructional objective called the learning target. If standards are to be taught, they have already been identified, whether Common Core State Standards or your state’s version of standards. The essential question is the big idea such as, “What makes a good friend?” or “How do organisms grow?” or “How

178

Chapter 9  •  Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets 179



can we measure the earth?” These essential questions or big ideas emerge from the target standard and the students’ lived experiences, in their long-term memory, so that they can easily engage with and connect to the topic. Sometimes the essential question is used to develop students’ interests or remind them of their background knowledge that is needed to move forward with the learning target. Learning targets or instructional objectives are short-term measurable objectives. They have specified expectations for learning outcomes that are observable or measurable. For example, there may be a standard that says: students add and subtract 20. This means that students will be able to add and subtract numerals in various orders that have 20 as their upper limit (10 + 10 = 20; 15 + 5 = 20; 20 - 8 = 12; 20 - 2 = 18; 20 - 0 = 20; 20 - 5 = 15; 20 - 5 = 15). One day’s learning target or short-term measurable instructional objective is: (a) students will add by 5s to 20 and (b) students will add and subtract numerals (by 5) to 20. Since these learning targets are measurable the teacher expects students to first count orally by 5s to 20 and then subtract from 20 by 5s to 0. After counting orally, students will use mathematics manipulatives representing 5s, to add and subtract to 20. Many teachers will teach with the manipulatives representing 5 so that students develop the concept before practicing counting and subtracting orally. Teachers can observe oral counting and subtracting, and see students as they line up the 5s manipulatives. Since getting to 20 can use various numerals the teacher will develop learning targets for another day that include numerals other than 5. Planning for instruction includes specifying instructional goals or essential questions and instructional objectives or learning targets (this chapter), selecting evidence based approaches (­Chapter 11), and determining the evaluation of instruction (Chapter 12). To put the next task in perspective, review the curriculum development steps addressed so far that pave the way for instructional planning. • • • • • • •

Examine needs of students in general. Examine needs of society. Clarify philosophy of education. Identify curriculum goals (big idea may be aim, mission, or vision). Identify curriculum objectives or standards. Determine needs of students in the context by subject. Plan to organize or reorganize curriculum.

INSTRUCTIONAL GOALS OR ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS AND ­INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES OR LEARNING TARGETS DEFINED At the top of the hierarchy introduced in Chapter 8 and included in Table 9.1, Illustration of the Hierarchy of Outcomes, are aims of education from which the school district’s curriculum goals or overarching idea and curriculum objectives or standards are derived. In turn, the curriculum objectives or standards serve as sources for the instructional goals or essential questions and instructional objectives or learning targets. Aims are stated by prominent individuals and groups for national, and sometimes even international, consideration. Curriculum goals or the overarching idea and curriculum objectives or standards are formulated by SEA, LEA, and education organizations. Instructional goals or essential questions and instructional objectives or learning targets are specified by teams of teachers, curriculum leadership teams, or individual teachers, depending upon the context. They appear in SEA and LEA curriculum documents and online resources, such as pacing guides, curriculum guides, sample standards based instructional units, and other similar resources.

180 Part IV  •  Curriculum Implementation

To put these various aims, goals, and objectives in perspective, examine a simple example of outcomes related to developing knowledge and skills for living in an information and technological society in the hierarchy shown in Table 9.1. TABLE 9.1  Illustration of the Hierarchy of Outcomes • Aim.  Students will develop knowledge and skills necessary for living in an information and technological society. • Curriculum goal or overarching idea.  Students will use various print and nonprint resources to gather information, analyze, and generate solutions. • Curriculum objective or standard.  Students will select from various print and nonprint resources to investigate and to create a strategy for solving a given issue. • Instructional goal or essential question.  Students will demonstrate how to use various print and nonprint resources. How can print and nonprint resources be used effectively and in a complementary manner? • Instructional objective or learning target.  Student will prioritize nonprint resources to be investigated to solve one local issue.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Historically, an instructional goal was a statement of performance expected of each student in a class, phrased in general terms without criteria of achievement. The term instructional goal was used like Norman E. Gronlund’s (2004) term general instructional objective and Ralph W. Tyler’s (1949) term general objective. The student will show an understanding of the stock market, would have been an example. The student’s performance was not stated in such a fashion that its attainment could be readily measured. Just as a curriculum goal pointed the direction to curriculum objectives, so an instructional goal pointed the way to instructional objectives. An instructional objective was a statement of performance to be demonstrated by each student in the class, derived from an instructional goal and phrased in measurable and observable terms. According to Gronlund (2004) there should be a specific learning outcome, and with Tyler (1949) there should be a behavioral objective. The following statement is an example of how an instructional objective would have been written before the standards movement and before there was an expectation that all students would become proficient on each standard. The student will convert the following fractions to percentages with 80 percent accuracy: 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, and 3/4. Instructional objectives were also known as performance objectives or competencies. Tyler (1949) discussed four ways that instructional objectives could be stated. As you review the examples you will see that they may reflect teacher actions in contrast to student outcomes. This difference in the measure of success, from teacher behavior to student learning, is an important change from Tyler’s time. 1. Things that the instructor will do. Tyler gave as examples: “to present the theory of evolution,” “to demonstrate the nature of inductive proof,” “to present the Romantic poets,” and “to introduce four-part harmony.” 2. Topics, concepts, generalizations, or other elements of content that are to be dealt with in the course or courses. Tyler’s examples are “The Colonial Period,” and “Matter Can Be Neither Created nor Destroyed.”

Chapter 9  •  Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets 181



3. Generalized patterns of behavior fail to indicate more specifically the content to which the behavior applies. Tyler identified illustrations of this type of objective: “to develop critical thinking,” “to develop appreciation,” and “to develop social attitudes.” 4. Terms that identify both the kind of behavior to be developed in the student and the content or area of life in which this behavior is to operate. Tyler’s examples are: “to write clear and well-organized reports of social studies projects” and “to develop an appreciation of the modern novel.” (Tyler, 1949, pp. 44–47) Behavioral Objectives Whether to use behavioral objectives or not is a debate that raged among educators for years. Supporters of behavioral objectives argued that this approach to instruction: • • • • •

forces the teacher to be precise about what is to be accomplished; enables the teacher to communicate to students what they must achieve; simplifies evaluation; makes accountability possible; and makes sequencing easier.

W. James Popham (1971), in support of behavioral objectives, wrote: Measurable instructional objectives are designed to counteract what is to me the most serious deficit in American education today, namely, a preoccupation with the process without assessment of consequences . . .. There are at least three realms in which measurable objectives have considerable potential dividends: in curriculum (what goals are selected); in instruction (how to accomplish those goals); and in evaluation (determining whether objectives of the instructional sequences have been realized) . . .. It is perhaps because I am a convert to this position that I feel viscerally, as well as believe rationally, that measurable objectives have been the most significant advance in the past 10 years. (Popham, 1971 p. 76)

The opponents of behavioral objectives held that writing behavioral objectives: • • • •

is a waste of time; is dehumanizing; restricts creativity; and leads to trivial competencies.

James D. Raths (1971) voiced his opposition to behavioral objectives as follows. Consider the long-range implications a teacher and his students must accept once it has been decided that all students are to acquire a specific instructional objective. The teacher’s task becomes at once difficult and tedious. He must inform his students of the objectives to which they are expected to aspire; he must convince them of the relevance of this objective to their lives; he must give his students the opportunity to practice the behavior being taught; he must diagnose individual differences encountered by members of his group; he must make prescriptions of assignments based on his diagnosis and repeat the cycle again and again. Yet even if all programs could be set up on the basis of behavioral objectives and even if strict training paradigms could be established to meet the objectives, who could argue that such a program would be other than tedious and ultimately stultifying. (Raths, 1971, p. 715)

182 Part IV  •  Curriculum Implementation

Among those who opposed the use of behavioral objectives were reconceptualists who viewed behavioral objectives as too mechanistic because they focus on observable behavior and ignore subjective behavior (McNeil, 2006). Some authorities faulted the specification of instructional objectives as too narrow, too sequential, and too focused on specific, and inappropriate, content. They noted the debt of instructional objectives to behavioristic psychology and looked instead to changes evoked by constructivist learning theories. John D. McNeil summarized these changes: as a movement to (1) higher levels of thinking as opposed to the mastery of discrete tasks or skills; (2) a concern for coherence and relationship among ideas; (3) student-initiated activities and solutions instead of recitation and prespecified correct responses; and (4) students, as opposed to the teacher or the text, as an authority for knowing. (McNeil, 2006, p. 132)

McNeil’s quote sounds like foreshadowing of the CCSS underpinnings of increased levels of thinking and complexity in student learning tasks. McNeil (2006) noted that the research on instructional objectives is inconclusive (p. 207). McNeil (2006) observed, however, “Objectives sometimes help and are almost never harmful” (p. 207). As has been the case with other issues in education, decisions may have been based more on philosophy or preference than on results of research. Problems with Behavioral Objectives While the proponents and opponents argued with each other, the behavioral objectives camp itself added to the difficulty of convincing teachers to use behavioral objectives. Some, perhaps overenthusiastic about the behavioral objectives movement, turned off teachers by these actions. • Assuming a rather dogmatic approach seemed to rule out all other methods. There was little experimental research to support that the behavioral objectives approach resulted in higher student achievement than with other approaches. It was learned that behavioral objectives can be useful in preinstructional strategies (Hartley & Davies, 1976). Objectives work better if they pertain to the particular instructional task. Objectives are more effective with certain kinds of instruction than with others and are useful in accomplishing learning at higher levels of the cognitive domain. Hartley and Davies (1976) also found that students of average ability, male students of high socioeconomic background, and both the more independent and less conscientious students benefit from behavioral objectives. • Resorting to formulas made writing behavioral objectives formulaic. As an example, the sentence pattern that follows was common to be used with teachers filling in the blanks for the students and content they were teaching. Given the ____________, the student will _________ in ________ minutes with a score of _________. • Downplaying affective objectives was a primary concern. By implying that it is as easy to write behavioral objectives in the affective domain as in the cognitive and psychomotor domains opponents felt challenged. Popham modified his view and advocated broader but still-measurable behavioral objectives. Popham (2002) pointed to the danger of encouraging teachers to write too-specific, small-scope behavioral objectives because “the resulting piles of hyper specific instructional objectives would so overwhelm teachers that they would end up paying attention to no objectives at all” (Popham, 2002, pp. 97–98).



Chapter 9  •  Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets 183

As special education came to practice the use of measurable instructional objectives they were implemented for each identified student. A reasoned approach in the practice of identifying and writing both instructional goals and instructional objectives has considerable merit with those who write an individualized education plan (IEP) for each student with special needs. These plans state both goals and behavioral objectives for accomplishing the goals that students are to achieve by the end of the year. The specification of instructional objectives simplified the selection of instructional approaches and resources. When stated in behavioral terms, instructional objectives provided a basis for assessment, and had the potential to communicate to students, parents, caregivers, and other professionals exactly what students were expected to demonstrate, if shared with them (Briggs, 1970).

GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING INSTRUCTIONAL GOALS OR ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES OR LEARNING TARGETS To select and write instructional goals and instructional objectives, it will be helpful to establish several guidelines to be followed. Consider that instructional goals and instructional objectives: • relate to the already specified curriculum goals and curriculum objectives or standards; • identify the domains of learning, the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor, as applicable; • align with the levels of thinking and cognitive complexity indicated by the standard or curriculum objective; and • follow a few simple rules of writing. Educators should consider the mission and vision of all students being successful academically and plan for their achievement of the instructional goals and instructional objectives. Accountability for all students’ learning success and not percentages of them being successful, is a departure from the past use of instructional goals and instructional objectives. The conception of intellectual ability is often limited to cognitive language and mathematical skills, often interpreted in terms of a single intelligence. On the other hand, test results generate differential aptitudes in such areas as language usage, verbal reasoning, numeracy, spatial relations, abstract reasoning, and memory (Checkley, 1997). Howard Gardner conceptualized the existence of seven intelligences: bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, and spatial (Gardner, 2006). To the seven intelligences Gardner set forth in the 1980s, he later added the concept of naturalist intelligence, that is, the ability to classify nature that Gardner described as “the ability to recognize and classify plants, minerals, and animals” (Checkley, 1997, pp. 8–9). Add to Gardner’s depiction of multiple intelligences the concepts of social intelligence as defined by Edward L. Thorndike (1920) and emotional intelligence as perceived by Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer. Building on Thorndike’s conception, Salovey and Mayer (1989–1990) viewed emotional intelligence, now referred to by some people as EQ, “as a subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (1989–1990, p. 189). You will also find in some discussions of multiple intelligences a ninth intelligence, the concept of existential intelligence, a sensitivity to spiritual and philosophical questions about humankind’s existence (Wilson, nd).

184 Part IV  •  Curriculum Implementation

The concept of intelligences, in the plural, guides teachers to design instruction for all learners to be successful. This skillfully designed instruction does not only relate or appeal to those with strengths that are verbal and linguistic or mathematical, but supports the success of every student. Relating Instructional Goals and Instructional Objectives to Curriculum Goals and Curriculum Objectives or Standards Instructional goals or essential questions and instructional objectives or learning targets should relate to curriculum goals and curriculum objectives or standards. Unless the instructional planner participated in drafting the curriculum goals and curriculum objectives, he or she will want to take time to understand them. The instructional goals and instructional objectives are derived from the curriculum goals and curriculum objectives. Prior to the standards movement, a curriculum goal for the fifth grade may have been something like: during the course of the year students will appreciably improve their skills in reading. Today, more than likely the same curriculum goal would be rewritten to say: all fifth-grade students will make one year’s growth in reading. From this general goal the following curriculum objective may have emerged in the past before standards were adopted: by the end of the eighth month, 75 percent of the students will have increased their ability to comprehend a selected set of English words by 25 percent. Now, the expectation would be that a reading standard for fifth grade would replace the behaviorally stated curriculum objective. The fifth-grade standard may be similar to: students understand how text features aid comprehension of informational text. Unlike before the standards movement, there is no percent of proficiency nor a percent of students who are expected to be successful. While the curriculum objective was measurable, so is the standard. It is understood that all students will demonstrate proficiency independently. The formulation of instructional goals or essential questions bears a direct relationship to the curriculum goals and curriculum objectives or standards. An instructional goal may be: students use text features to comprehend new on-grade level informational text. Written as an essential question it may be: how can text features help comprehension of new informational text? Instructional objectives are written from the instructional goals or essential questions. To promote the expectation of reading silently, the teacher might design the following objective or learning target related to the essential question and instructional goal in the prior paragraph: silently, students will read a new on-grade level informational text passage and then write a threesentence summary of how two text features aided comprehension. Before NCLB objectives may have been written as minimal competencies and the expectation was that all students would not achieve proficiency. Those low expectations are not the case in the twenty-first century as standards are the same for all learners and they are expected to be demonstrated independently. The examples provided demonstrate how the verbiage has changed over time and focus on expectations for student learning outcomes. Specificity in the expectation for student learning is the key, and not specificity of the percent of students who will achieve proficiency and not the percent of content they will demonstrate. One hundred percent of all students learning and achieving proficiency demonstrated independently is the intention of the standards. Domains of Learning One way of viewing learning exists in the concepts of three domains: the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Within each domain are classification systems ranking instructional objectives in a hierarchical structure from lowest to highest level. The instructional goals and instructional objectives may be specified for three domains of learning, the cognitive, the affective, and the psychomotor, as applicable.



Chapter 9  •  Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets 185

COGNITIVE DOMAIN.  Speaking for a committee of college and university examiners, Benjamin

S. Bloom (Bloom, et al., 1956) defined the cognitive domain as including objectives that “deal with the recall or recognition of knowledge and the development of intellectual abilities and skills” (p. 7). Cognitive learning, which involves the mental processes, ranges from memorization to thinking and problem solving. AFFECTIVE DOMAIN.  David R. Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia (1964) defined the affective domain as including objectives that “emphasize a feeling tone, an emotion, or a degree of acceptance or rejection” (p. 7). PSYCHOMOTOR DOMAIN.  Robert J. Armstrong and colleagues (Armstong, et al., 1970. p. 22) defined the psychomotor domain as including behaviors that “place primary emphasis on neuromuscular or physical skills and involve different degrees of physical dexterity” (p. 22). Sometimes referred to as perceptual-motor skills, psychomotor learnings include bodily movements and muscular coordination. Ordinarily, school districts assume responsibility for student achievement in all three broad areas. However, the one measured in an official manner is the cognitive. Except for work by people such as Rousseau, Froebel, Pestalozzi, and Neill (Summerhill School, England), most of the world focuses on the cognitive domain. Although strong preferences exist both within and outside the profession for stressing cognitive learning, you may encourage each teacher to identify and write instructional goals and objectives in all three domains, making allowances for the nature of the subject matter. For example, using perceptual motor experiences (e.g., movement, role play) can assist learners in achieving cognitive standards and learning targets. The same example can be applied to the affective domain as a student’s self-efficacy is related to achievement (Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991). Instructional leaders who encourage teachers to develop a student’s belief in himself to be successful through self-regulation and metacognition will have addressed the domain in a positive manner. In sum, there is a social cognitive approach to consider; affective, cognitive, and environmental factors interact (Valentine, Du Bois, & Cooper, 2004). Normally, the domains overlap; each possesses elements of the other, even when one is obviously dominant. Thus, it is often difficult to categorize learning as falling precisely into one domain. Many learnings will obviously fall into single categories. If you discount the bit of affective pleasure a student may feel in knowing the right answer, the formula for finding the area of a triangle (1/2 base * height) is pretty much a cognitive experience. Doing sit ups, a psychomotor exercise, requires very little cognition and may evoke either a positive or negative affective response. Faith in other human beings is primarily an affective goal, secondarily cognitive, and usually not psychomotor, unless specification is provided of a demonstration through observed action. The widely practiced classification of objectives into three domains may be helpful in supporting teachers as they create instructional plans. Instructional goals and instructional objectives should be identified to be aligned with the target standard or the curriculum objective. It is obvious that some learnings are more substantive, complex, and important than others. Note, for example, the following learning targets, all in the cognitive domain, to review the differences in thinking and complexity.

• The student will name the first president of the United States. • The student will compare and contrast Washington’s first inaugural address and that of a twenty-first century U.S. president by their explicitly stated and inferred goals.

186 Part IV  •  Curriculum Implementation

• Analyze which of Washington’s goals and ideas apply or do not apply today. • The student will evaluate Washington’s role at the Continental Congress based upon criteria of demonstration of commitment and leadership. The knowledge and skills required for naming the first president of the United States are at a decidedly lower level of thinking than those for each of the subsequent objectives. Each succeeding item progressively requires higher level and more complex thinking. This is an example of developing learning targets in a hierarchy of learning outcomes from lowest to highest. Consider the following illustrations from the affective domain. • The student will listen attentively while others express their points of view. • The student will answer a call for volunteers to plant trees in a public park. • The student will express appreciation for the contributions of ethnic groups other than his or her own to the development of our country. • The student will abide by a set of legal and ethical standards. As with examples in the cognitive domain, each objective is progressively more substantive than the preceding one. Finally, examine a set of objectives from the psychomotor domain. • • • • • •

The student will identify a woolen fabric by its feel. The student will demonstrate how to hold the reins of a cantering horse. The student will imitate a right-about-face movement. The student will mix a batch of mortar and water. The student will use an Excel program. The student will create an original game requiring physical movements.

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS Cognitive Classification Systems There are several systems for classifying educational instructional objectives. The use of a classification system enables teachers to distinguish among levels of thinking and cognitive complexity. Distinguishing among the levels and knowing the student work evidence that aligns with the levels, is essential for instructional plans to align with the standard or curriculum objective. Briefly examine four of these systems in the passages that follow. THE BLOOM TAXONOMY.  Bloom, et al., (1956) and associates, in the mid-twentieth century, developed an extensive taxonomy for classifying educational objectives in the cognitive domain. Of all classification systems, the Bloom taxonomy of the cognitive domain is perhaps the best known and historically the most widely followed. Bloom, et al., (1956) classified cognitive learnings into six major categories: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. You can see simple examples and the level of thinking.

• Knowledge level.  The student will name the first capital of the United States. • Comprehension level.  The student will read Washington’s first inaugural address and summarize the major points. • Application level.  The student will show how at least three of Washington’s ideas apply or do not apply today.



Chapter 9  •  Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets 187

• Analysis level.  The student will analyze Washington’s military tactics at the Battle of Yorktown. • Synthesis level.  From various print and nonprint sources students will determine the three most salient points. • Evaluation level.  The student will evaluate Washington’s military leadership based upon the criteria of successful military strategies, loyalty of soldiers, and alignment of the soldiers’ goals with his own. This taxonomy shows objectives as classified in a hierarchical fashion from the lowest (knowledge) to the highest (evaluation). A central premise of professional educators is that the higher levels of learning should be stressed. The ability to think, for example, is fostered not through low level recall of knowledge alone but through application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. THE ANDERSON-KRATHWOHL TAXONOMY.  Lorin W. Anderson and David R. Krathwohl, editors, with six contributors published a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy in 2001. They saw changes in education brought about by changes in society as creating the need for a revision of the Bloom taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, p. xxii). Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) presented a taxonomy table with a Knowledge Dimension consisting of four types of knowledge and a Cognitive Process Dimension consisting of six categories, each of which is divided into cognitive processes. The revision deleted synthesis, and added creation above evaluation. Creation is considered as a synthesis that is a newly organized body of information. For many educators the synthesis as Bloom originally wrote it, remains helpful to consider while adding the creation of new knowledge. THE MARZANO-KENDALL TAXONOMY.  In a revision of Robert J. Marzano’s 2001 Designing a

New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Robert J. Marzano and John S. Kendall offered in 2007 a new taxonomy that combines six levels of processing consisting of three systems of thinking with three domains of knowledge (pp. xi, 35-3). In their discussion of three systems of thinking they described three types of memory (2007, pp. 35–36). Marzano and Kendall refrained from using degrees of difficulty to distinguish the various levels in creating their taxonomy (2007, p. 10). WEBB’S DEPTH-OF-KNOWLEDGE (DOK).  In researching ways to align assessment, curriculum,

and standards, Norman L. Webb in 1997 proposed a classification system that has become known as Webb’s Depth-of-Knowledge (DOK) (Webb, 2009). Specifying four levels of processes, none of which is dependent upon attainment of other levels, Webb created a system in the field of mathematics that appeared in 1999. Since its appearance, DOK, with help from content-area experts in other fields and the CCSSO, has spread to other disciplines. All the taxonomies noted were based on the original or revised work of Bloom et al., (1956). These and other systems of thinking, such as Art Costa’s, are included in many curriculum resources. As an example, Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID), an instructional approach for encouraging high level thinking and achievement, uses the Costa approach (www. artcostacentre.com/). Becoming familiar with these and other systems is helpful in developing deeper understanding and in creating explicit instruction aligned with the target standard. Of the three domains, objectives in the cognitive domain are the easiest to identify and simplest to evaluate. They are drawn primarily from the subject matter and are easily measurable, once the academic language is understood.

188 Part IV  •  Curriculum Implementation

Affective Classification System Shortly after the appearance of the cognitive taxonomy, Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964) developed a taxonomy of objectives in the affective domain, which consists of five major categories. The affective examples given are labeled with these five categories. • Receiving (attending).  The student will listen while others express their points of view. • Responding.  The student will answer a call for volunteers to plant a tree in a public park. • Valuing.  The student will express appreciation for the contributions of ethnic groups other than his or her own to the development of our country. • Organization.  The student will choose nutritious food over junk food. • Characterization by value or value complex.  The student will habitually abide by a set of legal and ethical standards. (Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964) The affective domain poses a difficult problem for educators. Historically, parents and educators have viewed the school’s primary mission as cognitive learning. Affective learning has typically held a lesser position. As mentioned elsewhere in this text, the affective domain is still not accepted by some educators and parents as a legitimate focus of the school. On the other hand, there are educators who feel that affective outcomes are more important to the individual and society than other outcomes. The perceptual psychologist Arthur W. Combs (1962) stated the case for affective education, tying it to the development of adequate personalities. For many generations education has done an excellent job of imparting information. . . . Our greatest failures are those connected with the problems of helping people to behave differently as a result of the information we have provided them. . . . Adequate persons are, among other factors, the product of strong values. The implication seems to be clear, then, that educators must be interested in and concerned with values. Unfortunately, this is not the case in many schools and classrooms today. The emphasis is too often on the narrowly scientific and impersonally objective. . . . Education must be concerned with the values, beliefs, convictions, and doubts of students. These realities as perceived by an individual are just as important, if not more so, as the so-called objective facts. (Combs, 1962, p. 200)

Benjamin Bloom, Thomas Hastings, and George F. Madaus (1971) attested to the neglect of instruction for affective learning when they said: Throughout the years American education has maintained that among its most important ideals is the development of such attributes as interests, desirable attitudes, appreciation, values, commitment, and will power. . . . the types of outcomes which in fact receive the highest priorities in our schools, to the detriment of these affective goals, are verbal-conceptual in nature. (Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus, 1971, p. 225)

Bloom, Hastings, and Madaus (1971) identified several reasons for the neglect of affective learning. Our system of education is geared to producing people who can deal with the words, concepts, and mathematical or scientific symbols so necessary for success in our technological society (Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus, 1971 p. 225). Standardized tests used by the schools . . . lay stress on intellectual tasks (Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus, 1971, p. 226). Characteristics of this kind, unlike achievement competencies, are a private rather than a public matter (Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus, 1971, p. 227). If affective learnings should be taught then identification of commonly agreed upon affective curriculum objectives and instructional objectives is an essential task for the curriculum



Chapter 9  •  Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets 189

planner. Affective curriculum and instructional objectives are both difficult to identify and extremely difficult to measure. These difficulties constitute another reason why teachers tend to shy away from the affective domain. Psychomotor Classification Systems The development and use of a classification system in the psychomotor domain have not been given as much emphasis as in the cognitive and affective domains. Classification systems of the psychomotor domain do exist, but they seem not to be as widely known as those of the other two domains. The examples from the psychomotor domain given earlier follow the classification system developed by Elizabeth Jane Simpson (1972, pp. 43–56). Following are her taxonomy examples and their categories. • Perception.  The student will identify a woolen fabric by its feel. • Set.  The student will demonstrate how to hold the reins of a horse when cantering. • Guided response.  The student will imitate a right-about-face movement. • Mechanism.  The student will mix a batch of mortar and water. • Complex overt response.  The student will operate a DVR recorder. • Adaptation.  The student will arrange an attractive bulletin board display. • Origination.  The student will create an original game requiring physical movements. (Simpson, 1972, 43–56) Anita J. Harrow (1972) provided a clarifying description for each of the categories of the Simpson taxonomy. She identified perception as interpreting, set as preparing, guided response as learning, mechanism as habituating, complex overt response as performing, adaptation as modifying, and origination as creating (Harrow 1972, p. 27). Harrow (1972) proposed her own taxonomy for classifying movement behaviors of learners that consists of the following six classification levels. 1.00 Reflex Movements 1.10 Segmental Reflexes 1.20 Intersegmental Reflexes 1.30 Suprasegmental Reflexes 2.00 Basic-Fundamental Movements 2.10 Locomotor Movements 2.20 Non-Locomotor Movements 2.30 Manipulative Movements 3.00 Perceptual Abilities 3.10 Kinesthetic Discrimination 3.20 Visual Discrimination 3.30 Auditory Discrimination 3.40 Tactile Discrimination 3.50 Coordinated Abilities 4.00 Physical Abilities 4.10 Endurance 4.20 Strength

190 Part IV  •  Curriculum Implementation

4.30 Flexibility 4.40 Agility 5.00 Skilled Movements 5.10 Simple Adaptive Skill 5.20 Computed Adaptive Skill 5.30 Complex Adaptive Skill 6.00 Non-Discursive Communication 6.10 Expressive Movement 6.20 Interpretive Movement. (Harrow, 1972, pp. 1–2) Classification systems in the three domains serve as guidelines that can lead to more effective instruction. They direct attention to the three major domains of learning and to the subdivisions of each.

WRITING INSTRUCTIONAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Writing instructional goals and instructional objectives is simple and should be approached with basic expectations. Instructional goals are the big ideas, often referred to as essential questions which are not measurable. An instructional goal may serve the purpose of pointing out the direction that leads to instructional objectives. For example, the instructional goal, “students will understand the energy needs throughout the world, or essential question “how can understanding the world’s energy needs and resources help us in planning for them?” could lead to a multitude of instructional objectives. Examples of instructional objectives may be, “the student will identify three sources of energy that are alternatives to fossil fuels,” and “the student will propose three ways Americans can conserve energy, supported by textual evidence.” An instructional goal may be written in rather broad, imprecise terms. On the other hand, in some school districts instructional goals may not be stated as suggested in this text and may be stated simply as a topic. An example of a topic may be, The Organized Labor Movement. Implied in this topic is the instructional goal, “Students will understand the organized labor movement.” Though variations in style of formulating instructional goals and instructional objectives are certainly possible, you may see them written with “The student . . .” (in the singular) to (a) signal the meaning “each student” and (b) help distinguish instructional goals and objectives from curriculum goals and curriculum objectives. Curriculum goals and curriculum objectives may begin with “Students . . .” (in the plural) to convey the meaning “students in general” or “groups of students.” Although it is preferable for all plans to be committed to writing, it is possible to keep the instructional goals in mind and move directly to the writing of instructional objectives or learning targets. There are principals or school district leaders who require that the curriculum objective or standard, instructional goal or essential question, and instructional objective or learning target be written in instructional plans and also posted in the classroom to assist students in moving toward proficiency. Therefore, it is a good idea to understand how to compose them. Three Elements of an Instructional Objective or Learning Target Mager (1975) recommended that three elements or components be included in an instructional objective: • the behavior expected of the student; • the conditions under which the behavior is to be demonstrated; and • the degree of mastery required.



Chapter 9  •  Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets 191

Since the time of Mager, the development of instructional objectives and learning targets has progressed to focusing on proficiency and not a percent of mastery or proficiency. Therefore, you may only be asked to write the observable behavior expected and the student learning outcome. A brief explanation follows related to developing the instructional objectives. SPECIFYING BEHAVIOR AND LEARNING OUTCOMES.  When specifying behavior choose

as often as possible verbs that are subject to measurement and observation, and the student learning outcome expected. The word “understand,” although a verb, is generally vague in an instructional objective because it is neither measurable nor observable. Consider, “The student will understand his or her rights under the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.” If this instructional objective remains as written, the teacher will need to clarify the expectation for demonstrating understanding or the criteria for success. By changing the verb understand to a performance-oriented verb, you can create an instructional objective that is measurable, such as “The student will write a two-sentence summary representing each of the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.” Note that the student learning outcome or evidence of progress towards mastery is the two-sentence summary for each amendment. This instructional objective or learning target can be raised from the comprehension level to the evaluation level by modifying the statement, “The student will compose a five-paragraph essay that addresses the rights in the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution and will evaluate the importance of each right today, based on the criteria of essential, desirable, or not relevant.” The instructional objective or learning target, therefore, includes the student learning outcome. It is helpful if the outcome is student work evidence and can inform instructional decisions that follow the particular learning task. If the outcome is not student work evidence, then it will be important that the teacher is clear with students on what acceptable evidence of mastery looks or sounds like. What is the criteria for being successful on this instructional objective/learning target? SPECIFYING CONDITIONS.  The condition under which the learner demonstrates the behavior

may be specified, if necessary. In the instructional objective, “Given a list of needs of this community, the student will rank them in order of priority.” “Given a list of needs of this community” is the condition under which the behavior is performed. It is a part of the objective. The condition may also indicate the focus of the curriculum objective, such as comprehending informational text versus literary text in this example: students will describe how text features aid in comprehension of informational text. The instructional objective may be in the passage as in: select three text features that aided your comprehension and describe how they helped. SPECIFYING THE CRITERION.  The instructional objective or learning target should include the

acceptable criterion of mastery. Hattie (2009) refers to this criterion as success criteria which assists the teacher in being clear on the expected specific learning outcome and provides specificity to the students, if the teacher communicates the success criteria (Taylor, Watson, & Nutta, 2014). For example, a French teacher might write the statement, “The student will translate the following sentences.” This statement is too broad and does not assist the teacher nor student with specificity. A better statement would be, “Translate at least five sentences from the French passage to English.” In 1974, Robert H. Davis, Lawrence T. Alexander, and Stephen L. Yelon listed six conditions and gave examples of each, which may be helpful today. 1. When mere OCCURRENCE of the behavior is sufficient, describe the behavior. Example: The knot will be tied loosely as in the photograph.

192 Part IV  •  Curriculum Implementation

2. When ACCURACY is important, provide a statement of acceptable range or deviation. Example: The answer must be correct to the nearest whole number. 3. If the number of ERRORS is important, state the number. Example: with a maximum of one error. 4. If TIME or SPEED is important, state the minimal level. Examples: within five seconds; five units per minute. 5. If a KNOWN REFERENCE provides the standard, state the reference. Example: Perform the sequence of steps in the same order as given in the text. 6. If the CONSEQUENCES of the behavior are important, describe them or provide a model. Example: Conduct the class so that all students participate in the discussion. (Davis, et al., 1974, pp. 39–40) TABLE 9.2  Behaviorally Oriented Verbs for the Domains of Learning Cognitive Domain Bloom, et al., 1956) Level of thinking

Verbs

Knowledge

identify, specify, state

Comprehension

explain, restate, translate, trace

Application

apply, solve, use, connect, relate

Analysis

analyze, compare, contrast, illustrate

Synthesis (may be in Create)

design, develop, plan, compose, compile

Evaluation

assess, evaluate, judge, distinguish

Create (synthesize included)

Compose, compile, design

Affective Domain (Krathwohl et al., 1964) Level

Verbs

Receiving

accept, demonstrate awareness, listen

Responding

comply with, engage in, volunteer

Valuing

prefer, appreciate, show concern

Organization

adhere to, defend

Characterization by value or value complex

empathize, be ethical, modify behavior

Psychomotor Domain (Simpson, 1972) Level

Verbs

Perception

distinguish, identify, select

Set

assume a position, demonstrate, show

Guided response

attempt, imitate, try

Mechanism

make habitual, practice, repeat

Complex overt response

carry out, operate, perform

Adaptation

adapt, change, revise

Origination

create, design, originate

Gronlund, N. (2000). How to write and use instructional objectives (Appendices B and C). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.



Chapter 9  •  Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets 193

Novice instructors sometimes ask how to decide on the criteria. If the curriculum objective is a standard, there will be specifications that provide guidance in writing the learning target and success criteria. If there are no specifications, then consult the curriculum guide. If neither exist, then teachers consider the texts and expectations for results given by the state, school district, school, or education organization (e.g. International Baccalaureate, etc.). To the success criteria component, Davis, Alexander, and Yelon (1974) added a stability component—that is, the number of opportunities the student will be given and the number of times he or she must succeed in demonstrating the behavior (p. 41). This point is an important one, that students should demonstrate proficiency more than one time, to be sure that their success is not accidental before they are tested on the criteria. Generally, instructional objectives or learning targets should consist of at least three components: (a) the behavior, (b) the conditions, and (c) the criterion. Student learning outcomes or student work evidence aligns with the success criteria.

VALIDATING AND DETERMINING PRIORITY OF INSTRUCTIONAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Instructional goals and instructional objectives should be validated and put in order of priority. Teachers should know whether the instructional goals and instructional objectives are appropriate and which are the more important. In practice, it is far simpler to validate and rank instructional goals and instructional objectives than curriculum goals and curriculum objectives. Instructional goals and instructional objectives are not normally submitted with any regularity to external groups for this process, but may be prioritized with teachers teaching the same subject or grade level and with administrators. Validation of the priority will be dependent upon student progress towards mastery of the standards and the instructional objectives. To make a judgment on validity and to decide which are essential require a foundation in the subject matter, student progress towards mastery, and in the methods for teaching that subject matter. Far fewer persons need to be involved in validating and establishing priorities of instructional goals and instructional objectives than is the case with curriculum goals and objectives. Validating and ranking of instructional goals and objectives are usually accomplished by referring to the curriculum guides which reflect school district or school student data, along with data and evidence of your students’ progress. The authors of these ­curriculum resources and guides serve as the persons who validate and set priorities. This method of validating and ordering of instructional goals and instructional objectives is the most common. However, if teachers and leaders step back, think, and ask about a logical order of instruction, the sequence of instructional objectives will emerge just as it always has for effective teachers. Teachers can also seek help in validating and ranking instructional goals and instructional objectives from members of their instructional team, grade level, or department, along with other knowledgeable faculty members, curriculum consultants, and supervisors. Consultants and supervisors experienced in special fields should also be able to help decide which instructional goals and instructional objectives are appropriate to the learners and which ones should be stressed, due to importance as prerequisites for later learning or that they are more heavily tested. Finally, teachers may seek advice from acknowledged experts in the subject area outside the school district, as well as from specialists in other school districts or in higher education institutions.

194 Part IV  •  Curriculum Implementation

Summary Instructional goals can be written as statements or as essential questions. Instructional objectives may be called learning targets and, like essential questions and instructional goals, are directly related to the previously specified curriculum goals and curriculum objectives or standards. Instructional goals provide direction for specifying instructional objectives or learning targets. The way these are verbalized today has changed from the historical expectation. The implementation of standards with the expectation of proficiency of all students requires a different approach. Learning outcomes may be identified in three major domains: the cognitive, the affective, and the psychomotor. The cognitive domain is the world of the intellect; the affective, the locale of emotions, beliefs, values, and attitudes; and the psychomotor, the territory of perceptual-motor skills.

Classification systems are useful in revealing the types of learning encompassed in each domain. Systems can provide guidance in designing instructional plans that meet the intended learning outcomes. Instructional goals are statements written in nonbehavioral terms without criteria of mastery. Apart from outcomes in the affective domain, instructional objectives or learning targets should be written in measurable and observable terms with success criteria. Instructional objectives should consist of three components: the behavior that learners will demonstrate, the conditions under which the behavior is to be demonstrated, and the criterion to show proficiency.

Application 1. Examine an instructional plan of a colleague or someone you supervise. To what extent are the instructional goals or essential questions clearly aligned with the related standard? Likewise, to what extent is the instructional objective or learning target written similarly to the examples provided? How would you rewrite these artifacts?

2. Investigate the expectations for specificity in your context. Are the learning targets written for principals, teachers, or students? Are they specific enough that the student work evidence expected is clear so that a student can work towards it?

Inquiry and Reflection 1. Think about the classification system that guides the writing of instructional goals, essential questions, instructional objectives, and/or learning targets in your context. How deeply do those who create instructional plans understand these systems and accurately implement them? As an instructional leader, develop a strategy for enhancing understanding and fidelity in use.

2. Evaluate which of the classification systems is best for improving student learning outcomes. How would you facilitate the use of classification systems to guide instructional planning at the level of rigor needed to improve student learning outcomes?



Chapter 9  •  Instructional Goals or Essential Questions and Instructional Objectives or Learning Targets 195

Websites The Art Costa Centre For Thinking: www.artcostacentre .com/

Visible Learning: www.visible-learning.org/

References Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.), et al., (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. White Plains, NY: Longman. Armstrong, R. J., Cornell, T. D., Kraner, R. E., & ­Roberson, E. W. (1970). The development and evaluation of behavioral objectives. Worthington, OH: Charles A. Jones. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) et al., (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. White Plains, NY: Longman. Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Briggs, L. J. (1970). Handbook of procedures for the design of instruction. Washington, DC: American Institute for Research. Checkley, K. (1997). The first seven . . . and the eighth: A conversation with Howard Gardner. Educational Leadership, 55(1). Combs, A. W., Kelley, W. C., & Rogers, C. R. (Eds.). (1962). Perceiving, behaving, becoming: A new focus on education. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Davis, R. H., Alexander, L. T., & Yelon, S. L. (1974). Learning system design: An approach to the improvement of instruction. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York, NY: Basic Books. Gronlund, N. E. (2004). Writing instructional objectives for teaching and assessment. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Harrow, A. J. (1972). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain: A guide for developing behavioral objectives. White Plains, NY: Longman. Hartley, J. and Davies, I. K. (1976). Preinstructional strategies: The role of pretests, behavioral objectives, overviews, and advance organizers. Review of Educational Research, 46(2), pp. 239–265.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analysis relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook II: Affective domain. White Plains, NY: Longman. Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia Mager, R. (1975). Preparing instructional objectives (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Fearon. Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. McNeil, J. D. (2006). Contemporary curriculum in thought and action (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes; A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(1), 30–38. Popham, W. J. (1971). Practical ways of improving curriculum via measurable objectives. Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 55(355). Popham, W. J. (2002). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Raths, J. D. (1971). Teaching without specific objectives. Educational Leadership, 28(7). Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1989–90). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9(3). Simpson, E. J. (1972). The classification of educational objectives in the psychomotor domain. The Psychomotor Domain, 3. Taylor, R. T., Watson, R., & Nutta, J. (2014). Leading, teaching, and learning the common core standards: Rigorous expectations for all students. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper’s Magazine, 140.

196 Part IV  •  Curriculum Implementation Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Valentine, J. C., Du Bois, D. L., & Cooper, H. M. (2004). The relation between self-beliefs and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 111–133.

Webb, N. L. (2009). Webb’s depth of knowledge guide: Career and technical education definitions. Retrieved from www.rda.aps.edu/RDA/Documents/Resources/ Webbs_DOK_Guide.pdf Wilson, L. O. (n.d.). The second principle. Retrieved from https://thesecondprinciple.com/

CHAPTER

10

Evidence Based Instruction In Chapter 9 you thought about how standards or curriculum objectives lead to instructional goals and instructional objectives. Instructional goals are the big ideas or the essential questions and instructional objectives are the short-term or maybe even daily learning targets. As you engage with this chapter and think about your instructional planning or the planning of those whose classes you visit, keep in mind that in this text instruction is standards driven or may be called standards based instruction. Standard may refer to the CCSS, individual state standards, accepted standards or benchmarks for a curriculum or subject area, school district, school organization, or school. Instruction is defined as manipulation of students’ learning environments to provide experiences so that they learn (Mayer, 2008). Learning is a change in a student’s attitude or what a student knows, does, or thinks as a result of experiences (Intentional Futures, 2015). In this text instruction is student learning outcome focused, regardless of the term used for the intended outcome (e.g., standard, curriculum goal, benchmark, learning target). Therefore, all instruction is designed with student learning tasks and student work evidence to be in alignment with the intended learning outcome (e.g., standard, benchmark, learning target) in mind.

INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS Before an instructional plan can be developed, teachers determine the sequence or model of instruction that they will use. Bruce Joyce and Marsha Weil (1980) defined a model of instruction as “a plan or pattern that can be used to shape curriculums (long-term courses of studies) to design instructional materials, and to guide instruction in the classroom and other settings” (p. 1). Years later Joyce and Weil with Emily Calhoun (2004) revised their statement to be, “Models of teaching are really models of learning” (p. 7). The model or instructional sequence that is adopted guides the choice of strategies at particular points in student learning. For example, within the sequence of instruction a teacher may choose to be more directive or less directive, use inquiry to guide student thinking, or differentiate

Learning Outcomes After studying this chapter, you should be able to: 1. Evaluate instructional plans in relation to the scaffolded model of instruction. 2. Explain the relationship between the science of learning and science of instruction, and why it is advantageous for curriculum leaders and other instructional leaders to have expertise in both. 3. Evaluate the extent to which evidence based instruction is included in an instructional plan. 4. Analyze the alignment of instruction (design and implementation) to the intended curriculum outcome, standard or ­learning target.

197

198 Part IV  •  Curriculum Implementation

instruction based on individual student learning needs. Susan S. Ellis (1979) clarified the meaning of a model of instruction when she wrote: Models of teaching are strategies based on the theories (and often the research) of educators, psychologists, philosophers, and others who question how individuals learn. Each model consists of a rationale, a series of steps (actions, behaviors) to be taken by the teacher and the learner, a description of necessary support systems, and a method for evaluating the learner’s progress. Some models are designed to help students grow in self-awareness or creativity; some foster the development of self-discipline or responsible participation in a group; some models stimulate inductive reasoning or theory-building; and others provide for mastery of subject matter. (Ellis, 1979, p. 275)

Over time many models of instruction or suggested sequences of instruction have been developed by respected researchers and authors. In fact, Bruce Joyce (1978) identified 25 models of instruction. Mary Alice Gunter, Thomas H. Estes, and Jan Schwab (1999) explained a model approach to instruction when they described some 19 models (pp. 65–315). Joyce and Weil with Calhoun (2004) described 14 models grouped under four categories of systems: (a) informationprocessing, (b) social, (c) personal, and (d) behavioral. Joyce and Weil (1980) viewed the search for the best model of teaching as a fallacy and noted that the research did not champion one model over another (p. 1). Some experts reject models that cast the teacher in the role of subject-matter authority and information-giver. Ernest R. House (1998) would supplant the model of teacher as information-presenter with that of teacher as tutor (p. 3). Caine and Caine (2001), drawing on research on the brain, expressed the view that educators in the twenty-first century “will need to have mastered the art of facilitating selforganization by students and others. . . . They will need to have sufficiently broad cognitive horizons to be able to integrate new ideas and new information and to facilitate their introduction into ongoing and dynamic student experiences” (Caine & Caine, 2001, p. 226). Teaching is complex as affirmed by Elizabeth Ellsworth (1997), “pedagogy is a much messier and more inconclusive affair than the vast majority of our educational theories and practices make it out to be. . . . Pedagogy poses problems and dilemmas that can never be settled or resolved once and for all” (Ellsworth, 1997, p. 8). Proficiency in a variety of models or at least strategies to be used within a selected model, may be more productive. Before the regular incorporation of digital resources Glickman (1998) counseled: There is value in some traditional elements of schooling. For example, there is merit in reconsidering whether exchanging pencils for word processors or relying on pocket calculators instead of mental calculation have improved education. There are clear benefits to directly teaching students particular content, insisting on clear penmanship, and having students memorize certain material. Therefore, there are traditions to be retained at the same time that different configurations of time, space, methods, tools, and technology are incorporated. (Glickman, 1998, p. 39)

Yet, later Glickman (2002) made clear that teachers cannot become better teachers if they repeatedly teach “the same lessons in the same manner” (p. 5). Most would agree that if students do not achieve proficiency in a learning target then when reteaching, a different strategy and perhaps different resources and additional time would be needed. Scaffolded Instruction Model Much has been written in the attempt to describe the characteristics of effective teachers. James H. Stronge (2002) observed in considering the qualities of effective teachers, “Effectiveness is



Chapter 10  •  Evidence Based Instruction 199

an elusive concept when we consider the complex task of teaching” (p. vii). Rosenshine (1978, pp. 38–66) offered research on teacher effectiveness that supported direct instruction of whole groups, in contrast to individualized instruction, at least for certain purposes. However, with more readily available research and accountability for student learning, teacher effects or teacher effectiveness is defined as the stable relationship between instruction and other professional actions and positive changes in student learning (Konstantopoulous, 2014, p. 17290). In fact, there are teacher evaluation systems based on specific instructional models, which teachers are required to implement, with the expectation of change in their students’ achievement. With the definition of teacher effectiveness in mind and current teacher evaluation systems, an instructional model that scaffolds students to independence for individual success on assessments is supported in the literature and presented as an example (Taylor, Watson, & Nutta, 2014; Fisher & Frey, 2008; Marzano, 2007; Hunter, 1984). The scaffolded instruction model combines whole class, small group, and individual student instruction as needed. Based on the earlier work of Hunter (1984) the other authors’ models noted have the purpose of supporting students’ independent demonstration of proficiency on the intended learning targets or standards by carefully moving students through a learning process from highly supported to less supported to independence. The scaffolded instructional model provides for various strategies appropriate to the content and the learners within the sequence of instruction. The scaffolded instruction model begins with the teacher’s introduction of the content and concepts by engaging students through inquiry or direct instruction to create a mental model of the intended learning. Mental models are often developed through the use of academic language and visuals at the same time whether with digital tools or more traditional ones (Taylor, Watson, & Nutta, 2014; Taylor, 2010). Inquiry is effective in engaging students’ thinking at the onset and is supported by meta-analysis research that science students have greater learning gains when guided inquiry is used instead of alternate methods (Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, & Briggs, 2012). Inquiry is also helpful in developing mathematics concepts, among other content areas. After the introduction teachers and students have shared practice in which the teacher is modeling and students are sharing the reading or writing or solving problems with the teacher. Shared practice is the precursor to guided practice which begins at the point the teacher has checked for understanding, provided feedback, and believes that most students are ready to collaborate with one or two partners (Taylor, Watson, & Nutta, 2014; Taylor, 2010). In guided practice students collaborate using strategies identified by the teacher, such as think-pair-share or reciprocal teaching. For readers not familiar with these two strategies, in think-pair-share two students read or think together and then share with one another prior to the teacher calling on pairs to share with the rest of the class. Reciprocal teaching incorporates several research based strategies (predict, ask questions, clarify, and summarize); as a result, the pairs or triads have enhanced learning. Rather than group learning, teachers find that the value of guided practice is when students collaborate to develop understanding with each student having a specific responsibility (e.g., steps in problem solving, measure, summarize, clarify) (Taylor, Watson, & Nutta, 2014; Taylor, 2010; Taylor, 2007). In contrast, often in group work there are students who do not engage or one or two who do most of the work. Again, the teacher monitors students’ work, checks for understanding, provides feedback, and notes student success. When students are successful in guided practice it is time for students to work independently to demonstrate proficiency on the learning target. Examples of independent practice are similar to those in guided practice except that students do not collaborate. Examples include: a student reads a passage and identifies the literary elements or compares figurative language across two texts; a student evaluates which method to use to solve a particular type of equation; or a student generates potential solutions to a local environmental or social crisis based on textual evidence.

200 Part IV  •  Curriculum Implementation

As students work independently, teachers monitor their success providing feedback and correcting misconceptions. When students are successful independently then it is time for assessment (Taylor, Watson, & Nutta, 2014; Taylor, 2010; Taylor, 2007). Success in independent practice is important as students’ proficiency in meeting the intended learning will take place individually and not in pairs, triads, or other configurations of students. Throughout the steps in scaffolding students to independence, teachers may differentiate instruction with individuals or small groups. Differentiating instruction may take as little time as a few minutes or may be for most of the guided practice and independent practice time, depending upon the students’ learning needs. Koedinger, Corbett, and Perfetti (2012) provide evidence that students who are not proficient need more worked examples to assist with grounding in the mental model compared to students who have achieved proficiency and need to go more deeply in the learning target. This guidance in differentiation can be implemented during guided and independent practice if needed. Simply, instructional differentiation is either different resources, time, or student-teacher ratio (Taylor, Watson, & Nutta, 2014; Taylor, 2010; Taylor 2007). Figure 10.1 is a visual to assist with developing the mental model of the scaffolded instruction model. FIGURE 10.1

Level of support*

Scaffolded Instruction Model

Sequence of instruction Introduction: Direct instruction & guided inquiry Build background knowledge Model, demonstrate Develop vocabulary Create mental model with video, simulation, visuals, interactive board, devices, virtual manipulatives

Guided & shared practice: Pairs, small groups Understanding checks Accuracy checks Clarifications Correctives Experiential with Interactive digital tools

Independent practice: Individual work Check fluency Check accuracy Clarifications Generative response Reflection Self assessment with voice & written feedback.

Assessment: Feedback Generative response Independence

*The level of support depends upon the difficulty of the text/concepts and the ability of the learner to comprehend the text/concepts independently. Figure 10.1 is adapted from Figure 2.1 Scaffold Instruction Model in Taylor, R. T., Watson, R., & Nutta, J. (2014). Leading, teaching, and learning the common core standards: Rigorous expectations for all students. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, p. 12.



Chapter 10  •  Evidence Based Instruction 201

No model of instruction provides assurance that teachers will approach all learners with the expectation that they will be successful, nor can it account for everything a teacher should do or for a leader to expect. The beliefs and dispositions brought to the instructional environment impact learning and are noted in literature on culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Paris, 2012). Students need to believe that the assets they bring to the classroom are enhancements to learning and not perceived to be deficits whether the assets are ethnicity, background, language, or talents (Paris, 2012).

SCIENCE OF INSTRUCTION (SOI) The term Science of Instruction (SOI) indicates that planning for instruction includes a body of knowledge demonstrated to work in particular contexts. Generally, SOI is evidence based instructional strategies, those for which there is evidence and/or research that supports the use of the particular instructional strategies for improving student learning. There may be emerging research, observations or evidence from your own experience, or meta-analysis research over many years as found in Marzano (2007), and Hattie (2009). These evidence based strategies may be included in the instructional model, just as noted in the examples. Meta-analysis research differs from individual studies in that it includes rigorous research over time and yields an effect size across the included studies. Effect size is generally thought to be in the acceptable range when it is at least d = .40 with d = .60 being large. As an example, reciprocal teaching, a collaborative instructional strategy, generally yields a very high effect size of about d = .74. A teacher who uses reciprocal teaching may expect a 74 percent probability that students will learn more than if the teacher does not use reciprocal teaching. Most would think that this effect size is high enough to implement the collaborative strategy often as described in the previous section. To select the SOI or evidence based instructional strategies that are best for teaching a particular standard or learning target, teachers are to know their students and the appropriateness of a particular strategy for the context. Context includes the grade level, subject matter content, community, accountability expectations, and other environmental factors unique to each school and class. Consider homework as an example of contextual factors in the selection of an evidence based strategy. As an instructional strategy, homework has a high effect size for high school students, but a low effect size when used with primary age students, since they do not have independence in learning nor in securing assistance if needed (Hattie, 2009; Taylor, Watson, Nutta, 2014). When homework is an instructional strategy used in the primary grades, the context needs to be taken into account to counter the low effect size and therefore, students should be able to complete the homework without support from another person. Generally, teachers are to select the instructional strategy appropriate for a point in the sequence of scaffolded instruction, that has the greatest chance of improving student learning. In sharing the scaffolded instruction model, examples of SOI were provided: inquiry, creation of a mental model, think-pair-share, and reciprocal teaching.

SCIENCE OF LEARNING (SOL) The Science of Learning (SOL) has been well researched and accepted by cognitive scientists (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Yet, Mayer (2008) identified that the science of learning (SOL), or how students learn most efficiently, is frequently divorced from the SOI or instructional

202 Part IV  •  Curriculum Implementation

strategies that teachers may consider. By only considering SOI and not SOL, the result may be in fewer students achieving the intended learning outcome. In this text the SOL and the SOI are advocated for consideration at the same time when crafting instructional plans and in presenting information for student learning. By combining the two concepts of SOL and SOI, the student learning outcomes should be better than if SOI alone is considered, as often is the case. The scaffolded learning model incorporates both the SOL and SOI. When teachers are engaging students in the learning process their intent is for students to return to the next class meeting and be able to share about the content or apply the content. To do so would indicate that the intended learning moved from short-term memory (seconds to minutes) to long-term memory for accurate and rapid retrieval, a major concern in the SOL. When learning, students use their working memory to select incoming information (sounds, words, visuals) and then organize the incoming information. For the new information to move to long-term memory it has to be integrated with previous learning or experiences (Mayer, 2008; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). The science of learning provides ways to increase the amount of information that moves from working memory to long-term memory for retrieval during independent practice, on assessments, and for integration with other units of study, disciplines, or application to novel situations (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). When teachers believe they see student success in their classrooms, but not on assessments, it may be that the students were not scaffolded to true independence, meaning that the teacher provided too much support or perhaps enabled students with clues without allowing them to have a productive cognitive struggle to think and learn. Therefore, the intended learning measured on the assessment was not moved to long-term memory for rapid and accurate retrieval. Depending upon the cognitive scientist, you will find as many as 26 different science of learning principles, although eight or nine are more frequently noted. Listed are common SOL principles that leaders should know and assist teachers to implement to support improved student learning outcomes. Anchored learning: Students work in teams to solve a problem or develop expertise leading to a solution, all based on background knowledge that has been demonstrated (Bransford, et al., 2000). Anchored instruction is appropriate for project based learning or guided practice with engagement of all students. Deep questions: In contrast to giving students who, what, where, how, and when questions that require simple language or words to answer, give students thought provoking queries that require them to take time to think, process, apply, synthesize, analyze, and/or evaluate for more in depth learning and retention (Craig, Sullins, Witherspoon, & Gholson, 2006). Dual mode and multimedia effects: The most efficient initial presentation of information for learning is engaging a student’s eyes and ears (dual mode) at the same time. Two modes at the same time, not three nor one are optimal; therefore, in creating digital or nondigital instruction, the inclusion of visuals with oral language explanation at the same time is optimal, in contrast to either visuals, printed text, or oral language or lecture alone (Mayer, 2008). In the scaffolded learning model, dual mode and multimedia effects apply to introduction or direct instruction and guided inquiry to create a mental model of the intended learning. Feedback effects: When students are provided feedback that helps them to understand what they have done correctly, why their work is correct, and how to make incorrect work correct, learning improves (Pahler, Cepeda, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2005). In other words, a grade, check mark, or only knowing what is correct and incorrect without why something is correct or incorrect, does not improve learning as a student could be accidentally correct.

Chapter 10  •  Evidence Based Instruction 203



Generation effect: When students generate responses or create responses they achieve more than if they select a response, such as multiple choice, matching, true-false, or with cues (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). Generation of responses requires thinking and then articulation of a response, therefore the student is using higher cognitive processes than if he or she has the opportunity to select or be clued to a response. Goldilocks principle: Learning targets should not be too easy or too challenging, but just right for the learner. This principle may be referred to as the zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Metcalfe & Kornell, 2005). This principle assists with reducing cognitive overload which may lead to reduction in student effort to learn. Manageable cognitive load: When designing instruction focus on the intended learning target and do not add in other interesting or extraneous information. In applying manageable cognitive load to digital presentations, focus on the target content and do not add extraneous text or visuals as they increase the cognitive load on working memory (Pass & Kester, 2006). A misconception is that instruction needs to entertain, which may detract from mastery of the intended learning. Organization effects: When students actively and cognitively engage with content, such as organizing, synthesizing, evaluating, or summarizing the material, it is more likely that the intended learning will move to long-term memory than if the student rereads (Bransford, et al., 2000). Segmentation principle: In planning instruction break the intended learning into segments and introduce them in an order that is spaced and makes sense for integrating new learning to previous learning (Mayer & Moreno, 2003). Intentional Futures (2015) notes science of learning principles to improve literacy, in addition to those listed previously as examples (p. 18). As instructional leaders know, literacy is essential to all disciplines. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Worked examples—Provide examples of the learning expectation to create a mental model. Contiguity principle—Align words with associated visuals. Modality principle—Present words orally first, rather than as printed text. Redundancy principle—Provide explanation of visuals orally or in print, but not both at the same time. 5. Coherence principle—Leave out anything not directly addressing the learning target to reduce cognitive load. As with the SOI, if you review the section on the scaffolded learning model you can easily note the SOL principles that were incorporated in Figure 10.1 or those that may be incorporated. Dual mode and multimedia effects are represented in the introduction to create the mental model of the intended learning. Most of the principles identified by Intentional Futures also are intended to create a mental model to support integrating learning for long-term memory and to reduce cognitive load. Segmentation and feedback principles are evident as students are scaffolded to independence one step at a time. Deep questions and generation effect are represented with inquiry and guided practice as students work collaboratively. It would also be expected that deep questions and generation effect are incorporated in independent practice and assessment, aligned with the target standards. Worked examples were included in introduction and instructional differentiation. There are implications for improving teaching effectiveness with digital tools and resources with SOL principles. Any time that instruction is being planned or designed it will likely use more than just a lecture or oral language alone. When teachers create digitally enhanced instruction or use available digital resources, the appropriate alignment with the SOL principles will make learning more efficient.

204 Part IV  •  Curriculum Implementation

As ESSA is implemented there are implications for software and digital resource designers and vendors to provide evidence of effectiveness. Some of the evidence may be in the SOL underpinnings of the design and the resulting data from implementation. Sources of Instructional Strategies The choice of strategies may be limited at the onset by the standards and learning targets. The content itself will determine appropriateness of some instructional strategies over others. In mathematics, inquiry and visualization are very useful strategies, but the same strategies may not be as useful in learning a world language. On the other hand, when students use inquiry and generate questions and hypotheses their learning may advance in almost any content area and grade level. Most curriculum guides, whether at the LEA, SEA, or organizational level (e.g., Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate) suggest instructional strategies that curriculum leaders believe are appropriate for the students, the content, grade level, and learning environment. Textbooks and associated teacher guides or online resources continue to be a major source of instructional strategies, even with standards based instruction. Caution should be taken in accepting strategies found in blogs or other online resources without first being sure that they are evidence based or research based and demonstrate understanding of the rigor expected of the students in each unique context. Trusted professional websites, organizations, publications, or other vetted reliable sources will serve student learning. Michael W. Apple (1998) called attention to “the ubiquitous character of the textbook” when he wrote: Whether we like it or not, the curriculum in most American schools is not defined by courses of study or suggested programs, but by one particular artifact, the standardized, grade-levelspecific text. While the text dominates curricula at the elementary, secondary, and even college levels, very little attention has been paid to the ideological, political, and economic sources of its production, distribution, and reception. (Apple, 1998, p. 159)

Freire (1998) put what some might term a constructivist spin on his concern about the way textbooks are used: Unfortunately, in general what has been done in schools lately is to lead students to become passive before the text. . . . Using their imagination is almost forbidden, a kind of sin. . . . They are invited neither to imaginatively relive the story told in the book nor to gradually appropriate the significance of the text. (Freire, 1998, p. 31)

Another source of potential instructional strategies are the students themselves. When teachers invite students to describe how they learn best, they will reveal information about when the teacher is most effective. This kind of metacognitive input from students can inform instruction. Students can generate questions to be asked and answered; generate potential related research foci; and create new frames from which to view content, events, and concepts. As they connect their own background and experiences to the standards based content and learning targets, added value will be gained for the teacher and the students alike. Furthermore, there is connection to previous learning and movement of intended learning to long-term memory. To conclude instructional strategies may emerge from a variety of subject-matter sources, but for those who are effective teachers they will employ evidence based or research based instructional strategies from respected and vetted sources.

Chapter 10  •  Evidence Based Instruction 205



Brain Based Instruction Research on the brain reaffirms the complexity of the functioning of the brain and at the same time reinforces differences in how learners learn. Speaking of the complex nature of the brain, Merilee Sprenger (1999) observed that if learning is to become permanent, it has to follow certain paths that she called “memory lanes,” gateways to accessing the memory. She identified these lanes as semantic, episodic, procedural, automatic, and emotional (pp. 45–56). David Sousa (2001) added that the emotional (limbic) system plays the most important role in the brain’s ability to store information for long periods of time (p. 19). An interesting conception of the functioning of the brain postulates dominance in either the left hemisphere or the right hemisphere of the brain, although both hemispheres interact. Following this conception, left-hemisphere dominance appears to favor logical processes; righthemisphere, creative processes. The school curriculum traditionally caters to left-hemisphere characteristics (Farmer, 2004). Renate Nummela Caine and Geoffrey Caine (1997) noted that the left-brain, right-brain distinction does not stand alone, because “[i]n a healthy person, both hemispheres interact in every activity. . . . The ‘two-brain’ doctrine is most useful in reminding us that the brain reduces information into parts and perceives wholistically at the same time” (p. 106). Eric Jensen (1998) saw the application of research on the brain placing us on “the verge of a revolution” that “will change school start times, discipline policies, assessment methods, teaching strategies, budget priorities, classroom environments, use of technology, and even the way we think of the arts and physical education” (p. 1). Patricia Wolfe (2001) cautioned, however, “During the past three decades, we’ve learned more about the brain than in all recorded history, but there is much more to learn” (p. 191). As time passed the focus on research based or evidence based instruction has incorporated the understanding of brain based instruction as a concept. The SOI and SOL consider the continuing research and reflect the findings. Learning Style Based Instruction It is generally agreed that in any group of learners there will be different preferences for instruction. Some like to read and understand by themselves and others like to be told what to do by the teacher. Some students’ strengths are in the arts and others are verbal or mathematical. Given that learners arrive at instruction with different strengths, there are those who advocate for teaching to those strengths, rather than planning instruction for an entire group who have different preferences for learning. In the late 1970s, the discussion was generated related to matching students’ learning styles with teachers’ teaching styles to facilitate learning and reduce frustration of teachers and students alike. Rita S. Dunn and Kenneth J. Dunn (1979) commented on teachers’ attitudes and beliefs for teaching style. The attitudes teachers hold toward various instructional programs, methods, and resources as well as the kinds of youngsters they prefer working with constitute part of their “teaching style.” It is true, however, that some teachers believe in specific forms of instruction that they do not practice (administrative constraints, inexperience, lack of resources, or insecurity) and that others practice methods in which they do not believe (administrative or community mandates, inability to change or to withstand pressure). It is also true that teachers may prefer students different from those they are actually teaching. (Dunn & Dunn, 1979,  p. 241)

206 Part IV  •  Curriculum Implementation

Style and method are used rather loosely in the literature, however methods are strategies and style is a preferred way of presenting oneself. Fischer and Fischer (1979) cautioned, “Style is not to be identified with method, for people will infuse different methods with their own styles. For example, lecturing is not a style, in our conception, for people with distinctive styles will infuse their respective lectures with their own unique qualities” (p. 245). Today, the practicality of standards based instruction and accountability for student learning has over taken the time consuming and imprecise matching of teaching styles and learning styles within a school. While it is acknowledged that both the students and teachers have preferred styles, the pragmatic approach is to design instruction based on the SOL and SOI, which has evidence that in doing so most learners will be reached, regardless of preferred learning style. When teachers take the initiative to differentiate instruction for individuals who have not reached proficiency on a learning target, learning styles are more easily taken into account.

ORGANIZING INSTRUCTION FOR ALIGNMENT WITH STANDARDS Chapter 9 focused on the selection of instructional goals or essential questions and instructional objectives or learning targets for instructional planning. In this chapter aligned instructional planning and design includes: curriculum objectives or standards, instructional goals or essential questions, and daily instructional objectives or learning targets, instruction, and student work evidence. Design of unit plans and lesson plans are addressed in this section. Many years ago, William H. Burton (1962) provided a definition of an instructional unit plan; “A unit is any combination of subject-matter content and outcomes, and thought processes, into learning experiences suited to the maturity and needs (personal and social) of the learners, all combined into a whole with internal integrity determined by immediate and ultimate goals” (p. 329). Burton (1962) offered an outline for a unit plan, as follows. • Title.  Attractive, brief, and unambiguous • The overview.  Brief statement of the nature and scope of the unit • The teacher’s objectives.  Understandings (generalizations), attitudes, appreciations, special abilities, skills, behavior patterns, and facts • The approach.  A brief account of the most probable introduction • The student’s aim or objective.  The major objective the learners will develop or accept • The planning and working period.  Learning activities with desired outcomes for each learning task • Evaluation techniques.  How evidence will be gathered showing that the objectives have been achieved • Bibliographies.  Books useful to the teacher and books useful to the learners • Audio-visual materials and other instructional aids with sources. (Burton, 1962, pp. 372-374) In contrast to Burton’s (1962) conception of instructional planning, a more systematic standards based process serves teachers and students better with accountability for student learning. Once the teacher or collaborative teacher team knows the instructional model to be used and the standards or learning targets to be learned, then standards based instructional planning or designing can take place. More effective instruction is probably designed when those who teach the same grade or content collaboratively plan to garner the best thinking and knowledge of each teacher. Any standards based instructional plan that reflects accountability for student learning generally will include these components, which are accompanied by brief explanations. Keep in mind that one or more standards may be incorporated in an instructional plan.



Chapter 10  •  Evidence Based Instruction 207

• Standard or curriculum objective: CCSS, SEA, LEA, school, or curriculum (e.g., Advanced Placement) • Essential question or instructional goal: Big idea • Instructional objective or learning target: Short-term measurable objective (outcome, observable) • Success criteria: Criteria or acceptable evidence against which to measure progress towards proficiency on standard or learning target • Formative assessment: Informal or formal assessment, checks for understanding to inform instruction • Summative assessment: Measure progress toward proficiency on standards or learning targets • Evidence based instructional strategies: SOL and SOI • Student learning tasks: Actions resulting in outcomes—thinking, doing, reading, and writing • Learning resources: Print, nonprint, digital, and online • Differentiation: Resources, learning tasks, strategies, time for those who are and are not proficient on the standard Designing standards based instruction is dependent upon teachers having deep understanding of the language of the target standards and the target standard’s level of rigor. In Chapter 9 various hierarchies of objectives and associated language were shared. These academic language terms are present in the standards and their understanding is critical to designing aligned instruction, student learning tasks, success criteria, and assessments at the expected level of rigor of specific standards (Taylor, Watson, & Nutta, 2014). Emphasis on academic language within the CCSS and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) is due to the analytical reasoning and writing expectations within them and across disciplines: construct logical evidence supported arguments; generate mathematical and scientific explanations and analysis; and synthesizing concepts and ideas across texts (DiCerbo, Anstrom, Baker, & Rivera, 2014). Furthermore, research on academic language instruction supports that teachers mention academic language but generally do not directly teach it, leaving students without facility in the language to be encountered (DiCerbo, et al., 2014). Without alignment of rigor and academic language at the level of the standard across the instructional plan components, when students have accountability assessments based on the standards they may not be as successful as if they had learned from an aligned systematic plan that developed their academic language. If you think about recent changes in mathematics instruction, you will recall that students are to have facility with accurate and precise mathematical language to make connections across various units of instruction (Faulkner, 2013). Faulkner goes on to provide examples such as the modeling and use of precise language with the terms digits, numbers, and numerals. Further, students need to have facility with the academic language in the standards because the same academic language is present in assessment directions and items alike (Taylor, Watson, & Nutta, 2014). Readers may notice the use of the term success criteria in the components listed for standards based instruction. Success criteria is the evidence that a teacher will accept of proficiency and is determined at the point when the learning targets and standards are identified. How will the teacher and students know when proficiency is achieved? When teachers are clear on their learning intentions and these learning intentions are made clear to the students, that is a mental model of the expectation has been created, there is a 56 percent probability (d = .56) that students will be able to meet the learning intention in contast to if the expectation was not clear (Hattie, 2009). By explicitly determining the success criteria and acceptable evidence

208 Part IV  •  Curriculum Implementation

before instruction begins amd sharing visually and orally (dual mode) with the students, along with providing a worked example or model of acceptable evidence of proficiency, then students can work towards the outcome more easily and self-monitor progress (d = .64) (Hattie, 2009; Taylor, et al., 2014). After the learning targets and success criteria are determined, the teachers are ready to develop the formative and summative assessments. Developing the assessments at this point which are aligned with the standards and learning targets will assist teachers in reducing extraneous information and increases alignment. At this point in the instructional design process teachers select the evidence based instructional strategies and resources to incorporate. Last, draft instructional differentiation for those students who need modifications of time, resources, and teacher-student ratio (Tomlinson & Moon, 2013). Notice that differentiation is not in the standard or learning target as all students are to have the same expectations. Some students will demonstrate evidence of proficiency with their work more rapidly than other students. Proficient students should be provided opportunities to go more deeply, to think at higher levels, and to complete more complex learning tasks after demonstration of proficiency (Koedinger, et al., 2012). Of importance is that proficient students do not get more learning tasks, but different ones that challenge their thinking. Helpful tools for supporting accurate alignment of instructional design, learning tasks, and assessments are on the Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment website (nciea .com). Karin Hess was both a leader and contributor to the development of specifications for CCSS and related assessments; therefore, her website has helpful resources also (karin-hess .com). On her website are aligned resources, including cognitive rigor matrices for reading, English language arts, social studies, mathematics, and other subjects that assist with the creation of student learning tasks incorporating academic language at the level of rigor of the target standard. You may have noticed that no time frame for the instructional plan is identified. If a pacing guide is not provided by the curriculum specialists or is not in the curriculum guide, then a pacing guide for all standards to be learned is needed for the school year to assure adequate time for each standard, particularly those measured on accountability assessments. Even with a pacing guide, the operative word is guide and there will be some groups of students who take less or more time to develop proficiency on target standards. CCSS Example Instructional Plan Outline In Chapter 7 you read about the organization of CCSS strands leading to standards and how cognitive complexity increases across grade levels. For this example, an outline of a standards and evidence based instructional plan uses the sixth grade Strand 3 RL Reading Literature/Making Meaning at the Text Level (RL) (Hess, 2011, p. 5). The sample standard for the outline is: cite textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text (NGA & CCSSO, 2010, p. 36). • Standard: Cite textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text. • Essential question or instructional goal: How do inferences emerge from analyses of quotes and other information within a single text? • Instructional objectives or learning targets: (a) Identify literary elements stated in the text. (b) Write inference of plot, supported by textual evidence. (Note that the lower level thinking [explicit] of the standard is listed to be learned and demonstrated first and then the higher-level thinking [infer]).

Chapter 10  •  Evidence Based Instruction 209



• Success criteria or acceptable evidence: (a) Complete the sequence graphic organizer of explicitly stated literary elements. (b) Add to the sequence graphic organizer the inferred plot. Under the plot write two quotes and two other textual evidences that led to this inference. Note, that other standards are included such as identifying literary elements, as standards are connected one to another. • Formative assessment: Check for understanding in introduction of literary elements and how evidence gives clues to inferences and thinking not stated with KWL (Graphic organizer: What do you know? What do you want to know? What have you learned?). In shared and guided practice use sample texts to practice drawing inferences and underlining supporting evidence. In independent practice individuals read new text and write the inferred plot and underline supporting evidence. • Summative assessment: On a new text, the students will write a five-sentence paragraph on the inferred plot and support the inference with at least two quotes and two other evidences from the new text. Note, that a teacher has to know that the students can write a paragraph or the assessment will measure paragraph writing instead of the target standard. • Evidence based instructional strategies: Manageable cognitive load is achieved through reducing extraneous processing, streamlining visuals, and segmenting instruction. The learning intention with success criteria is provided during the introduction. The teacher models the success criteria with worked examples (shared and guided practice, underlined literary elements and inference with evidence, five sentence paragraph model). Instructional strategies of KWL and reciprocal teaching scaffold students to independence. • Student learning tasks: Collaboratively read and underline literacy elements explicitly stated; complete sequence graphic organizer; collaboratively write inferred plot and note quotes or other evidence; read new text and complete sequence graphic organizer with supporting evidence; from the graphic organizer write a five-sentence paragraph with supporting evidence. • Learning resources: Print or digital texts for reading and writing, paper or devices for underlining, paper or digital organizers. • Differentiation: Proficient students compare use of inferences across two new texts for more cognitively complex learning tasks. Non-proficient students have small group time with the teacher during guided practice and individual support during independent practice. ELs will also have cognates in their home language to assist comprehension of text. From reviewing and analyzing this sample standards and sample evidence based instructional plan outline, you may have concluded that a sequence of instruction was developed by attending to the lower level thinking portion of the standard prior to moving to the higher level portion of the standard. That conclusion is correct and would apply to units that have several standards taught together, which is common. Logically, writing standards are taught with reading standards. While this basic outline does not include every action that a teacher would take, it does provide a framework on how standards based instructional planning may take place. Differentiated Instruction The challenge of providing for individual differences in achieving proficiency can be overwhelming with accountability for moving students through the school year’s curriculum according to school district or school pacing guides. It may be tempting to individualize expectations, so be cautious that expectations remain stable for all students. Individualization or personalization is of the instruction, but the expectation is for achievement of the same standards or learning targets,

210 Part IV  •  Curriculum Implementation

unless a student is served by a recognized program with an Individual Education Plan (IEP) that states for accommodations to be made. The Educational Research Service (2009) offered reasons to differentiate or personalize instruction for students to achieve the standards: meet needs of diverse learners, meet legal requirements; ethical teaching; and effectiveness (Bratten, 2009,  p. 3). For decades teachers have attempted to identify the most effective means of meeting the needs and interests of their students. Professional literature offers discussions and examples of ways to personalize instruction (Ferguson, Ralph, & Meyer, 2001; Keefe & Jenkins, 2005). Almost every description of effective teaching includes some reference to recognizing and caring for differences in student backgrounds, abilities, personalities, interests, and needs. Technology enhanced personalized learning holds promise to achieve success with providing each student exactly the support needed at the point of need. Such digital tools adjust for progress made by individual learners, assist with personalizing learning tasks, and provide appropriate support to each student with feedback for continuous improvement. Since the late 1990s, there have been numerous technological resources that have been marketed for personalization, particularly for intervening with nonproficient students in reading and mathematics. Many are designed in the form of games, simulations, or virtual environments with audio and visual support (dual code). Well-designed digital resources have conceptual underpinnings of the SOL, dual code, segmentation, Goldilocks, feedback, manageable cognitive load, etc., and add value by gathering data on students’ progress to assist the teacher with adjusting instruction. Speakers at the Personalized Learning Summit of February 2014 (Bobst, 2014), identified advantages in using technology to enable personalized learning for individual circumstances which included: digital assessments and analysis of data; characteristics of portability and flexibility; and performance based demonstration of proficiency. Without the use of digital resources complete individualization of learning experiences is extremely challenging for any teacher. However, in some virtual schools or learning environments students may each work alone and at their own pace with the facilitation of a teacher and readily available resources. The advancement of technology and digital tools is encouraging the development of novel and potentially ground-breaking personalization of learning experiences to aid learners in achieving at their highest possible level and in an efficient manner. Personalized instruction in the virtual education environment takes on a different meaning and is discussed in Chapter 13. Recognizing the difficulty of attending to differences in the classroom, teachers continue to search for and try out new techniques or modifications of approaches. In addition to the SOL, three general instructional approaches are included when discussions around personalization or differentiation of instruction arise. All three are interrelated, borrow from principles in the history of instruction, owe a debt to progressive philosophy, and give credence to time-honored principles of effective teaching. These three general techniques are partially incorporated in the scaffolded instruction model. There are several practices that include the philosophy of serving individual learner needs and three of the most common are summarized. • Differentiated education.  Otherwise known as differentiated classrooms and differentiated instruction. The teacher who creates a differentiated classroom environment provides multiple pathways for students to comprehend the material, to promote thinking and learning, and to produce student work that demonstrates a knowledge and understanding (­Tomlinson, 2001). • Constructivism.  The teacher who engages in constructive techniques of instruction starts with the knowledge learners bring with them to the classroom and leads students to construct new knowledge. Resembling project based learning, constructivism employs

Chapter 10  •  Evidence Based Instruction 211



thought-provoking queries and learning tasks that motivate students by developing their self-efficacy, self-regulation, and control over their learning. Constructivist teachers provide many opportunities for students to process their learnings to develop metacognition and deep understanding in long-term memory (Brooks & Brooks, 1999). • Scaffolding.  By coaching, pacing, and sequencing the learnings, and supplying help when necessary, teachers assist students to progress incrementally toward achieving objectives (Hogan & Pressley, 1997). This method is not to be confused with the scaffolded instruction model in this text. These approaches represent practices and dispositions that use a variety of ways to engage learners in achieving proficiency on the standards and learning targets. Fundamental and common to all three approaches are individualized instruction, intellectual engagement, the teacher as designer and facilitator, and interaction among the teachers and students. Collaborative Learning A considerable amount of research and experimentation transpired in the 1980s on cooperative learning, also referred to as collaborative learning. Robert E. Slavin (1989) acknowledged that the concept of cooperative learning was an old idea and went on to define it in the following manner: “Cooperative learning is a form of classroom organization in which students work in small groups to help one another learn academic material” (p. 129). In advancing his noncoercive lead-management control theory in the classroom, William Glasser (1992) supported cooperative learning, observing that “it is hard to visualize any quality school that is not deeply involved in this method of instruction” (p. 163). Slavin (1980) noted a key element of his concept of cooperative learning, group performance, when he said, “The term refers to classroom techniques in which students work on learning activities in small groups and receive rewards as recognition based on their group’s performance” (p. 315). Fran Lehr (1984) commented on the composition of groups, defining cooperative learning as “an instructional system that allows students of all achievement levels and backgrounds to work in teams to achieve a common goal” (p. 458). Related research brings to the forefront arguments about the relative merits of competition, cooperation, and individualization in the classroom. Competition among individuals for the teacher’s approval, praise, and grades; and other forms of recognition has been a practice in schools. Competition among students can produce negative effects, such as stifling motivation, especially when students cannot compete on an equal basis. David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson (1999) called attention to more than 375 studies conducted on the effects of cooperation, competition, and individualized instruction in student achievement, and concluded that cooperative learning resulted in more higher-level reasoning, more frequent generation of new ideas and solutions (i.e., process gain), and greater transfer of what is learned within one situation to another (i.e., groupto-individual transfer) than did competitive or individualistic learning (p. 203). One of the criticisms of some cooperative learning literature is that the researcher may also be the developer of a particular method. Objective research by someone who is not a principal investigator or owner of the strategy is desirable. Therefore, readers will want to make note of the researcher when outcomes and conclusions are reported on practices and products. Readers will note that not all concepts of student collaboration include group grades, but do have individual accountability. Students in learning teams of no more than five take responsibility for specific portions of the learning task, and each is accountable to share what is learned with their group in a way that group members will comprehend. Groups are to be restructured from

212 Part IV  •  Curriculum Implementation

time to time depending on the tasks to be accomplished. Robert J. Marzano, Debra J. Pickering, and Jane E. Pollock (2001) observed that “cooperative learning should be applied consistently and systematically, but not overused” (p. 88). Reminding teachers that “[a]ny strategy, in fact, can be overused and lose its effectiveness.” They concluded, however, “Of all classroom grouping strategies, cooperative learning may be the most flexible and powerful” (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001, p. 91). As you reflect on the scaffolded instruction model and evidence based instruction, think about how cooperative or collaborative learning can be implemented. Guided practice is the obvious component for implementation. Collaboration takes time and may not allow a teacher to have individual checks for understanding. Such analysis will lead an instructional designer to use collaborative learning as a part of an instructional model and not be the model. It is preferable that all students in a group take on each role in the learning task so that each has an opportunity to develop proficiency and be held accountable. In the scaffolded instruction model, the scaffold or support of others should be taken away and the students are to practice and demonstrate proficiency individually, as expected in the standards (Anderson, 2005; Rohrer & Taylor, 2007).

TEACHING: ART OR SCIENCE? The question whether teaching is an art or science has been debated since the early 1980s when research on effectiveness emerged. Foremost among those who view teaching as an art is Elliot W. Eisner (1985), whose widely known work, The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs, perceived the teacher as artist attuned to the qualities of life in the classroom and demonstrating “connoisseurship” (p. 219). David Levine (1995) proposed the use of the expression “teacher as artist” to replace “teacher as technician,” and “school as an experiment in democracy” in place of “school as factory” (p. 53). Levine (1995) held that teaching for democracy “is a complex undertaking beyond the ability of teacher as technician” (p. 54). Henry A. Giroux (1997) painted a larger role for teachers when he stated, “What classroom teachers can and must do is work in their respective roles to develop pedagogical theories and methods that link self-reflection and understanding with a commitment to change the nature of the larger society” (p. 28). Research on effective teaching in the 1970s and 1980s supported common sense principles to the effect that students learn more if teachers expect them to learn, focus on the learning target, keep students on task, provide adequate practice, monitor performance, and care about whether students succeed. The complexity of teaching is readily evident in the roles expected of the teacher. Britzman (1991) commented: “Teaching is fundamentally a dialogic relation, characterized by mutual dependency, social interaction and engagement, and attention to the multiple exigencies of the unknown and the unknowable” (p. 237). D. John McIntyre and Mary John O’Hair (1996), for example, viewed the teacher as an organizer, communicator, motivator, manager, innovator, counselor, and ethicist as well as fulfilling professional, political, and legal roles. More recently, Marzano (2007) and Dean, Ross-Hubbell, Pitler, and Stone (2012) popularized the merging of both concepts with publications of The Art and Science of Teaching and Classroom Instruction that Works respectively. As mentioned in this chapter there are now multiple sources of evidence based and research based approaches and strategies that teachers are expected to implement appropriately during instruction. The art may be when a teacher makes

Chapter 10  •  Evidence Based Instruction 213



instruction look natural and effortless, as she or he adjusts instruction in the moment depending upon how students respond to the experience. Hunter (1984) suggested that teaching is a series of decisions. Knowing when to decide to change or adjust instruction after reflection or in the moment of teaching is both science and an art, an indicator of teacher expertise.

Summary Designing standards and evidence based instruction is critical for implementation of curriculum to improve learning. Before instruction is designed, the model of instruction or the system of how instruction proceeds is to be determined. In this text, the scaffolded instruction model is used as an example as it incorporates logical steps that lead from high teacher support, to guided collaborative practice, to independent practice that is needed prior to individual assessment. It is intended to focus on the development of individual proficiency and reduce enabling by well meaning teachers. Instructional plans are designed to achieve the success criteria or evidence a teacher believes is acceptable to demonstrate proficiency on the target standard. This model of student work evidence assists in clarifying the teacher’s learning intention to the teacher and student alike. Such clarity to both improves the probability that students will indeed hit

the target as a mental model of the expectation has been provided. Once the instructional components are aligned at the rigor of the standard, students have an excellent opportunity for demonstrating proficiency as required. To assure alignment of the rigor of each component of an instructional design, teachers need proficiency with the academic language of the standards and how student work evidence reflects the specific academic language. Selecting strategies that are evidence and research supported, SOL and SOI, is important as there are misconceptions about effectiveness of some instructional practices common in classrooms. As instructional leaders, curriculum specialists, administrators, and teachers in schools are accountable for student success, you are encouraged to have facility with the research to support instructional design that provides effective and efficient learning.

Application 1. Visit several teachers’ classrooms and observe the use of SOL and SOI. How would you coach the teachers to improve evidence based practice with these two areas of research? 2. Select several of the instructional concepts on the following list, with associated authors’ last names in parenthesis, and investigate the effectiveness of each for improving student learning. a. Mastery learning (Hunter) b. Relationship between the teacher and students (Hattie) c. Differentiated instruction (Tomlinson) d. Scaffolded instruction (Taylor, et al.)

e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l.

Group Investigation (Sharan) Jigsaw (Elliott Aronson, et al.) Jigsaw II (Slavin) Similarities and differences (Marzano; Dean, et al.) Learning Together or Circles of Learning (Johnson and Johnson) Student Teams–Achievement Division (Robert E. Slavin) Team-Assisted Individualization (Slavin, et al.) Teams-Games-Tournament (DeVries and Slavin)

214 Part IV  •  Curriculum Implementation

Reflection and Inquiry 1. Examine an instructional plan to determine the extent that it is standards based and that all the components align at the level of rigor of the standard. What evidence did you discover of alignment or lack thereof? Using evidence from this and other texts, how would you revise the instructional plan to reflect alignment of all components?

2. Generate misconceptions that teachers, curriculum specialists, and instructional leaders voice and practice related to standards based and evidence based instruction. How will you provide generative feedback for improving learning by correcting these misconceptions?

Websites Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: ascd.org Community Learning Network (on integrating technology): cln.org Digital Promise: Digitalpromise.org Educational Research Service: ers.org Education World (on scaffolding): educationworld.com/a_ curr/curr218.shtml Educator’s Reference Desk: eduref.org Funderstanding: funderstanding.com/content/constructivism

International Literacy Association (ILA [formerly International Reading Association, IRA]): literacyworldwide.org International Society for Technology in Education: iste.org Karen Hess’ website with resources aligned to the rigor of CCSS: Karin-hess.com National Council of Teachers or Mathematics: NCTM.org Open Educational Resources Commons (shared materials for teaching and learning K–12 through college): ­oercommons.org Phi Delta Kappa: pdkintl.org

Podcast Leading and managing a differentiated classroom, with authors Carol Ann Tomlinson and Marcia Imbeau. Produced by Association of Supervision

and Curriculum Development: edge.ascd.org_Leading-and-Managing-a-Differentiated-Classroom/ audio/824837/127586.html

Suggested Reading Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Burden, P. R., & Byrd, D. M. (2003). Methods for effective teaching (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Cooper, J. M., (Ed.) (2003). Classroom teaching skills (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Moore, K. D. (2007). Classroom teaching skills (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Richardson, V. (2001). Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association Simkins, M., Cole, K., Tavalin, F., & Means, B. (2002). Increasing student learning through multimedia projects. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and understanding by design: Connecting content and kids. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (expanded, 2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.



Chapter 10  •  Evidence Based Instruction 215

References Apple, M. W. (1998). The culture and commerce of the textbook. In L. E. Beyer & M. W. Apple (Eds.), Problems, politics and possibilities (2nd ed.). p. 159. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Anderson, W. L. (2005). Comparison of student performance in cooperative learning and traditional lecture-based biochemistry classes. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 33(6), 387–393. Bobst, L. (Ed.) (2014). Technology enabled personalized learning summit: Findings and recommendations to accelerate implementation. Raleigh, NC: Institute for Educational Innovation at North Carolina State University. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Bratten, C. (Ed.). (2009). Differentiating instruction to help all students meet standards (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Educational Research Service. Britzman, D. P. (1991). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Burton, W. H. (1962). The guidance of learning activities: A summary of the principles of teaching based on the growth of the learner (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1997). Education on the edge of possibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Caine, G., & Caine R. (2001). The brain, education and the competitive edge. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Craig, S. D., Sullins, J., Witherspoon, A., & Gholson, B. (2006). The deep-level reasoning effect: The role of dialogue and deep-level-reasoning questions during vicarious learning. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 565–591. Dean, C. B., Hubbell, E. R., Pitler, H., & Stone, B. J. (2012). Classroom instruction that works (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. DiCerbo, P. A., Anstrom, K. A., Baker, L. L., & Rivera, C. (2014). A review of the literature on teaching academic English to English Language Learners. Review of Educational Research, 84(3), 446–482.

Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1979). Learning styles/teaching styles should they . . . can they . . . be matched? Educational Leadership, 36(4), 274. Eisner, E. W. (1985). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (2nd ed). New York, NY: Macmillan. Ellis, S. S. (1979). Models of teaching: A solution to the teaching style/learning style dilemma. Educational Leadership, 36(4), 275. Ellsworth, E. A. (1997). Teaching positions: Difference, pedagogy, and the power of address. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Farmer, L. S. J. (2004). Left brain, right brain, whole brain. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 21(2), 27–28. Faulkner, V. N. (2013). Why the common core changes math instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(2), 59–63. Ferguson, D., Ralph, G., & Meyer, G. et al. (2001). Designing personalized learning for every student. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Fischer, B. B., & Fischer, L. (1979). Styles in teaching and learning. Educational Leadership, 36(4), 245. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare teach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329. Giroux, H. A. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture, and schooling: A critical reader. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Glasser, W. (1992). The quality school: Managing students without coercion. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. Glickman, C. (2002). Leadership for learning: How to help teachers succeed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Glickman, C. D. (1998). Revolutionizing America’s schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gunter, M. A., Estes, T. H., & Schwab, J. H. (1999). Instruction: A model’s approach. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge.

216 Part IV  •  Curriculum Implementation Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. House, E. R. (1998). Schools for sale: Why free market policies won’t improve America’s schools, and what will. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hunter, M. (1984). Knowing, teaching, and supervising. In P. Hosford (Ed.), Using what we know about teaching (pp. 169–192). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Intentional Futures. (2015). Learning science & literacy: Useful background for learning designers. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition, and individualization (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Joyce, B. R. (1978). Selecting learning experiences: Linking theory and practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Joyce, B. & Weil, M. (1980). Models of teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun E. (2004). Models of teaching (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Keefe, J. M., & Jenkins, J. M. (2005). Personalized instruction. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Koedinger, K. R., Corbett, A. T., & Perfetti, C. (2012). The knowledge-instruction-framework: Bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 36, 757–798. Konstantopoulous, S. (2014). Value-added models and accountability. Teachers College Record. 116(1), p. 17290. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465–491. Lehr, F. (1984). Cooperative learning. Journal of Reading, 27(5), 458. Levine, D. (1995). Building a vision of curriculum reform. In D. Levine, R. Lowe, B. Peterson, & R. Tenorio Rethinking skills: An agenda for change, p. 53. New York, NY: The New Press. Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based

strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Mayer, R. E. (November 2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multi-media instruction. American Psychologist, 760–769. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52. McIntyre, D. J., & O’Hair, M. J. (1996). The reflective roles of the classroom teacher. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A region or proximal of learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 463–477. National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English, language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science and technical subjects: Appendix A. Washington, DC: Authors. Pahler, H., Cepeda, J. T., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2005). When does feedback facilitate learning of words? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 3–8. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. Pass, F., & Kester, L. (2006). Learner and information characteristics in the design of powerful environments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 281–285. Roediger, H. L. III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for education practice. Psychological Science, 1, 181–210. Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics practice problems boosts learning. Instructional Science, 35, 481–498. Rosenshine, B. V. (1978). Academic engaged time, content covered, and direct instruction. Journal of Education, 160(3), 38–66. Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315–342. doi: 10.2307/1170149 Slavin, R. E. (1989). Cooperative learning and student achievement. In R. E. Slavin. School and classroom organization, p. 129. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sousa, D. A. (2001). How the brain learns: A classroom teacher’s guide (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Sprenger, M. (1999). Learning & memory: The brain in action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Stronge, J. H. (2002). Qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Taylor, R. T. (2007). Improving reading, writing, and content learning for students in grades 4–12. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Taylor, R. T. (2010). Leading learning: Change student achievement today! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Taylor, R. T., Watson, R., & Nutta, J. (2014). Leading, teaching, and learning the common core standards:

Chapter 10  •  Evidence Based Instruction 217 Rigorous expectations for all students. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Tomlinson, C. A.,& Moon, T. R. (2013). Assessment and student success in a differentiated classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Wolfe, P. (2001). Brain matters: Translating research into classroom practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

This page intentionally left blank

A01_OLIV0387_09_SE_FM.indd 1

3/21/18 8:28 PM

PART

V

Evaluation of Effectiveness Chapter 11

Evaluation of Instruction

Chapter 12

Evaluation of Curriculum

219

CHAPTER

11

Evaluation of Instruction Learning Outcomes

ASSESSING INSTRUCTION

After studying this chapter, you should be able to: 1. Provide ­leadership for ­developing ­pre-­assessments, ­formative ­assessments, and summative assessments. 2. Analyze the alignment of formative, ­summative, and ­accountability ­assessments with ­standards or instructional objectives and their ­specifications, including directions and items. 3. Design test and evaluation items in the three domains of learning. 4. Contrast traditional assessment with ­performance based assessment.

COLLABORATIVE ASSESSMENT PLANNING

220

Just as teachers may collaboratively plan instruction, it is helpful if they also collaboratively plan assessments for the grade or courses that are common to them. This way the expectations are the same and the official accountability outcomes should reflect the ongoing teacher made assessment results. Evaluation of instruction could be expanded to read, evaluation of instruction through the assessment of student learning. In one sense, evaluation of instruction is evaluation of the effectiveness of the instructor, but that is not the purpose of this text. From the perspective of developing the curriculum, which includes the implementation of the instruction, the question of instructional effectiveness is about alignment of the components of instruction and assessment. If all are aligned at the same level of rigor using specifications of the standard or instructional objective, and if the teacher’s academic language is consistent across these components, then the expectation would be that students demonstrate moving towards proficiency on the standard and objective (Taylor, Watson, & Nutta, 2014). Alignment as described of the standards’ specifications and test items’ specifications, learning tasks, and assessment items would result in a valid assessment of student progress for making instructional decisions (Chappuis & Stiggins, 2008; Fives & Barnes, 2017). Teachers may have limited preparation for developing aligned and valid assessments; however, expertise can be developed through professional learning, feedback, and practice (Fives & Barnes, 2017). In another sense, evaluation of instruction is a component of the evaluation of the curriculum as in program evaluation or the evaluation of the curriculum achieving the intended outcomes. Resulting evaluation reveals the success of one dimension, how well ­students learn in areas that are assessed. The evaluation may also indicate whether the standards have been addressed with enough time, appropriate resources, and/or instructional differentiation. Evaluation of curriculum will be examined in the next chapter; however, it is easy to see, that evaluation of instruction, teacher performance, and curriculum are intertwined.



Chapter 11  •  Evaluation of Instruction 221

Chapter 10 addressed instructional planning, followed by implementation, data gathering, and using data to inform adjustments to instruction. In this chapter the focus is on using data to evaluate if the instructional goal and instructional objectives have moved students to proficiency.

ASSESSMENT Evaluation. Assessment. Measurement. Testing. Accountability. These words are heard with great frequency in both public and professional circles. Specialists in measurement, evaluation, and data analysis are in great demand due to the access to digital tools and data gathering. Although this era began some time ago, its tempo began to increase considerably in the mid-1970s. In the past few years, the movement’s emphasis and the sources of its impetus have changed somewhat. Testing has driven evaluation ever since Edward L. Thorndike conceptualized the first standardized tests. The CCSS assessments, Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT), and other assessments are household words in the USA in much the same way the nonstandardized baccalaureate tests are in France. As early as the late 1950s and early 1960s, William H. Whyte Jr. (1956), Martin Gross (1962), and Banesh Hoffman(1962) were all pointing to the dangers of mass testing. Whyte and Gross were particularly concerned about personality testing, and Hoffman was critical of typical standardized multiple-choice formatted tests. Currently, states busily engage students in high-stakes testing or accountability assessments that can result in consequences in the form of retention in grade or even failure to graduate from high school. In some states and school districts the tests are high stakes because the results are a part of teachers’ and administrators’ annual evaluations and may even be career threatening. Condemning test driven school reform, Monty Neill (2003), executive director of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, observed, “high-stakes testing . . . undermines good schools and prevents real improvement” (p. 45). However, the Westchester Institute for Human Services Research (2003) found that high-stakes accountability reform can improve student achievement and can help to narrow the achievement gap at a comparatively low financial impact as compared to current movements such as reducing class size. The terms evaluation, assessment, measurement, testing, and accountability may evoke strong feelings; some for and some against. There are educators and parents who would banish the use of standardized and nonstandardized assessments, because they believe the assessments set an imposed, predetermined curriculum. Some view assessments as measuring insignificant learnings and destructive to students’ self-concepts. On the other hand, if legislation effected by state and national representatives reflects the public’s views, it may be concluded that the public supports continuing efforts related to assessment and accountability. Whatever the perspective, it is abundantly clear that standardized assessment will remain. Definition of Terms At this point, the meaning of the main terms used in this chapter are clarified. These are evaluation, assessment, measurement, and testing. Evaluation and assessment are used interchangeably in this text to denote the general process of appraisal. Measurement and testing are subsumed under the general classifications of evaluation and assessment. Measurement is the means of determining the degree of achievement of a particular competency. Testing is the use of instruments for measuring achievement. Thus, measurement and testing are ways of gathering evaluation and assessment data. However, there are means other than testing to assess student performance. When assessing a student’s performance of a competency,

222 Part V  •  Evaluation of Effectiveness

performance may not be measured. Measurement implies a degree of precision and observable behavior. In this chapter, basic understanding of evaluation of instruction is the intent, not a full exploration of measurement, evaluation, testing techniques, and the by-products of evaluating instruction, marking and reporting.

STAGES OF PLANNING FOR EVALUATION You will note, in referring to the Oliva model for curriculum development, that Component IX on the selection of evaluation techniques is divided into two parts: IX A, Preliminary selection of evaluation techniques, and IX B, Final selection of evaluation techniques. This separation was made to convey the understanding that planning of evaluation techniques takes place both before and after instruction. However, this dualistic separation is an oversimplification as teachers should always be assessing instruction and making adjustments. To be more precise, evaluation decisions should be interspersed throughout any instructional model. In contrast, the Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development for standards and evidence based instructional plan development shows the development of formative and summative evaluation at the point the success criteria are determined. This is an important difference in the models to provide for alignment of the learning intention and way that progress towards proficiency on the learning target or standard is met. This order of decision making also assists in the alignment of the instructional strategies and student learning tasks to be selected. Three Phases of Teacher Developed Evaluation Whether teachers plan instruction collaboratively with colleagues or not, the same encouragement to collaborate and process applies to the development of assessments. If the assessments are collaboratively developed they would be called common assessments, because students learning the same standards or learning targets have proficiency measured with the same assessments. If this concept is applied, then comparisons among groups of students can be made, student work samples examined, and teachers can assist one another in improving their teaching effectiveness. Most teachers incorporate three phases of evaluation in one manner or another: • preassessment; • formative evaluation; and • summative evaluation. These terms are technical words to connote evaluation that takes place before instruction (preassessment), during instruction (formative), and after instruction (summative). Tomlinson and Moon (2013) clarified that assessment for instruction is to provide evidence and data to inform the teacher’s instructional decision making to improve student learning outcomes and assessment of instruction is summative, demonstrating a student’s progress towards mastery of the intended learning outcome. PREASSESSMENT.  Preassessment possesses a dual nature. Walter Dick and Lou Carey (1985) described two types of tests that precede instruction (p. 109). These two types are an ­entry-behaviors test and a pretest. The entry-behaviors test is “a criterion-referenced test designed to measure skills which have been identified as being critical to beginning instruction”



Chapter 11  •  Evaluation of Instruction 223

(Dick & Carey, 1985, p. 109). This type of preassessment is conducted to determine whether students p­ ossess the prerequisite knowledge that will enable them to proceed with the new learning. The pretest is “criterion-referenced to the objectives the designer intends to teach” (Dick & Carey, 1985, p. 109). Criterion-referenced tests, discussed later in this chapter, measure students’ achievement not by how well they compare with their classmates but by how well they master predetermined instructional objectives or learning targets. The entry-behaviors (or entry-skills) test covers prerequisite learnings, whereas the pretest covers subject matter to be learned. A pretest alone is not sufficient, for if students do poorly on a pretest, the instructor cannot tell whether the students did poorly because they did not know the material to come (acceptable) or did not have the prerequisite knowledge or skills (not acceptable). Some means of judging possession of prerequisite skills is essential. Lack of prerequisite skills or knowledge calls for instruction before proceeding to new content. Some teachers use a pretest and posttest technique comparing scores made by students before and after instruction. W. James Popham (2006) warned, however, of the pitfalls of the pretest and posttest strategy (p. 129). Preassessment can be much more than a test. It can be as simple as collaboratively generating a K-W-L chart (what do you know, want to know, and still need to learn?) (Snow & O’Conner, 2013; Ogle, 1986). In standards based instruction teachers may have a sequence of instructional standards that provides the summative data from the previous instructional unit that serves as data on readiness of the students to proceed with the new standards to be learned. This advantage of standards based instruction saves time that can be devoted to instructional differentiation to move more students to proficiency and others to achieving beyond the standard. FORMATIVE EVALUATION.  Formative evaluation consists of the formal and informal techniques, including testing, that are used during the period of instruction. Progress monitoring assessments are illustrations of formative evaluation. Formative and monitoring assessments may be commercially obtained by a school or school district, or developed by teams of curriculum and assessment specialists in schools or school districts. Benjamin S. Bloom, J. Thomas Hastings, and George F. Madaus (1971) advised instructors to “break a course or subject into smaller units of learning” and to administer “brief diagnostic progress tests” (p. 53). Keep in mind that these assumptions are based on formative assessments that are aligned to the target standard or instructional objective, including the academic language used. Written directions that students are taught to read individually and assessment items are to have academic language from the learning target, just as do formal accountability assessments. If a common formative assessment, the teachers involved should agree to procedures for administering the assessment to assure that the outcomes are meaningful related to student learning and not to procedures for the formative evaluation. Think about this third-grade instructional objective and the assessment to determine proficiency. The objective is: convey how the illustration promotes understanding of the story’s character, setting, or message. The teacher collaborative team made an assessment which had no written directions, because they provided them orally. The assessment item related to this learning target was: tell about the character from the picture on page 6. Think forward five months to the accountability assessment that the third-grade students took. At that time, teachers could not provide instructions and third grade students had to read the directions and items by themselves or independently as noted in the scaffolded learning model. The instructions and the items used academic language from the standard and said: “Which of the choices best conveys the character’s

224 Part V  •  Evaluation of Effectiveness

actions in the illustration?” Students selected from several choices. How do you hypothesize that the students performed on this item? Unless the students were taught very early how to read directions, were expected to read directions independently, and to learn the academic language of the objectives or standards upon which they were measured, it may be that they did not perform well. In this case the teachers did not model nor use the academic language of the standard and yet students were measured based on their knowledge of the same academic language. Academic language will be in the accountability assessment and therefore should be in formative and summative assessments, including directions, made by teachers. Through formative evaluation and progress monitoring, teachers intervene as needed so that differentiation takes place for more students to achieve proficiency and more to go beyond proficiency on the terminal (summative) evaluation. Formative evaluation, whether formal or informal, enables teachers to monitor student learning outcomes with evidence or data and make instructional adjustments. The more frequently students are tested and if they receive feedback about accuracies and inaccuracies, followed by correction of their misconceptions, there is a high probability that they will learn more and perform well on the related summative evaluation. This science of learning principle is named the testing effect (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). If students are tested and do not receive feedback as described, then there would not be an expectation that learning would improve (Wiliam, 2011). Feedback, not testing improves learning outcomes. SUMMATIVE EVALUATION.  Summative evaluation or posttest is the assessment that takes place at the end of a course or unit. While a summative evaluation may be a performance, product, or application of knowledge and skills, it may also be a test. Its major purpose is to find out whether the students have mastered or achieved proficiency on the standards or learning targets of the preceding instruction. The same precepts about development of formative assessments with alignment to the standard or learning target and incorporation of academic language holds true. Through analysis of the data yielded by the students’ results, teachers can determine exactly which of the steps towards proficiency students need to be retaught and who is ready to go beyond the standard. Readers may wonder about differentiating assessments for learners. Tomlinson and Moon (2013) advocate for differentiation of instruction and the ensuing assessments. The purpose is to engage students to go deeply in their learning, using the best approach for individuals and groups. It makes sense then that students should be able to show what they know in the manner in which they can do it the best. While this thinking is logical, it may work best for non-accountability assessment objectives, or schools that do not take written standardized or accountability assessments based on specific standards, such as charter schools and independent schools. For instance, if a student creates an interpretive dance to communicate understanding of turmoil in a particular region of the world, that could be very motivating and an exceptional opportunity using the student’s strengths. On the other hand, if items related to regions of the world in turmoil are included on an end of course exam or accountability assessment and the student did not have the opportunity to follow up the interpretive dance with written analysis aligned to the standards or objectives and specifications, the student may not have a positive accountability assessment result. Generally, instructional differentiation is the time, instructional strategies, resources, and studentteacher ratio and not the expectations, standards, or learning targets. Having offered this caveat, if time permits for students to generate understanding using their strengths and then transfer the strengths to using language in written form as may be found on accountability assessments, the best possible learning and demonstration of learning may occur.



Chapter 11  •  Evaluation of Instruction 225

NORM-REFERENCED MEASUREMENT AND CRITERION-REFERENCED MEASUREMENT Norm-Referenced Measurement Two divergent concepts of measurement compete for the attention of instructors. Norm-referenced measurement is the classic approach to assessment in which a student’s performance on a test is compared to the performance of other students who took the test. Following this principle, standardized tests of achievement are administered and norms—standards of performance—are calculated for various groups who took the tests. The scores made by students who subsequently take the tests are compared to those made by the population on whom the test was standardized or normed. As an example, teachers follow the same principle if they measure the achievement of one student against or in relationship to that of other students in a class or course. As a general example of this approach to measurement, the teacher will administer a test, calculate the scores, rank the scores from highest to lowest, find the middle score (the median, which becomes a C grade), and then grade all other tests in relationship to that middle grade. In this nonstandardized situation, students are ranked in relationship to performance of that particular group on that particular test. Standardized normed tests sort students, rather than measure each performance against a standard or criteria to be achieved. Readers should not interpret that this practice of ranking students around the median in a class or course is a recommended practice. Criterion-Referenced Measurement Since the norm-referenced approach to measurement is common and universally practiced, it might be asked, “What other approach is there?” Criterion-referenced measurement is the alternative to norm-referenced measurement. In this approach, the performance of students is compared to criteria or specifications that were established in the standards or instructional objectives/ learning targets. A student’s success on a criterion-referenced test depends on demonstrated proficiency and not on his or her performance as related to others in the class, course, grade, school, school district, or state. CCSS assessments are criterion-referenced assessments as they are standards based. The standards have specifications that guide the development of the assessment items and should also guide the development of the associated instruction. If you link instruction to assessment, then criterion-referenced assessment is recommended for teacher made classroom assessments. Among the practitioners of criterion-referenced measurement are the instructional-design specialists and the school district, state, and national assessment specialists. These persons desire to know whether students achieve proficiency on specific standards. High-stakes accountability assessments are classic examples of criterion-referenced exams. The National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment (NCIEA) (nciea.org) provides support and has resources for those interested in this area of expertise, including SEAs. This knowledge base and skill set represent a growing professional need in schools, school districts, and organizations. Comparison of the Two Types of Measurement Popham (2002) identified “the most fundamental difference” between norm-­referenced measurement and criterion-referenced measurement approaches to educational measurement as the nature of the interpretation that is used to make sense out of students’ test performance (pp. 110–111). With norm-referenced measurement, educators interpret a student’s performance in relation to

226 Part V  •  Evaluation of Effectiveness

the performance of students who have previously taken the same exam. In contrast, a criterionreferenced interpretation is an absolute interpretation because it hinges on the extent to which the criterion assessment domain represented by the test, sections of the test, and items are achieved by the student. On the surface, norm-referenced tests look no different from criterion-referenced tests. Popham (1973) saw differences in the construction of items for the two types of tests as a matter of set: The basic differences between item construction in a norm-referenced framework and item construction in a criterion-referenced framework is a matter of “set” on the part of the item writer. . . . When an individual constructs items for a norm-referenced test, he tries to produce variant scores so that individual performances can be contrasted. . . . He disdains items which are “too easy” or “too hard.” He avoids multiple choice items with few alternative responses. He tries to increase the allure of wrong answer options. He does all of this to develop a test which will produce different scores for different people. . . .  The criterion-referenced item designer is guided by a different principle. His chief purpose is to make sure the item accurately reflects the criterion behavior. Difficult or easy, discriminating or indiscriminate, the item has to represent the class of behaviors delimited by the criterion. (Popham, 1973, p. 30)

James H. McMillan offered a helpful comparison of these two approaches as shown in Table 11.1. One of the comparisons in the table is level of difficulty of the items, which McMillan

TABLE 11.1 Characteristics of Norm-Referenced and Criterion-Referenced (Standards Based) Assessment Norm-Referenced

Criterion-Referenced (Standards Based)

Interpretation

Score compared to the performances of other students

Score compared to predetermined ­standards and criteria

Nature of Score

Percentile rank; standard scores; grading curve

Percentage correct; descriptive ­performance standards

Difficulty of Test Items

Uses average to difficult items to obtain spread of scores; very easy and very difficult items not to be used

Uses average to easy items to result in a high percentage of correct answers

Use of Scores

To rank order and sort students

To describe the level of performance demonstrated

Effect on Motivation

Dependent on comparison group; competitive

Challenges students to meet specified learning target

Strengths

Results in more difficult assessments that challenge students

Matches student performance to clearly defined learning targets; lessens competitiveness

Weaknesses

Grades determined by comparison to other students; some students are always at the bottom

Establishing clearly defined learning targets; setting standards that indicate mastery

Source: From J. H. McMillan, Classroom assessment: Principles practices for effective standards-based instruction (2007). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.



Chapter 11  •  Evaluation of Instruction 227

indicates are easier in the criterion-referenced items to show more students being successful. In the CCSS related assessments this is not the case. The items on these assessments are to the specifications of the standards and therefore the challenge is dependent upon the level of rigor of the standard, with no intent to make items easy. The model of curriculum, instruction, and assessment in this text is for alignment of the learning intention/rigor and academic language across all components of the system. In this text the specification of instructional objectives is in a central position and, therefore, leans toward a criterion-referenced approach to classroom testing. This point of view, however, does not eliminate the use of standardized tests in the school or the use of norm-referenced teacher-made tests for the purposes they can fulfill. It does eliminate the use of a norm-centered approach to classroom testing that permits teachers to adopt a misconceived philosophy of the normal curve and to generate scores that reflect a normal distribution of grades ranging from A through F on every test. Such a practice violates the philosophy of the normal curve, which holds that traits are distributed at random throughout the general population and no single class is a random sample of the general population. Therefore, to hold A grades to a mere handful, to assign some students automatically Fs, to grant a certain percentage of Bs and Ds, and to assign about two-thirds of a class to the so-called average or C grade is not a defensible practice. Because of its long history of usage, the norm-referenced approach is reasonably well understood by administrators, teachers, students, and parents. Further, imbued with a sense of competition, many parents invite the kinds of comparisons that are made under a norm-referenced system. Among the proponents of norm-referenced testing are standardized test makers, those who advocate competitive grading, those who have a need to screen or select persons (for example, college admissions officers), those who draw up honor rolls, admission committees of honorary societies, and those who award scholarships. Norm-referenced testing is necessary when a limited number of places are to be filled from a pool of applicants in excess of the number of places and when only a limited number of awards are to be distributed among a group of aspirants. Its purpose is to discriminate among the results of the individuals. If you consider the analogy of the smiling or frowning face, the norm-referenced advocate frowns when all students pass an exam because it does not discriminate between high and low achievers. The criterion-referenced advocate wears a broad smile when all students pass an exam or demonstrate proficiency, because students have met the expectation and the teacher has demonstrated effectiveness.

EVALUATION IN THREE DOMAINS Instructional Objectives, as discussed in Chapter 10, have been classified into three domains—the cognitive, the affective, and the psychomotor. Although an instructional objective may possess elements of more than one domain, ordinarily it will exhibit the primary characteristics of one of the three domains. Given that instructional objectives may not fall neatly into a single domain should not dissuade teachers from assessing students’ performance in the various domains. Each domain presents its own unique evaluation problems. Following are some illustrations of test items for the major categories of each domain. Psychomotor Domain Objectives in the psychomotor domain are best evaluated by actual performance of the skill being taught. For example, if you want students to be able to swim 100 yards without stopping, they are required to demonstrate the expertise. More criteria or specifications may be needed, such as to swim 100 yards in x number of minutes. To pass the test, students would have to satisfy that criterion.

228 Part V  •  Evaluation of Effectiveness

Teachers make some judgmental calls when students are asked to demonstrate perceptualmotor skills. Form and grace might be considered in the 100-yard swim as well as completion or speed of completion. Evaluative judgments, usually with criteria based rubrics, are made when students are asked to demonstrate the ability to make a mobile in art class, to design a website in a web-design class, to create a balanced menu in a nutrition class, to model an overhead volleyball serve in a physical education class, or to administer artificial respiration in the first-aid course. Beyond the simple dichotomy, performance or nonperformance (pass fail, satisfactory unsatisfactory), of a skill assessment lie such factors as speed, originality, and quality. The teacher may choose to include these criteria as part of the assessment process. When judgmental criteria are to be used, they should be communicated to the students in advance to create clear learning targets and a mental model of success. The teacher will find it helpful to identify as many indicators of the criteria as possible. For example, in the case of the mobile made in art class, indicators of quality might be durability, precision of construction, neatness, and detail. There are times when teachers settle for a cognitive recounting of how the student would demonstrate a perceptual-motor skill, but that is not the correct way to measure performance. Ideally, psychomotor skills should be tested by actual performance. Because of lack of time or facilities, it is not always possible for every student to demonstrate every skill. For example, students in home arts are working together and may have baked an apple pie. A final examination item might be, “List the steps you would take in making an apple pie.” Although not satisfactory from a pedagogical point of view, recounting steps demonstrates knowledge, but not application nor performance. TEST ITEMS OF THE PSYCHOMOTOR DOMAIN.  Here are examples of test items for each of the seven major categories of the Simpson (1972) taxonomy of the psychomotor domain.

1. Perception.  Distinguish between an s and a z sound. 2. Set.  Demonstrate how to hold a fishing pole. 3. Guided Response.  Make computer-generated mailing labels, following the teacher’s explanation. 4. Mechanism.  Saw a six-foot two-by-four into three pieces of equal size. 5. Complex Overt Response.  Perform an auto tune-up. 6. Adaptation.  Sketch a new arrangement for the furniture of a living room. 7. Origination.  Paint an original landscape in watercolors. (Simpson, 1972, pp. 43–56) These test items call for actual performance. Observe that all seven could equally be instructional objectives and have a perfect alignment between the objectives and the test items. On the other hand, take the following psychomotor objective: “Objective for high school physical education: The student will demonstrate skill in swimming.” Is this objective at the same time a test item? This objective is broad, complex, and without a stipulated degree of mastery. Although it is an objective desired by the physical education instructor, it is difficult to convert into a test item as it currently stands. Establishing a series of subobjectives from which we could derive the test items would help. For example, the student will demonstrate how to: • • • • •

dive into the pool; tread water; float face down; float face up; do the breaststroke;

Chapter 11  •  Evaluation of Instruction 229



• do the freestyle; and • swim underwater the width of the pool. The instructor might limit appraisal of the students’ performance in these skills to satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Cognitive Domain Achievement in the cognitive domain is ordinarily demonstrated in school by student performance on written tests administered to a group. To administer individual written or oral tests on a regular basis would require an excessive amount of time. In the past teachers may have been directed to evaluate students across the six levels of the Bloom taxonomy of the cognitive domain, using various kinds of items. Now, depending upon if there are standards or instructional objectives identified, it would be expected that students would be evaluated at the level expected of the standard or instructional objective, but not at all six levels. For example, if the standard says to identify the main idea of a text, then the standard and assessment would be at the knowledge level. On the other hand, if the standard said to analyze the text and determine the author’s purpose, the instruction and assessment should be at the cognitive level of analysis. TEST ITEMS OF THE COGNITIVE DOMAIN.  Whereas objective items sample knowledge of

content on a broad scale, written performance assessments or essays have different purposes. Depending upon the item itself, the written performance assessment may sample limited content or may ask the test taker to apply or synthesize from several sources. Such written performance assessments also provide information about the student’s ability to organize his or her thoughts, write coherently, and use conventions of grammar. The specifications or criteria for the standard or objective determine the depth and breadth of both written performance assessment items and objective items. Recall the SOL generation effect that when students generate responses or create responses they achieve more than if they select a response, such as with multiple choice items (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). In CCSS related assessments students are expected to generate responses and demonstrate thinking at Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK) levels 3 and 4 that require analysis, synthesis, and complex thought (Herman & Linn, 2014). Level 1 items require recall and comprehension and level 2 items are applications and analysis, such as to infer. The following sample test items show ways that several objectives in the cognitive domain (Bloom, et al., 1956) can be assessed. You may notice that even though the examples are within a level on Bloom’s taxonomy, there may be pre-requisite knowledge, skills, or proficiency required such as writing. 1. Knowledge (recall) List three systems of the human body. What is the capital of your state? Complete the story sequence graphic organizer. Multiple Choice: 4 divided by 12 = a. 2 b. 4 c. 6 d. 8

230 Part V  •  Evaluation of Effectiveness

2. Comprehension (understanding) Summarize the author’s point of view. According to the first paragraph on page two, what is meant when a person says, “Now you’ve opened Pandora’s box”? Multiple Choice: A catamaran is a ____. a. lynx b. boat c. fish d. tool 3. Application Illustrate the law of supply and demand with three examples from your own ­experience. Create a word problem that represents the student variables in this class. Apply the USA Constitutional concept of “the greater good” to the student code of ­conduct. 4. Analysis In a 5- to 7-sentence paragraph analyze the use of figurative language by Tennyson, supported by evidence from the poem. Generate three methods for solving this word problem and distinguish attributes of each method. 5. Synthesis After analyzing the characterizations and events in the passage, write a two-sentence synthesis of the theme. Since the 1980s, the use of digital tools for communication has developed at a rapid rate. In three sentences synthesize the history of the development of digital tools for communication. 6. Evaluation Evaluate the author’s use of figurative language, based on the criteria of improving comprehension and developing interest. Evaluate the methods for coming to group decisions, based on efficiency and quality of decisions. Judge the efficiency of the three methods for solving the equation that you generated, based on criteria of accuracy and efficiency. As you glance over the sample items, be sure to notice the academic language in the items and the alignment to standards. You will most likely reflect that the most common levels of cognition incorporated by teachers you observe are at the two lowest levels, although assessments have progressed to include more items at the application through evaluation levels. The mismatch in teacher made assessment items and the expectation of the standards can account for less than acceptable performance on accountability assessments. Note that in the evaluation level there are criteria given upon which to evaluate (Taylor, Watson, & Nutta, 2014). Also, it may be of interest that items requiring written responses are specific so that the students can meet the expectation and not guess at how much to write. The types of test items selected depend on the standard as the specifications generally provide clarity for how to measure proficiency. The type of item may also depend upon the teacher’s

Chapter 11  •  Evaluation of Instruction 231



purpose and the amount of time that can be devoted to the test. If writing is required either alone or in conjunction with objective items, sufficient time is to be provided for students to organize their answers and to respond fully to the items. Evidence from examination of teacher made tests, shows that items requiring more thinking and written responses are at the end of a test, and students may be fatigued. If the items that require the most thinking and writing are at the beginning of the assessment, then students may demonstrate greater proficiency, allowing for more valid data upon which to make instructional and curricular decisions. Teachers may choose any of the numerous types of tests: actual performance, written, or one or more objective tests such as multiple choice, alternate response, completion, matching, or re-arrangement. Table 11.2 shows seven forms of classroom assessment with the level of usefulness, high, medium, or low, for the various types of learning assessments (Marzano, 2000). For purposes of example, think about reasoning and the creation of reasoned arguments now expected of students. Which assessment types would have high, medium, and low usefulness? For which kinds of learning do forced choice items have high, medium, and low usefulness? Affective Domain Generally, the terms testing and measurement are not used in reference to the affective domain. As stated earlier, student achievement in the affective domain is difficult and sometimes impossible to assess. Attitudes, values, and feelings can be deliberately concealed; learners have the right to hide personal feelings and beliefs, if they so choose. Affective learnings may not be visible in the school situation at all. The achievement of objectives in the affective domain, therefore, though important in education, cannot be measured or observed like objectives in the cognitive and psychomotor domains. To evaluate the affective domain of attitudes, dispositions, and behaviors students are observed, listened to, and engaged in conversation. Thus, some affective behaviors are

TABLE 11.2  Types of Assessment Items and Formats Related to Usefulness Types of Items

Essay

Short Written Response

Oral Reports

Performance Tasks

Teacher Observation

Student Self-Assessment

M

H

H

H

H

M

H

Process Topics

L

M

L

M

H

H

H

Thinking and Reasoning

M

H

M

H

H

L

H

Communication

L

H

L

H

H

L

H

Nonachievement Factors

L

L

L

L

M

H

H

ForcedChoice

Informational Topics

Aspects

Key: H = high, M = medium, or L = low usefulness. Source: Robert J. Marzano, Transforming classroom grading (2000). Alexandria, VA: McRel & Association for Supervision and ­Curriculum Development.

232 Part V  •  Evaluation of Effectiveness

apparent. Teachers can spot them and if needed, affective objectives with planned strategies can be accomplished. They are constantly demonstrating affective behaviors—positive and negative—outside of school, where the teacher will never have occasion to observe them. Are the students helpful at home? Do they protect the environment? Do they respect other people? Who can tell for sure without observing the behavior? Students may profess to behave in certain ways to please the teacher or others and then turn around and behave far differently outside the classroom. Following the Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (1964) taxonomy of the affective domain, review some affective objectives that contain ways for evaluating achievement. • Receiving.  The student expresses an awareness of friction among various student groups in the school. • Responding.  The student volunteers to serve on a school culture committee in the school. • Valuing.  The student expresses a desire to achieve a positive school culture. • Organization.  The student controls his or her temper in class. • Characterization by Value or Value Complex.  The student expresses and exemplifies in his or her behavior a positive outlook on life. (Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964) ASSESSMENT ITEMS OF THE AFFECTIVE DOMAIN.  The model of an agree or disagree attitude inventory is a means frequently used to determine achievement of affective objectives. These types of questions reveal a basic problem in teaching for affective learning. If the teacher or test maker has preconceived notions of the correct responses, he or she is operating in a vague zone between achievement of affective outcomes and indoctrination. Further, remember that students can and sometimes do respond to attitudinal questions as they believe the teacher or test maker wishes them to respond, rather than as they feel or perceive. The attainment of affective objectives can be discerned by instruments such as opinionnaires or attitude inventories, by observation of the behavior of students, and by questions or art work that ask students to state their beliefs, attitudes, and feelings about a given topic. Perhaps, instead of thinking of using instruments that seek to discover students’ attitudes and values through an accumulation of items administered test-fashion, think more of asking frequent value-laden questions and listening to students’ responses. Instead of leveling a continuous barrage of factual questions, teachers can interject questions such as: How do you feel about . . . ? What do you believe about . . . ? Would you be interested in . . . ? Take a postion for or against.

PERFORMANCE BASED ASSESSMENT Students can demonstrate achievement both during and at the end of instruction through means other than typical examinations or tests. For example, synthesis in the cognitive domain can be tested by means of writing paragraphs, completing graphic organizers, or many other ways depending upon the specifications of the standard or the learning target. Competency in synthesizing can also be tested by written reports during the period of instruction or by papers at the end of instruction. A skilled teacher can tell a good deal about students’ success by observing their classroom performance. Individual and group oral reports may be assigned for a variety of purposes, including testing the ability to speak, knowledge of the subject, and, in the case of group activities, the ability to work together. Alternative techniques of evaluation other than examinations include student logs, reports, essays, notebooks, simulations, demonstrations, construction activities, self-evaluation, and portfolios.



Chapter 11  •  Evaluation of Instruction 233

Many teachers employ practices collectively known as performance, performance based, or authentic assessment, basically a personalized approach to demonstration of prespecified outcomes. In discussing performance assessment Popham (2006, p. 243) distinguished between the terms authentic assessment (real-life tasks) and alternative assessment (alternatives to traditional paper-and-pencil testing at that time). Some advocates of performance based assessment would substitute authentic measures for typical teacher-made and standardized tests. Others would supplement traditional testing with alternative techniques. Horace’s School as envisioned by Theodore R. Sizer (Sizer, 1992) would require demonstrated “Exhibitions” of performance to earn a high school diploma. Alternative Assessment Describing “most traditional standardized tests” as “poor predictors of how students will perform in other settings” and “unable to provide information about why students score as they do,” Linda Darling-Hammond (1995) criticized standardized tests for not providing “information about how children tackle different tasks or what abilities they rely on in their problem-solving” (p. 7). An example of a widely practiced form of alternative assessment is the use of portfolios to show evidence of student accomplishment by assembling samples of their work. Portfolios may contain creative writings, tests, artwork, reflective essays, notes on topics, and whatever other materials portray achievement. Portfolios containing a generous sampling of students’ work can reduce the pressure from testing. Portfolios, unlike standardized tests, are judged by qualitative rather than quantitative means. Portfolios have the advantage of being able to include evidence from all three domains and are used regularly in the non-core subjects, like art, music, and dance. On the positive side, portfolios tie in directly with content studied in a class. They offer a means of informing parents and caregivers of the accomplishments of students. They provide an opportunity for students to assess their own performance. Further, they can evoke a feeling of pride on the part of students whose portfolios are done well. On the negative side are the disadvantage of the lack of reliability in grading and the time required for teachers to evaluate individual portfolios. Subjective and objective factors such as completeness, number of items, quality, neatness, attractiveness, effort, relevance, individuality, and creativity may enter evaluation. Like other products that reflect achievement, standards or criteria should be set in a rubric or grading system that is easy for students to understand and apply. Qualitative assessment, often called holistic or subjective assessment, has appealed to many teachers in recent years. Teachers who assess students’ creative efforts such as essays and portfolios look at the product in its entirety, gaining impressions of quality while eschewing analytical treatment of grammar, style, spelling, syntax, and sentence structure. Teachers who assess holistically believe that analytical treatment of a student’s work discourages further effort on the student’s part. Performance based principles of assessment may affect not only homework and grading of student work but also the grading system itself. Glasser (1992) would not place Cs, Ds, or Fs on a student’s permanent transcript, in effect, eliminating symbols of failure. A +, A, and B would attest to quality performance. Students who do less than quality work, designated by a temporary C, would be given the opportunity to raise the quality of their work and, therefore, their grades (pp. 104–111). Marzano (2000) took the position that “a single letter grade or a percentage score is not a good way to report achievement in any subject area, because it simply cannot present the level of detailed feedback necessary for effective learning” (p. 106). Describing an alternative report card with no overall grade, Marzano (2000) admitted that “overall letter grades or percentage

234 Part V  •  Evaluation of Effectiveness

scores are so ingrained in our society that it is best not to do away with them at this time” (p. 109). Instead, he recommended “an interim step: a report card that includes scores on standards along with overall grades” (Marzano, 2000, p. 109). The presence of alternative assessment measures is testimony to conflicting conceptions of evaluation and, indeed, of schooling itself. Heated debate over testing, coupled with controversy over the setting of standards, centers around the issue of whether or not to continue to use quantifiable means of student achievement. Feedback Evaluation yields data that provide feedback about student achievement and the instructional program. It is not sufficient for evaluative data to be used solely for measuring student achievement. Using the data from assessments to inform instructional decisions is the purpose for classroom teachers. Teachers need to know who learns under which conditions, and how much time it takes—based on data and evidence. The data and evidence serve as feedback on each person’s personal professional effectiveness for the standards or objectives measured. Even if overall students do extremely well, teachers should use the data to reexamine their teaching and perhaps the expectations should be raised related to the evidence expected to demonstrate proficiency. There are instances in which the mean or average outcome of a monitoring or formative assessment increases, but the variance remains the same. In other words, more students are more successful but there continues to be a wide variation in achievement with some students not making expected progress towards proficiency. Data analysis at the classroom level should focus on each individual making progress and not on the mean or general increase alone. The goal is to raise the mean and reduce the variance if in fact the achievement is to increase and close any achievement gaps that exist. Maybe the instructional goals and objectives are too low; students may have been capable of achieving higher levels of thinking (Bloom, et al., 1956) or more complex thinking (Webb, 2007). If a test was administered, the test itself may not have been valid—may not have measured the standard or objective as it was written. The items may have been too low level or too high level, or they may not have measured the essential objectives. At the implementation stage, the instructor may have omitted some crucial points and thereby left some objectives unachieved. The results of evaluation provide evidence for making changes in the instructional process if analyzed. As teachers gather feedback on student progress, it is then beneficial to use for providing students feedback on their progress. When feedback on individual student performance and progress is used as an instructional strategy, Tomlinson and Moon (2013) refer to assessment as instruction. Furthermore, there is continual scientific evidence that testing has a positive effect on later learning and retrieval from long-term memory, when teachers or software provide students with immediate corrective feedback or the correct worked example immediately after taking a test, and consider testing an instructional strategy (McDaniel, Anderson, Derbish, & Morrisette, 2007). In this use of assessment as instruction through feedback students develop metacognition (d = .56) on how they learn and how they are progressing (self-monitoring [d = .64]) based on data and evidence; they can become more independent self-regulated learners. Feedback that is helpful with a high effect size (d = .72) is close to the student learning task, specific about what was done correctly and why the work is correct, what is incorrect and how to make it correct (Pahler, Cepeda, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2005; Taylor, Watson, & Nutta, 2014). According to Wiliam (2011) feedback as described is much more motivational and helpful to improve learning than any



Chapter 11  •  Evaluation of Instruction 235

grade or comment. Developing self-regulation among learners through feedback, building their confidence in their own decision making about learning will continue to increase in importance as more students are learning through virtual and distance technologies. Instructional leaders are wise to provide data sessions for discussion of the progress all students are making towards proficiency in each classroom and to support each teacher’s continued improvement in effectiveness (Taylor, 2010). Data and evidence analysis at the classroom level is the precursor to cumulative data analysis at the grade or course level, the school level, and the school district level. Adjustments informed by the data and evidence at the classroom level improve the larger cumulative data results. Once there is summative data, it is too late to make adjustments in learning for a cohort of students. Susan Brookhart (2008) sums up thinking on feedback by pointing out that it plays an important role in serving students’ cognitive and motivational needs. If done right, “good feedback gives students information they need so they can understand where they are in their learning and what to do next—the cognitive factor. Once they feel they understand what to do and why, most students develop a feeling that they have control over their own learning—the motivational factor” (Brookhart, 2008, p. 2.). Assessment Initiatives Beyond the School SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT TEST (SAT).  The Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) helps to

predict students’ success in college. Established in 1947 by the Educational Testing Service, more than 1.7 million students took the SAT in 2017 (College Board, 2017). Due to its popularity, the SAT is now used by over 6,000 member colleges and universities worldwide in the admissions process. As of 2017, the essay is now optional and the scoring has returned to a 1600-point scale. Depending on the admissions criteria that are established at the institution, the essay may be taken into consideration for acceptance. AMERICAN COLLEGE TESTING PROGRAM (ACT).  Today, the ACT tests students in five areas: English, mathematics, science, reading, and writing (ACT, 2016). Developed in the 1950s as an alternative to the SAT, the ACT is widely accepted by four-year colleges and universities and is administered globally to students who want to attend college and universities in the USA. The ACT has a core philosophy aligned to a set of ACT College and Career Readiness Standards and to supporting students to be college and career ready. The number of high school seniors taking the ACT has steadily increased and in 2016 it was almost 2.1 million or 64 percent of the graduating class in the USA (ACT, 2016). Also, the ACT serves students by helping them to determine programs of study by providing a means for them to determine which college to attend (ACT, 2016). NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS (NAEP).  In 1964, with the backing

of the Carnegie Corporation, Ralph W. Tyler and the Committee on Assessing the Progress of Education began to develop criterion-referenced tests for nationwide assessment. The NAEP is the only national assessment that is funded directly by the United States Department of Education that is a measure of national student achievement by grade, content, and disaggregated by student demographic variables. Due to this development, the federal government contracted with the Education Commission of the States and created the NAEP in 1969. The goal of the establishment of NAEP was to monitor achievement in 10 learning areas and to assess change in achievement

236 Part V  •  Evaluation of Effectiveness

over the years. Information gathered from NAEP was then to be reviewed and used by policymakers to institute change in public education (Resnick, 1980, pp. 3–29). Reports known as The Nation’s Report Card, are issued regularly and may focus on a particular grade level or subject measured. For example, one released in 2016 focused on Technology and Engineering Literacy. The Commissioner of Education Statistics, head of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. Department of Education, serves as administrator of the assessment program. The number of students tested depends on whether the NAEP is being conducted as a national-only sample or as a combined state and national sample. In a national-only test the NAEP uses approximately 10,000 to 20,000 student samples. In a combined national and state sample, roughly 3,000 students are chosen to test from between 45 to 55 jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction has approximately 100 schools (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011). Reassessments are conducted periodically and The Nation’s Report Card showing national and state results is issued to the public after each assessment. NAEP reports national scores of students in grades 4, 8, and 12. Data are reported by gender, race/ethnicity, region of the country, parents’ highest level of education, type of school, type of location, and eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch programs. In addition to reporting data on a nationwide basis, NAEP conducts and reports state assessment data for those states participating in the program. Advocates of national assessments argue that national testing will require schools throughout the nation to examine their instructional techniques and curricula, particularly the basic disciplines, and to take action to correct deficiencies revealed by the results. This argument was behind the federal funding of the development of two CCSS assessments in the Race to the Top initiative. While some states have based their accountability assessment on the two models, there remains no one national assessment that all students take. Those who oppose national assessment argue that national testing will result in a national, common curriculum that cannot adequately provide for differences that exist among schools and among students in various communities. One benefit that can be gained for curriculum developers and data analysts would be that they could make comparisons of their local and state assessment data against national norms. At this time, within school district comparisons and within state comparisons are possible on state accountability assessments, but not necessarily on the NAEP nor other tests that students may take. International Assessments Since the Pilot Twelve-Country Study was conducted from 1959 to 1962, the United States has participated in international assessments of student achievement. The purpose of the Pilot TwelveCountry Study was to determine the feasibility of conducting a much larger-scale examination that would produce results that could be used to improve instruction on a multinational basis. Conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), the initial study has led to an aggressive effort to gather data in a variety of instructional areas so that teaching and learning can be improved cross-culturally (NCES.gov.) Of the many international assessments, information on the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) is shared due to its comprehensive nature, its breadth of data collection, and its four-year cycle of implementation. Also, information is presented on the Progress in International Reading Literacy Studies (PIRLS) due to its cyclical nature, the large participation of countries throughout the world, and its emphasis on reading. TIMSS.  The TIMSS has served as the most comprehensive study of its kind since 1995, when

more than a half million students were tested in 41 countries, including some 33,000 in public and



Chapter 11  •  Evaluation of Instruction 237

private schools in the USA at the fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade levels. The study compared scores made by students in mathematics and science (Department of Education, 1997, p. 11). Following are a few of the findings of TIMSS in 1995 that will serve as foundational for comparisions to later testing data. • USA fourth-graders score above the international average in science and are outperformed only by students in Korea. U.S. fourth-graders score above the international average in mathematics (Department of Education, 1997, p. 56). • USA eighth-graders score above the international average in science and score below the international average in mathematics. USA eighth-graders are outperformed in both subjects by Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, Singapore, and Slovenia (Department of Education, 1997, p. 52). • USA twelfth-graders scored below the international average and among the lowest of the 21 TIMSS nations in both mathematics and science general knowledge in the final year of secondary school (Takahira et al., 1997, p. 28). The 2015 TIMSS administration in mathematics included 49 countries with East Asian countries achieving the best: Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea, Chinese Taipei, and Japan. In the fourth and eighth grades USA students’ scores remained in the higher achieving group from 1995–2015. The gap between the East Asian countries’ mean achievement and the next high performing countries has widened over the time of the test administration (TIMSS and PIRLS Study Center, 2016a). Of the 47 countries with fourth-grade science results, the USA students ranked ninth. Singapore, Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Finland, Poland, Chinese Taipei, Russian Federation, and Kazakhstan outperformed the USA. Like in mathematics, achievement is improving around the world; however the performance of USA students remains the same. Of note is that over time, the gap between males and females is being reduced in science achievement (TIMSS and PIRLS Study Center, 2016b). PIRLS.  The PIRLS provides trend data on reading performance of fourth grade students. Two

studies, one in 1991 and another 10 years later in 2001, revealed the following data about the reading literacy skills of USA students. • In 1991, nine-year-olds were rated at the top of the list of 32 larger countries on the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement study on reading literacy during the school year 1991–1992. 14-year-olds came in second, just below France (U.S. Department of Education, 1994). • In 2001, assessing fourth-graders in 34 participating countries, the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study of 2001 (PIRLS), a follow-up of the 1991 study and the first in a projected five-year cycle, reported USA fourth-graders in ninth place, performing significantly above the international average on the combined literacy scale and outperforming their peers in 23 of the 34 countries. Of the top performers, Sweden, the Netherlands, and England, in that order, headed the list, scoring significantly higher than their counterparts in the USA (U.S. Department of Education, 2003). In 2011, PIRLS was administered again and Singapore was the only country achieving high on international benchmarks in reading, science, and mathematics. Other countries that achieved highly in mathematics and science and also achieved highly in reading: Finland, Russian Federation, Chinese Taipei, and Hong Kong (Mullis, 2012). In reading the USA fourth grade students achieved high benchmarks just behind the countries noted (Mullis, 2012).

238 Part V  •  Evaluation of Effectiveness

The USA participates in several international studies that assist policy makers in setting goals, funding research, and funding targeted grant proposal opportunities for higher education and school districts. While the internationally tested students in the USA perform competitively, many interpret the data within the context and philosophy of schooling in the USA. That is, in the USA all students are expected to achieve and with that expectation those assessed are representative and not sorted prior to assessment administration. This philosophy of supporting all students to achieve at high levels may not be either a philosophy nor a practice in other countries who appear to perform well. The historical discussion that follows may provide other perspectives for understanding the international testing implications. Historical and Contextual Perspectives  Those who interpret the data can fault the philosophy, the process, and the findings. They can single out positive or negative aspects to emphasize. In spite of the difficulties in interpreting the data, stakeholders in the USA are interested in how students do on international assessments, particularly in the light of the previously proclaimed America 2000 goal of having our students rank first in the world in mathematics and science. Gerald W. Bracey (2002) cautioned against comparing results students made on assessments conducted by one organization with those of another organization’s assessment results. In particular, he singled out the National Assessment for Educational Progress, whose test results he held to be invalid and not according with test results of other organizations. Giving examples, he stated: American 9-year-olds finished second in the world in reading among 27 nations in How in the World Do Students Read? [IEA study, 1991] Yet only 32% of fourth-graders were judged proficient or better in the 2000 NAEP reading assessment. Similarly, American fourth-graders were third in the world on the TIMSS science [1995], but only 13% were judged proficient or better on the 1996 NAEP science assessment. (Bracey, 2002, p. 143)

Bracey (2006) later pointed to the gains made by American eighth-graders shown by TIMSS between 1995 and 2003. He noted that whereas the scores of students in 13 out of 22 nations had declined in mathematics, only 3 small countries (Latvia, Lithuania, and Hong Kong) made greater gains than the much larger United States, which serves so many more students. Further, whereas scores of students in 12 of the nations declined in science, those of American eighth-graders rose (Bracey, 2006, p. 156). In his first report on the condition of public education, Bracey (1991) speaking of “the big lie about public education”—commented, “[international] comparisons have generated much heat, but very little light” (p. 113). Bracey later maintained there are difficulties in making comparisons. For example, in 2006, students from the USA ranked 24 out of the 30 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations in mathematics and 17 out of 30 in science. In determining the ranking, Bracey points out that our scores are based on a national average. The average does not paint the full picture, because in the USA all students go to school and are tested; therefore they are included in data, and if the USA were to report only highest-scoring students on the science test, they would account for 25 percent of the highest students in the world followed by Japan with 13 percent (Bracey, 2009). International assessments reveal how difficult it is to make comparisons of student achievement across cultures and to account for variations. Differences among nations that may affect scores include curricula, instructional strategies, political and social conditions, length of school year, time allocated to studies in school and at home, proportion of young people in school,

Chapter 11  •  Evaluation of Instruction 239



number of students per teacher, motivation of students, dedication of parents to education, and traditions. Whether from international or other assessments, test scores do signal strengths and weaknesses. They provide data upon which to triangulate with other evidences for hypothesizing next steps and priorities for curriculum development.

Summary In the past, evaluating instruction was generally perceived to take place at the end of the instructional process. With standards based curriculum, the standards and their specifications provide clarity on the content, rigor, complexity of thinking, and item types on which students will be expected to demonstrate proficiency. Teachers should develop their evaluations at the time they identify their success criteria for the standard or learning target. With a system of standards or instructional objectives that develop from grade to grade and course to course, teachers have some insight into the proficiencies students have when they begin the school year. This assumption is based on stability of the students, teachers, and administrators within the school and may not hold true in contexts with high mobility of these populations. Preassessments that are easy to administer to determine students’ prior knowledge are helpful to inform instructional decision making. Evaluation that takes place during the process of instruction is referred to as formative or monitoring and provides important evidence and data for reteaching, accelerating, and/or providing additional learning experiences through various modes. Summative evaluation is evaluation that comes at the end of instruction, as represented in a final examination, unit

exam, or end of course exam. Formative and summative assessments may be developed commercially, by an individual or teams of teachers, or by an educational organization such as a publisher. Distinction is made between norm-referenced measurement in which a student’s achievement on tests is compared to other students’ achievement and criterion-referenced measurement in which a student’s achievement is compared to a predetermined criterion of mastery or proficiency. Norm-referenced tests are used when selection must be made from among a group of persons. Criterion-referenced tests are used to determine whether students achieved the objectives that were specified in advance. The major purpose of evaluating instruction is to determine whether or not students accomplished the objectives. Instructors should keep in mind that there are numerous techniques other than testing for evaluating student performance. Good pedagogy calls for a diversity of evaluation techniques, as appropriate. Feedback is an important feature of the scaffolded instructional model. On the basis of evidence and data, teachers revise instruction, resources, time, and pedagogy. Evaluation is perceived as a continuous process.

Application 1. Gather several formative assessments. Examine the clarity of written directions and alignment of the items to the target standard or instructional objective to which they relate. As an instructional leader, how will you assure that the standards or instructional objectives are aligned with the assessment instructions, rigor demonstrated,

and language within the assessment? How will you assure that teachers know how to analyze the data to determine at which learning point individual students had misconceptions and were derailed? 2. Interview several teachers and ask them to show their classroom data and how they have adjusted

240 Part V  •  Evaluation of Effectiveness

instructional decisions and/or differentiated instruction based on the data and evidence. How did these data change or not change as a result

of the follow up adjusted instruction? What did students do for learning tasks who had achieved proficiencies on the first assessment?

Reflection and Inquiry 1. Distinguish between quantitative and qualitative assessment and how each can be used to enhance learning. Which are incorporated and to what extent in your state, school district, or school accountability system for student learning?

2. As an instructional leader, how do you influence appropriate development and implementation of assessments, followed by use of assessment data to inform instructional decisions?

Additional Resources Invest Videos of Model Classrooms and Coaching: www. lipscomb.edu/ayers/invest/ These resources are excellent models of teaching, leading, and of coaching in various classrooms, grade levels, and content areas. Ciofalo, J. (2005). Balanced assessment: Enhancing learning evidence centered teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Brookhart, S. (2010). Formative assessment strategies for every classroom: An ASCD action tool (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and ­Curriculum Development. More than 60 tools with tips and implementation steps on formative assessments for every grade level and every subject area.

Websites American College Testing Homepage: www.act.org American Educational Research Association: www.aera.net American Institutes for Research: www.air.org The Collegeboard Homepage: www.collegeboard.org Educational Testing Service (ETS): www.ets.org Intel Foundation: www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/­ corporate-responsibility/intel-foundation.html The Nations Report Card—National Assessment of Educational Progress: http://nationsreportcard.gov

National Center for Education Statistics: http://nces .ed.gov National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment: www.nciea.org National Education Association: www.nea.org Progress in International Reading Literacy Study: www. pirls.org Third International Mathematics and Science Study: timss. bc.edu/index.html

Suggested Reading Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D. (Eds.), Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Boston, MA: Kluwer ­Academic Publishers.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.), Englehard, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay. Bookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Kubiszyn, T., & Borich, G. (2009). Educational testing and measurement: Classroom application and practice (9th ed.). Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

McMillan, J. H. (2004). Classroom assessment: Principles and practices for effective instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Petit, M., & Hess, K. (2006). Applying Webb’s depth of knowledge and NAEP levels of complexity in mathematics. Retrieved from www.nciea.org/publications/ DOKmath_KH08.pdf

Chapter 11  •  Evaluation of Instruction 241 Reynolds, C. R., Livingston, R. B., & Willson, V. (2006). Measurement and assessment in education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Webb, N. L. (2006). Identifying content for assessing student achievement. In S. M. Downing & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (­Chapter 8). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

References ACT (2016). The condition of college and career readiness 2016. Retrieved from act.org Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) et al. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. White Plains, NY: Longman. Bloom, B. S. Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Bracey, G. W. (1991). Why can’t we be like we were? Phi Delta Kappan, 73(2), 104–117. Bracey, G. W. (2002). The 12th Bracey report on the condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(2), 135–140. doi:10.1177/003172170208400209 Bracey, G. W. (2006). The 16th Bracey report on the condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 151–166. doi:10.1177/003172170608800213 Bracey, G. W. (2009). The 19 th Bracey report on the condition of public education. doi:10.1177/003172170208400209 Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Chappuis, S., & Stiggins, R. (2008). Finding balance: Assessment in the middle school classroom. Middle Ground, 12(2), 12–15. College Board. (2017). SAT summer administration in 40 years is just days away. Retrieved from www​ .­collegeboard.org Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Falk, B. (1995). Authentic assessment in action: Studies of schools and students at work. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Department of Education. (1997). Attaining excellence: A TIMSS resource kit. Washington, D.C.: Office of Reform and Dissemination, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1985). The systematic design of instruction. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Fives, H., & Barnes, N. (2017). Informed and uninformed naïve assessment constructors’ strategies for item selection. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(1), 85–101.

Glasser, W. (1992). The quality school: Managing students without coercion (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Perennial. Gross, M. L. (1962). The brain watchers. New York, NY: Random House. Herman, J., & Linn, R. (2014). New assessments, new rigor. Educational Leadership, 71(6), 34–37. Hoffmann, B. (1962). The tyranny of testing. New York, NY: Crowell-Collier. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Maasia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals: Handbook II, affective domain. White Plains, NY: Longmans. Marzano, R. J. (2000). Transforming classroom grading. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. McDaniel, M. A., Anderson, J. L., Derbish, M. H., & Morrisette, N. (2007). Testing the testing effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4–5), 494–513. Mullis, I. V. S. (2012). Profiles of achievement across reading, mathematics and science at 4th grade. Boston, MA: Boston College. Retrieved 1.11.17 from timssan.d.pirls .bc.edu National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). What is NAEP? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Neill, M. (2003). The dangers of testing. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 45. Ogle, D. (February, 1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading in expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 564–570. Pahler, H., Cepeda, J. T., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2005). When does feedback facilitate learning of words? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 3–8. Popham, W. J. (1973). Evaluating instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Popham, W. J. (2002). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

242 Part V  •  Evaluation of Effectiveness Popham, W. J. (2006). Assessment for educational leaders. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. Resnick, D. P. (1980). Minimum competency testing historically considered. Review of Research in Education, 8, 3–29. doi:10.2307/1167122 Roediger, H. L. III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for education practice. Psychological Science, 1, 181–210. Simpson, E. J. (1972). The classification of educational objectives in the psychomotor domain. Washington, DC: Gryphon House. Sizer, T. R. (1992). Horace’s school: Redesigning the American high school. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Snow, C., & O’Conner, C. (2013). Close reading and far reaching classroom discussion: Fostering vital connection. A policy brief from the literacy research panel of the international reading association. Retrieved from www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/ where-we-stand/close-reading-policy-brief.pdf Takahira, S., Salganik, L. H., Frase, M., & Gonzales, P. (1997). Pursuing excellence: A study of U.S. twelfthgrade mathematics and science achievement in international context. Initial findings from the third international mathematics and science study. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Taylor, R. T. (2010). Leading learning: Change student achievement today! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Taylor, R. T., Watson, R., & Nutta, J. (2014). Leading, teaching, and learning the common core standards:

Rigorous expectations for all students. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. TIMMS and PIRLS Study Center (2016a). TIMSS 2015 results in mathematics. Boston, MA: Boston College and International Association for the Evaluation in Educational Achievement. Retrieved from http:/timss2015. org TIMMS and PIRLS Study Center (2016b). TIMSS 2015 results in science. Boston, MA: Boston College and International Association for the Evaluation in Educational Achievement. Retrieved from http:/timss2015.org Tomlinson, C. A., & Moon, T. R. (2013). Assessment and student success in a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. U.S. Department of Education. (2003). The condition of education 2003. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003073.pdf. U.S. Department of Education. (1994). How in the world do students read? Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Webb, N. L. (2007). Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and assessments. Measurement in Education, 20(1), 7–25. Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Indianapolis, IN: Solution Tree. Westchester Institute for Human Research. (2003). High stakes testing. The Balanced View, 7(1). Retrieved from www.sharingsuccess.org/code/bv/testing.pdf. Whyte, W. H. (1956). The organization man. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

CHAPTER

12

Evaluation of the Curriculum PURPOSES AND PROBLEMS OF CURRICULUM EVALUATION Curriculum evaluation’s purpose is to ascertain the alignment of the curriculum with the aims, mission, vision, goals, objectives, and policies in a school district, school, or education organization. Additionally, there may be times when an individual school would invest in curriculum evaluation in the same manner as a school district or school organization might. Depending on the target of the evaluation, data and evidence gathering may include teachers, administrators, students, stakeholders, school personnel, and/or experts in various fields, including curriculum. Instructional evaluation discussed in Chapter 11, is an assessment of (a) students’ achievement, (b) the instructor’s performance, and (c) the effectiveness of an approach or methodology. Curriculum evaluation includes instructional evaluation and transcends beyond the purposes of instructional evaluation into assessment of the curricular programs and related areas. Years ago, Albert I. Oliver (1965) listed five areas of concern that call for evaluation. “The five Ps,” as he termed them, are program, provisions, procedures, products, and processes (p. 306). Another P that should be added is for policy, as policies represent the official statements of the organization and are the foundation upon which decisions are made. Results or student learning outcomes may also be added to the list as a seventh P for performance, since student learning is the ultimate intention of curriculum. Evaluation is the means for determining the needs for improvement, acknowledgement of achievements, and providing a basis for effecting that improvement.

Learning Outcomes After studying this chapter, you should be able to: 1. Describe several processes for evaluating the curriculum. 2. Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of at least two models of curriculum evaluation. 3. Select and apply a model of curriculum evaluation using publicly available resources.

Evaluation Challenges Education is vulnerable to criticism because of ineffective decision making or decision making based on faulty data, due to the lack of consistently high quality and objective evaluations. Implementations of curriculum, including standards based curriculum that is included in accountability systems, should be evaluated to determine the extent to which the curriculum implementation has improved student learning.

243

244 Part V  •  Evaluation of Effectiveness

Asking, “Who is learning, under which circumstances, and to what extent?” drives the evaluation deeper than a single result for the aggregated population. Does the mean increase and the variance narrow? Examples of digging more deeply may include disaggregating data to determine effectiveness and return on investment (ROI) of innovations implemented in your school district or school, such as: • • • • • • • • •

interdisciplinary teacher collaboration; integrated curricula among disciplines; nongraded student progression; standards based instruction and assessment; inductive or deductive reasoning; personalized learning; common teacher made assessments; student collaboration; and one-to-one (1:1) (one digital device per student and instructional staff member) initiatives.

It is not uncommon for conclusions reached about the success of educational innovations to have been based on very limited or invalid evidence, data gathering, or analysis. The lack of systematic evaluation may be attributed to a number of causes. Careful evaluation can be very complicated. It requires expertise on the part of the evaluators and, therefore, preparation in evaluation and research. Further, evaluation is time and energy consuming, and may be expensive. Daniel L. (Stufflebeam, et al., 1971, pp. 4–9) observed that evaluation often suffered from the following symptoms. 1. The avoidance symptom—Because evaluation seems to be a painful process, everyone avoids it unless absolutely necessary. 2. The anxiety symptom—Anxiety stems primarily from the ambiguities of the evaluation process. 3. The immobilization symptom—Schools have not responded to evaluation in any meaningful way. 4. The skepticism symptom—Many persons seem to argue that there is little point in planning for evaluation because “it can’t be done anyway.” 5. The lack-of-guidelines symptom—the notable lack of meaningful and operational guidelines. 6. The misadvice symptom—Evaluation consultants, many of whom are methodological specialists in educational research, continue to give bad advice to practitioners. 7. The no-significant-difference symptom—Evaluation is so often incapable of uncovering any significant information. 8. The missing-elements symptom—[There] is a lack of certain crucial elements needed if evaluation is to make significant forward strides. The most obvious element is the lack of adequate theory. (Stufflebeam, et al., 1971, pp. 4–9) The Oliva Model for Curriculum Development in Chapter 5 was conceptualized as consisting of four components as presented in Figure 12.1, Components of the Oliva Model for Curriculum Development with Feedback Loop, included curriculum goals, curriculum objectives, organization and implementation of the curriculum, and evaluation of the curriculum. A feedback line connects the evaluation component with the goals component, making the model cyclical in nature. However, the expectation for evaluation to maximize impact is that feedback is ongoing to inform revision of the aims, goals, and objectives of both curriculum and instruction along with professional learning and instructional implementation as found in the Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development. The components of the Gordon Tayor Model that related to evaluation are found in Figure 12.2, the Gordon Taylor Curriculum Model of Data and Evidence Informed Continuous Improvement.

Chapter 12  •  Evaluation of the Curriculum 245



FIGURE 12.1

Curriculum Evaluation

Curriculum Goals

Curriculum Evaluation

Curriculum Evaluation

Organization and Implementation of the Curriculum

Curriculum Objectives

Components of the Oliva Model for Curriculum Development with Feedback Loop

Evaluation of the Curriculum

Curriculum Evaluation

FIGURE 12.2

Data and Evidence (feedback to continuously improve)

Standards, Specifications, and Assessments (vertical and horizontal organization guides) Professional Learning and Implementation (instruction, learning tasks, assessments, feedback to students, differentiation, intervention)

Gordon Taylor Curriculum Model of Data and Evidence Informed Continuous Improvement

246 Part V  •  Evaluation of Effectiveness

Distinguishing this model from others is the emphasis on implementation of the curriculum with its components of the instruction, student learning tasks, feedback, classroom and monitoring assessments, and then informed differentiated instruction and intervention. See Figure 12.2 for the conception of continuous data and evidence informed improvements in all curriculum system components to support positive changes in teacher effectiveness and student learning in a nimble manner. In the era of accountability for improved student learning outcomes, it is essential for usable and accurate feedback, in the form of data and evidence, to be provided rapidly to inform curricular and instructional decisions in the curriculum development and implementation (instructional) components. Waiting for summative or several years of data to be gathered is too late for students to improve and too late for educators’ personnel evaluations that may include student learning outcomes. Evaluation of curriculum is not something done solely at the end of a program’s implementation, but is instead a process that takes place before, during, and at the end of the implementation. It should be ongoing, meaning that a designee should have responsibility for oversight and not just a designee identified when a formal time limited evaluation is required for a specific purpose, such as accreditation or an award application. Curriculum evaluation begins with policies and should always be informing the curriculum goals and curriculum objectives, as well as the instructional goals, instructional objectives, implementation fidelity, resources, professional learning, and other pertinent components.

EVALUATION Comparison of Instructional and Curriculum Evaluation Instructors and curriculum planners may believe that assessing the achievement of instructional objectives constitutes curriculum evaluation. Thus, if students achieve the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning targets, the curriculum is considered effective. This position causes the mistake of equating curriculum with instruction. However, instruction and curriculum are not the same. The instructional process may be very effective whereas the curriculum’s components may not be aligned. It is wise to evaluate the curriculum for instructional evaluation may reveal that students are achieving the instructional objectives; consequently, unless you evaluate the curriculum, the standards or curriculum objectives, you may find you are effectively teaching unimportant or misconceived topics. The primary purpose of curriculum evaluation is to determine whether the curriculum goals and curriculum objectives are being carried out with fidelity or as intended. Yet, you also want to discover if the curriculum is the right curriculum and if the instructional implementation is aligned with achieving the desired outcomes for specific students. You may want to investigate if the resources used are the most effective and efficient for the intended learners; that is, do they support individuals and groups to maximize their achievement in a reasonable timeframe? Do graduates experience success after graduation and are they college and career ready? To what extent do you follow up with graduates during the first 5 or 10 years after graduation? Although you may have college acceptance rates, you may want to add college persistence rates to your curriculum evaluation. And, are the curricular programs cost-effective or are there other approaches that would provide a greater return on investment (ROI)? To what extent is the professional learning that prepares teachers and instructional leaders on curriculum and instruction initiatives accomplishing the expectations and at what cost? As instructional leaders charged with improving student learning and maximizing benefit from the scarce resources, human, fiscal, and temporal, these questions can yield helpful data and evidence.



Chapter 12  •  Evaluation of the Curriculum 247

Comparison of Evaluation and Research Evaluation is the process of making judgments; research is the process of gathering data to make those judgments. Whenever data are gathered to answer questions, you are engaged in research. However, the complexity and quality of research differ from question to question. As an example, a principal may wish to know how many books the school media center has per student and the checkout rate per student. As an example of more complex research ask if students with learning disabilities perform more effectively when they are in self-contained classes or when they are placed in an inclusion model? Most ambitious of all are longitudinal studies such as the National Education Longitudinal Study that monitored a nationally representative cohort of tenth-grade students as they completed high school and postsecondary school while moving into the work force (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.). The field of evaluation often calls for the services of specialists in evaluation and research. Some large school districts employ personnel to direct, conduct, and supervise curriculum evaluation for their school districts. These researchers and evaluators bring to the task a degree of expertise not shared by many educators and curriculum planners. School districts that do not hire their own evaluation personnel invite outside consultants, perhaps from a local university or organization such as McREL International that specializes in research and providing services to school districts, including curriculum evaluation and help with curriculum problems. In fact, 15 regional research laboratories and 7 national centers are funded by the United States government for this purpose with a goal to assure improved learner outcomes (www.mcrel.org/). However, most evaluative studies are conducted by the local curriculum specialists, instructional leaders, and teachers. Even in large school districts that employ curriculum evaluators, many curriculum evaluation tasks are performed in collaboration with teachers, instructional leaders, and curriculum planners. If local resources are employed for evaluation purposes in your context, consider accessing and using publicly available research and evaluation documents, reports, and tools available at the national and regional centers and from other federally funded sites, such as the What Works Clearinghouse (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/). Such resources have objective and scientific research reports on individual implementations, as well as widely disseminated and implemented commercial products. Examples of such reports include online tutoring for mathematics and algebra, and reading intervention. Another site that may be valuable is the National Center for Educational Research (NCES) (http://ies.ed.gov/ncer/) which provides resources for assisting with research and evaluation methodologies, data presentation for various audiences, and grant opportunities that may be of interest. Whether you are engaging outside consultants or have internal evaluators, consider developing an understanding of evaluation models and processes aligned with standards of evaluation so that you have an evaluation outcome that meets your expectations (Yarborough, Shulh, Hopson, & Carruthers, 2011).

EVALUATION MODELS Models have been developed showing the types of evaluation that may be carried out and the processes to be followed. As in the case of models of instruction and of curriculum development, evaluation models differ in detail and in the points that their creators include for various evaluation purposes. Those who direct curriculum evaluations, whether from inside or outside the school district, should possess a high level of expertise and be well grounded in curriculum, instruction research, and assessment. They are to be familiar with accepted approaches to research and evaluation

248 Part V  •  Evaluation of Effectiveness

so that the findings are valid and evidence supported (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009; Gay, Mills, & ­Airasian, 2012). Another example of how the value and dependability of the findings for informing curricular decisions can be enhanced is to create and administer surveys and other instruments from an accepted research approach as found in Dillman, Smyth, and Christian (2009). Indicative of the level of complexity in curriculum evaluation is the surprising number of approaches. Stufflebeam (2001), for example, discussed 22 evaluation approaches in his book Evaluation Models. John D. McNeil (2006) affirmed that “the field of evaluation is full of different views about its purposes and how it is to be carried out” (p. 199). This chapter is designed to sensitize the reader to the complexities of curriculum or program evaluation, to describe a few selected models of curriculum evaluation, and to direct your attention to other sources of information and models. For purposes of this text, you will examine a basic approach to curriculum evaluation. Then, you will engage with a frequently cited, well-known Comprehensive Model developed by the Phi Delta Kappa National Study Committee on Evaluation (Stufflebeam, et al., 1971). Basic Approach ASSESSMENT OF CURRICULUM OBJECTIVES OR STANDARDS.  Recall that Chapter 8 described

curriculum goals or big ideas and curriculum objectives or standards and distinguished them from instructional goals or essential questions and instructional objectives or learning targets. Recall also that curriculum objectives were described as specific, measurable, programmatic statements of outcomes to be achieved by students as a group in the school or school district. Drawing on previously specified nonmeasurable curriculum goals, curriculum objectives pertain to programs, or standards in specific content, and refer to accomplishments of groups of students (all students, students in general, most students, groups of students) rather than the achievement of individual students. Curriculum evaluation assesses programs directly and individual student performance indirectly. Instructional evaluation assesses individual students directly and programs indirectly. It may be advantageous to incorporate instructional evaluation within the curricular evaluation so that the findings reflect data study on the effectiveness for whom, such as student subgroups and individuals, rather than just in general. The most fundamental approach to curriculum evaluation is the assessment of achievement of the specified curriculum objectives or standards. Both qualitative and quantitative methods can yield valuable data and evidence. One or the other alone may limit the depth of understanding of the results, such as disaggregating large data sets only, without follow up qualitative inquiry. Observations, surveys, portfolios, data banks, and test results are all resources for gathering evaluative data. A few examples are noted with potential methods of evaluation. • Students will demonstrate proficiency in using selected software applications (samples of student work, observation). • The high school dropout rate will decrease by 10 percent (archival data, disaggregated by demographic variables, statistics). • Use will increase in media center print and nonprint resources (electronic data on who [students and teachers] accesses which resources: online resource access, in person checkout, school media center circulation data). • Eighth-grade students will increase proficiency on the End of Course (EOC) Algebra I assessment (test results, disaggregated by standard, student subgroups, schools, and teachers).

Chapter 12  •  Evaluation of the Curriculum 249



Curriculum planners determine whether the programmatic (i.e., curricular objectives or standards) objectives have been achieved. If the curriculum objectives or standards have been reached, planners would then identify next steps by specifying new curriculum objectives or standards and establishing new priorities. If the curriculum objectives or standards have not been met, through analysis of disaggregated data, determine who is learning under which conditions and develop action steps to address needs. Decide which objectives still merit pursuing and, if so, the measures to use and/or how to revise them. ASSESSMENT OF GUIDING EIGHT PRINCIPLES OF CURRICULUM CONSTRUCTION AND ORGANIZATION.  Certain principles are inherent in constructing and organizing the curricu-

lum as presented in Chapter 2. In one sense, these principles are characteristics of curriculum construction and organization. In another sense, they are continuing challenges for curriculum developers. Supplementing assessment of the curriculum objectives or standards, curriculum planners should assess the degree to which they implement basic principles of curriculum construction and organization. There are eight perennial problems of curriculum construction and organization: scope, relevance, balance, integration, sequence, continuity, articulation, and transferability. These persistent principles raise questions to include in an evaluation. An evaluation process cognizant of these principles provides answers to such question. • • • • • • • •

Is the scope of the curriculum adequate and realistic? Is the curriculum relevant? Is there balance in the curriculum? Is curriculum integration desirable? Is the curriculum properly sequenced within a course/year and across courses/years? Is there continuity of programs from year to year? Are curricula well-articulated between levels? Are learnings transferable?

To answer questions such as these, curriculum specialists should understand the underlying principles. The assessment of principles of curriculum construction and evaluation calls not only for gathering of considerable data, but also for informed reflection on the part of the evaluators, which invites collaboration with stakeholders in the curriculum implementation and development processes. Comprehensive Model The foregoing basic model focuses on specific aspects of the curriculum: accomplishment of the curriculum objectives or standards and the presence or absence of selected guiding factors in curriculum construction. There are other additional aspects to be evaluated. EVALUATION OF SPECIFIC SEGMENTS.  Assessment data from school district, state, and

national sources should be gathered by the curriculum planners for purposes of formative evaluation of the specific program segments. At this stage, data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), for instance, can prove helpful. For example, if NAEP data revealed that more nine-year-olds in urban areas in one part of the country are proficient in reading compared to children in comparable urban areas elsewhere in the country, intensive examination of the reading program of the particular school district would be important.

250 Part V  •  Evaluation of Effectiveness

SAT and ACT scores will provide clues also. International assessments, such as PIRLS, PISA, and TIMSS, may also provide helpful data. State and school district assessments, will be even more meaningful in this respect. EVALUATIVE INSTRUMENTS.  At this stage the evaluation instruments of the National Study

of School Evaluation (NSSE) may be used to gather empirical data about specific areas of study and other segments of the program. This set of standards is often used by schools as part of a self-study process for regional accreditation. These instruments permit faculties to analyze the principles related to the program, the evaluation techniques used, plans for improvement, and the current status (National Study of School Evaluation, 2005). Fenwick W. English (1980) proposed a way of examining specific segments of the curriculum through a technique referred to as curriculum mapping (pp. 558–559). Following this technique, teachers analyze the content they teach and the amount of time spent on each topic. Advocating calendar-based curriculum mapping as a means of integrating the curriculum and assessment, Heidi Hayes Jacobs (1997) likened a curriculum map to: a school’s manuscript. It tells the story of the operational curriculum. With this map in hand, staff members can play the role of manuscript editors, examining the curriculum for needed revision and validation. (Jacobs, 1997, p. 17)

Jacobs (1997) saw the technique in which each teacher creates a map showing the processes, skills, concepts, topics, and assessments to be incorporated in his or her teaching over the course of a year as more effective than lists of goals, objectives, skills, and concepts prepared by usual curriculum committees. In a later work Jacobs (2004) explained, “Primarily, mapping enables teachers to identify gaps, redundancies, and misalignments in the curriculum and instructional program and to foster dialog among teachers about their work” (p. vi). Curriculum planners design summative measures to determine whether the curriculum goals and curriculum objectives or standards of the specific segments have been achieved. If it were desired that 75 percent of the students in a high school be involved in at least one community service activity, a simple search in the school’s data system would reveal whether this objective had been realized. As is the case when evaluating instruction, sometimes the instructional objective itself is the evaluation item. On the other hand, if it is desired to know whether a fourth-grade class whose members were not at grade level proficiency in mathematics at the end of the previous year increased in proficiency at the end of the fourth grade, comparison of two consecutive years of achievement data would be necessary. PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES.  The practice of instituting professional learning

communities into schools has become a popular way of encouraging collaboration among teachers focused on what students should learn, do learn, and then how to improve their learning after assessment. To reduce teacher isolation that is present in many educational environments, Robert Eaker, Richard Dufour, and Rebecca Dufour (2002) offer a conceptual framework in which to operate based on three major themes: 1. a solid foundation consisting of collaboratively developed and widely shared mission, vision, values, and goals, 2. collaborative teams that work interdependently to achieve common goals, and 3. a focus on results as evidenced by a commitment to continuous improvement. (Eaker, Dufour & Dufour, 2002, p. 3)



Chapter 12  •  Evaluation of the Curriculum 251

Professional learning communities provide a means in which educators can drive curriculum initiatives, create common assessments, evaluate student data and evidence (student work samples), and then adjust curriculum or instruction to improve teacher pedagogy (Eaker, Dufour, & Dufour, 2002). By working as a collaborative team with a common focus, they can determine: What do we want them to learn? How can we be certain all students have learned? How can we respond to assist those students who are not mastering the intended outcomes? (Eaker, Dufour, & Dufour, 2002, p. 6)

The concept of the professional learning community resonates well with educators but it does receive criticism. Many leaders state they expect collaboration but in fact do not provide the necessary framework for collaboration to take place. Fundamental to the learning community concept is the creation of time for the professionals to meet and to collaborate, with accountability for doing so. Diminishing budgets, lack of understanding of the core concepts of the framework, staff attrition, and tight scheduling options all contribute to the challenges in establishing effective professional learning communities. EVALUATION OF THE TOTAL PROGRAM.  The functioning of the curriculum as a whole should be evaluated. The curriculum planners want to learn whether the goals and objectives of the total curriculum have been realized. English (1988) adapted the concept of a management audit to curriculum evaluation, defining an audit as “an objective, external review of a record, event, process, product, act, belief, or motivation to commit an act” (p. 3). English (1988) went on to describe a curriculum audit as “a process of examining documents and practices that exist within a peculiar institution normally called a ‘school’ in a given time, culture, and society” (p. 33). From documents, interviews, and on-site visits, the auditor or consultant seeks to determine how well programs are functioning and whether they are cost effective. English pointed out that the curriculum audit is both a process and a product in that the auditor engages in collecting and analyzing data and prepares a report delineating the results. Standards applied by English to a school district’s curriculum audit include alignment of policy with personnel, program, resources, objectives, school district assessments, and program improvements. Today, systematic summative evaluation may be referred to as a curriculum audit. J. Galen Saylor, William M. Alexander, and Arthur J. Lewis (1981) recommended formative evaluation of the program of education as a totality by means of “judgments of competent persons, research data on human needs, recommendations of study groups.” They recommended summative evaluation of the educational program through “surveys; follow-up studies; judgments of scholars, citizens, and students; test data” (Saylor, et al., 1981, p. 334). Generally, summative evaluation of the total program is conducted in several ways. Empirical and qualitative data and evidence are gathered to determine if curriculum objectives and standards have been accomplished. School and school district data are analyzed. Follow up studies reveal the success or lack of success of graduates. Finally, surveys may ask teachers, parents, students, and others to evaluate the curriculum from their perspectives. Keep in mind that guidance on the development of valid and reliable surveys and ways of achieving high rates of participation can be found in resources, such as Dillman, Smyth, and Christian (2009). PROGRAM EVALUATION OF THE EVALUATION.  The program evaluation process, including data sources and analysis procedures of the curriculum’s effectiveness should be continuously assessed

252 Part V  •  Evaluation of Effectiveness

and agreed upon prior to the beginning of any evaluation. Judgments about how evaluation will be conducted should be made before an innovation or change is put into practice. The techniques for ongoing evaluation and final evaluation should be carefully planned and followed. Sometimes it is beneficial to enlist the services of an evaluation specialist to review the evaluation techniques proposed by the curriculum planners. Instruments to be used should be vetted regarding reliability and validity. Is the evaluation program comprehensive, covering all the dimensions of the curriculum to be research questions? Are the procedures appropriate and reasonable to yield analysis within the time needed? Will data gathering protect the rights of those included? Will surveys be anonymous and participants’ interviews or focus groups be confidential? If you consider the expectation of authenticity in responses so that data gathered is dependable, then participants need their identities protected, which may require an external evaluator. Online survey tools allow for anonymity for participants, which is helpful in getting authentic responses and increased participation rates. An external expert should review the proposed research techniques to determine whether they meet the standards of acceptable research and protection of those involved, per ethical guidelines for research with people and potentially vulnerable populations, such as children. When data are ultimately gathered, the planners may need to request the help of evaluation specialists to run statistical tests and interpret the data. It must now be determined whether all the variables have been considered and appropriately controlled, and whether the evaluation measures are designed to assess the appropriate objectives. For example, a cognitive test of American history will not assess student performance of citizenship skills. Selecting rules of grammar on an objective assessment does not guarantee skill in writing, nor speaking with acceptable grammar. The Educational Testing Service (ETS) has thousands of tests available for review and use, so it may be a good resource for you when planning evaluation. As a companion, the Buros Institute provides reviews of instruments that you may be considering. The ETS and Buros Institute websites are found at the end of this chapter. When flaws are discovered in the evaluation program, changes should be made. Conclusions reached as a result of research and evaluation are often attacked, not on their substance, but on the evaluation processes by which they were reached. The following section provides one model of evaluation. The CIPP Model The Phi Delta Kappa National Study Committee on Evaluation, chaired by Daniel L. ­Stufflebeam, produced and disseminated a widely cited model of evaluation known as the CIPP model (Stufflebeam, et al., 1971). Reference was made in Chapter 4 to two of the major features of the CIPP model: stages of decision making and types of decisions required in education. Comprehensive in nature, the model reveals types of evaluation, types of decision making settings, types of decisions, and types of change. Evaluation was defined in the following way, “Evaluation is the process of delineating, obtaining, and providing useful information for judging decision alternatives,” Stufflebeam (as cited in Worthen & Sanders, 1971, p. 129). Meaning for each of the parts of the definition follow. 1. Process.  A continuing and cyclical activity subsuming many methods and involving a number of steps or operations. 2. Delineating.  Focusing information requirements to be served by evaluation through such steps as specifying, defining, and explicating.



Chapter 12  •  Evaluation of the Curriculum 253

3. Obtaining.  Making available through such processes as collecting, organizing, and analyzing, and through such formal means as statistics and measurement. 4. Providing.  Fitting together into systems or subsystems that best serve the needs or purposes of the evaluation. 5. Useful.  Appropriate to predetermined criteria evolved through the interaction of the evaluator and the client. 6. Information.  Descriptive or interpretive data about entities (tangible or intangible) and their relationships. 7. Judging.  Assigning weights in accordance with a specified value framework, criteria derived there from and information that relates criteria to each entity being judged. 8. Decision alternatives.  A set of optional responses to a specified decision question. (Stufflebeam as cited in Worthen & Sanders, 1971, p. 129) “The evaluation process includes the three main steps of delineating, obtaining, and providing. These steps provide the basis for a methodology of evaluation” indicated Stufflebeam (as cited in Worthen & Sanders, 1971, p. 129). FOUR TYPES OF EVALUATION.  The Phi Delta Kappa Committee pointed to four types of

evaluation, context, input, process, and product, hence the name of the CIPP model. Context evaluation is “the most basic kind of evaluation,” said Stufflebeam. “Its purpose is to provide a rationale for determination of objectives” (Stufflebeam as cited in Worthen & Sanders, 1971,  p. 136). At this point in the model, curriculum planner-evaluators define the environment of the curriculum and determine unmet needs and reasons why the needs are not being met. Goals and objectives are specified on the basis of context evaluation. Input evaluation has as its purpose “to provide information for determining how to utilize resources to achieve project objectives” (Stufflebeam as cited in Worthen & Sanders, 1971,  p. 136). The resources of the school district and various designs for carrying out the curriculum are considered. At this stage, the planner-evaluators decide on the research procedures to be used. In 1970, Stufflebeam observed, “Methods for input evaluation are lacking in education. The prevalent practices include committee deliberations, appeal to the professional literature, the employment of consultants, and pilot experimental projects” (Stufflebeam as cited in Worthen & Sanders, 1971, p. 137). As noted earlier in this chapter, with the advent of accessible databases, there are a number of resources that provide for investigation of vetted resources by school district personnel. Process evaluation is the provision of periodic feedback while the curriculum is being implemented. Stufflebeam (as cited in Worthen & Sanders, 1971) noted, “Process evaluation has three main objectives, the first is to detect or predict defects in the procedural design or its implementation during the implementation stages, the second is to provide information for programmed decisions, and the third is to maintain a record of the procedure as it occurs” (Stufflebeam as cited in Worthen & Sanders, 1971, p. 137). Once the school district implements curricular programs, fidelity to the implementation of the curricular, instructional, and assessment model should be continuously monitored and adjusted. Otherwise, judgments may be made that relate more to fidelity of a model, rather than its effectiveness. Michael Scriven (1994; 1967) described three types of process research: nondifferential studies, investigations of causal claims about the process, and formative evaluation. Nondifferential studies are those observations and investigations of what is actually happening in the classroom. Investigation of causal claims is referred to by some educators as action research. This

254 Part V  •  Evaluation of Effectiveness

type of research is a less-than-rigorous attempt to establish whether one teaching technique is better than another. If the action research is tied to a school or school district performance objective, and data are collected and the initiative substantiated on an ongoing basis, action research can provide valuable information. Formative evaluation is assessment during the course of a study or program. To these three types of process research you might add the term descriptive research, of which nondifferential studies of teacher and student classroom behavior represent one form. The use of surveys and the application of the instrument standards also fall into the category of descriptive research. Product evaluation is an investigation of the outcome and therefore makes use of data that has been gathered, recorded, and analyzed. Criteria have been established for attainment and that criteria are used to determine the extent to which the objectives have been met. FOUR TYPES OF DECISIONS.  Stufflebeam (1971) outlined the types of evaluation in respect to objectives and methods and in relation to decision making in the change process as shown in Figure 12.3, The CIPP Evaluation Model. The hexagons in Figure 12.3 represent four types of decisions: Planning, Structuring, Implementing, and Recycling. Note in the figure that the hexagon, Planning decisions, follows Context evaluation; Structuring decisions follows Input evaluation; and Implementation decisions follows Process evaluation; and Recycling decisions follows Product evaluation (Stufflebeam, 1971). FOUR TYPES OF CHANGES.  Four types of changes may result: neomobilistic, incremental,

homeostatic, and metamorphic. Neomobilistic change occurs in a setting in which a large change is sought on the basis of low information. These changes are innovative solutions-based on little evidence. Incremental changes are series of small changes based on low information. Homeostatic change, which is the most common in education, is a small change based on high information. Finally, metamorphic change, a large change based on high information, is so rare that it is not shown on the CIPP model. The model plots the sequence of evaluation and decision making from context evaluation to recycling decisions. Small loops that look like lightbulbs on the evaluation blocks indicate that the general process of delineating, obtaining, and providing information is cyclical and applies to each type of evaluation. The ovals, the circle, and the E in the model represent types of activities, types of change, and adjustment as a result of the evaluations made and decisions taken. The CIPP model presents a comprehensive view of the evaluation process. Stufflebeam, et al. (1971) and his associates also called for evaluation of the evaluation program, “To maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of evaluation, evaluation itself should be evaluated . . . .The criteria for this include internal validity, external validity, reliability, objectivity, relevance, importance, credibility, scope, pervasiveness, timeliness, and efficiency” (Stufflebeam, 1971 p. 239). The CIPP model provides a way of viewing the process of curriculum evaluation. The model urges a comprehensive approach to evaluation. The CIPP model may be more appealing to specialists in curriculum evaluation, as some dissatisfaction has been expressed for so-called process-product research. McNeil (2006) perceived the continuing methodological and theoretical problems of this form of research and cautioned against overemphasis on generalization of results. However, with the accountability faced by leaders in schools, school districts, and school organizations, along with readily available data and evidence, outcomes or product evaluation is essential for decision making.

Adjust the context evaluation mechanism

Enlightened persistence

Planning decisions Homeostatic change

Incremental change

Neomobilistic change

Installation

C H A N G E

P L A N N E D

Structuring decisions

Input evaluation

Implementation decisions

Process evaluation

Trial

Product evaluation

Termination

Recycling decisions

Structuring decisions

From Daniel L. Stufflebeam et al. (1971) Educational evaluation and decision making. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock. p. 236. Reprinted by permission.

The CIPP Evaluation Model

FIGURE 12.3

Program operation

Context evaluation

Evaluations

Activities

Decisions

Chapter 12  •  Evaluation of the Curriculum 255

256 Part V  •  Evaluation of Effectiveness

STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION The use of any evaluation model will be more effective and proper if the evaluators follow some agreed upon standards. Many years ago, The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, chaired by James R. Sanders (1994), identified four attributes of an evaluation: utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy. This committee proposed seven utility standards “to ensure that an evaluation will serve the information needs of intended users” (p. 23). They offered three feasibility standards “to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal” (Sanders, 1994, p. 63). Eight propriety standards were advanced “to ensure that an evaluation will be conducted legally, ethically, and with due regard for the welfare of those involved in the evaluation, as well as those affected by its results” (Sanders, 1994, p. 81). Twelve accuracy standards were suggested “to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features that determine worth or merit of the program being evaluated” (Sanders, 1994, p. 125). Essentially, the intent is for evaluation of the curriculum to be standards based to assure that the result is one upon which decisions can be made, and responsive or accountable to the client or in this case, the school district (Yarborough, Shulh, Hopson, & Carruthers, 2011; Stake, 2004). With the evaluation of the curriculum, The Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development and the Gordon Taylor Model of Data and Evidence Informed Continuous Improvement are most appropriate for today’s standards based environment due to the holistic approach with feedback loops allowing for quick decisions to make improvements to each component. Data and evidences on instructional outcomes are gathered as the system is implemented. ­Instructional ­outcomes are a part of the curriculum system of evaluation and thought of as instructional evaluation. These data and evidences inform continuous improvements of the curriculum, guides, instruction, classroom assessments, and acccountability assessment, not just at some future appointed time. With ready access to valid and reliable data and consistent monitoring, today’s educators, stakeholders, and students are better served. This approach to curriculum development, implementation, and evaluation professionalizes the work of all involved similar to the way business enterprises engage with data analytics to improve service to clients, efficiency, and profit outcomes or success with accountability for performance.

Summary Evaluation is a continuous process by which data are gathered and judgments made for the purpose of improving a system. Thorough evaluation is essential to curriculum development. Evaluation is perceived as a process of making judgments, whereas research is perceived as the process of gathering data as bases for judgments. Curriculum planners engage in various types of evaluation and research. Among the types of evaluation

are context, input, process, and product. Among the types of research are action, descriptive, historical, and experimental. In another vein, curriculum planners engage in both formative (process or progress) evaluation and in summative (outcome or product) evaluation. Two models of curriculum evaluation, assessment of curriculum objectives and assessment of guiding principles of curriculum organization and construction, and a comprehensive model of

Chapter 12  • Evaluation of the Curriculum 257

curriculum evaluation (the CIPP model) were discussed. The CIPP model was designed by the Phi Delta Kappa National Study Committee on Evaluation, which was chaired by Daniel L. Stufflebeam (Stufflebeam, et al., 1971). Phi Delta Kappa’s committee also urged an evaluation of the evaluation program. Limited and comprehensive models may be used independently or in conjunction with each other. Curriculum evaluators from both inside and outside school districts may be engaged to conduct evaluations. Much of the burden for curriculum evaluation falls on teachers as they work in the area of curriculum development. Following a set of agreed

upon standards improves the evaluation process. Attention should be given to standards of utility, feasibility, propriety, accuracy, and accountability (Yarborough, et al., 2011; Stake, 2004). Evaluation of the curriculum in today’s standards based environment should allow quick decisions to be made to make improvements. The Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development and the Gordon Taylor Model of Data and Evidence Informed Continuous Improvement are holistic and nimble for continuous improvements that can be made by educators through the use of a feedback loop to each component.

Application 1. Select a program or recent innovation in your context. Draft a program evaluation outline for this innovation.

2. Investigate the evidence of effectiveness of a recent innovation or one being considered for your context. Be sure to access the websites and resources noted in this text along with others.

Reflection and Inquiry 1. To what extent can you as an educational leader influence meaningful and valid evaluation of curriculum? What steps will you take to make this assurance? 2. ROI is a logical concept to be included in program evaluation of curriculum. Draft a model for

your context of ROI that may include per teacher and per student expense and results. Think about how many students being more successful than before as the hinge point for an acceptable ROI. How much is too much and how much is too little an investment and for whom?

Websites Curriculum Systems Management, Inc. (Consultations, reports, research with the purpose of improving educational outcomes.): www.curriculumsystems.com. Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). (Reports on research of interest to educators.

Customized data and research may be provided upon request.): eric.ed.gov Educational Testing Service Test Collection (ETS). (More than 20,000 tests and tools.): www.ets.org/tests_products McREL International: http:/www.mcrel.org/

258 Part V  •  Evaluation of Effectiveness National Center for Assessment and Accountability for Special Education. (Provides resources for special education and nonspecial education student populations.) National Center for Educational Research: https://ies. ed.gov/ncer/ National Center for Educational Research. (Resources, methodologies, data presentation, etc.): https://ies. ed.gov/ncer/ National Study of School Evaluation. (General evaluation related to accreditation): advanc-ed.org

The Buros Institute. (Reviews of educational tests that are thorough and written by highly respected measurement experts.): http://buros.unl.edu/buros/jsp/search.jsp UMI ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (Database of submitted doctoral dissertations and quality may vary.): proquest.com What Works Clearinghouse. (Resources for evidence-based decision making): http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc

Suggested Reading Marsh, C. J., & Willis, G. (2007). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2000). Action research in organisations. London, England: Routledge. National Study of School Evaluation. (2005). Breakthrough school improvement: An action guide for greater and faster results. Schaumburg, IL: Author.

Wall, J. E. (2004). Harnessing the power of technology: Testing and assessment applications. In J. E. Wall and G. R. Walz (Eds.), Measuring up: Assessment issues for teachers, counselors, and administrators (pp. 665–684). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc.

References Dillman, D., Smyth, J., & Christian, L. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons. Eaker, R. E., DuFour, R., & DuFour, R. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. English, F. W. (1980). Curriculum mapping. Educational Leadership, 37(7). English, F. W. (1988). Curriculum auditing. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2012). Education research: Competencies for analysis and applications (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Jacobs, H. H. (1997). Mapping the big picture: Integrating curriculum and assessment K–12. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Jacobs, H. H. (2004). Getting results with curriculum mapping. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. McNeil, J. D. (2006). Contemporary curriculum in thought and action (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Education longitudinal study of 2002 (ELS:2002). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/els2002/index.asp Oliver, A. I. (1965). Curriculum improvement: A guide to problems, principles, and process (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row. Sanders, J. R. (1994). The program evaluation standards: How to assess evaluations of educational programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Saylor, J. G., Alexander, W. M., & Lewis, A. J. (1981). Curriculum planning for better teaching and learning. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Scriven, M. (1994). Product evaluation—The state of the art. Evaluation Practice, 15(1), 45–62.

Chapter 12  • Evaluation of the Curriculum 259 Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation, perspectives of curriculum evaluation, AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation No. 1, 49–51. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Stake, R. E. (2004). Standards-based evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). Evaluation models. New direction for evaluation, Vol. 89. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Stufflebeam, D. L., Foley, W. Jl, Gephart, W. J., Cuba, E. G., Hammond, R. I., Merrman, H. O., & Provus, M. M.

(1971). Educational evaluation and decision making. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock. Worthen, B. R., & Sanders, J. R. (1971). Educational evaluation theory and practice. Worthington, OH: Charles A. Jones. Yarborough, D. B., Shulh, L. M., Hopson, R. K., & Carruthers, F. A. (2011). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

This page intentionally left blank

A01_OLIV0387_09_SE_FM.indd 1

3/21/18 8:28 PM

PART

VI

Looking Forward in Curriculum ­Development Chapter 13

Trends in Digital Curriculum and Instruction

261

CHAPTER

13

Trends in Digital Curriculum and Instruction Learning Outcomes After studying this chapter, you should be able to: 1. Explore how various literacies impact the education environment. 2. Relate the components of the online learning environment to your available resources. 3. Evaluate alignment of successful blended learning programs with those in a particular environment. 4. Apply the quality standards in digital learning to an available resource. 5. Examine how computer based assessments are used to assess curriculum system alignment and to inform instruction. 6. Elucidate ways open education resources can enhance the educational environment and improve student learning outcomes. 7. Apply Netiquette to faculty, staff, student, and administrator communications. 262

This chapter offers research based concepts and solutions that have promise for improving efficiency and effectiveness of curriculum systems by making technological adaptations at various points in the curriculum system or to the system as a whole. Technological tools, coupled with strong instructional practices using quality content aligned to standards with learning outcomes, can provide opportunities for enhanced student learning now and in the future.

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY The concept of using technology to provide learning opportunities for students is not new to educational circles. With readily available broadband and Wi-Fi, greater access to learning anywhere and anytime is a reality in all but the most remote locations. Devices that are connected to the Internet, referred to as the Internet of Things (IOT), continue to drive consumer desire to access information at any time and at any location across the globe. Educational technology and its implementation has been researched since the early 1990s. While technological resources hold potential to accelerate learning and to learn anytime and anywhere, the use of technology alone does not assure increased achievement (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Adding technology alone will not bring about improvements in student learning as teachers will need ongoing professional learning to adjust their instruction, based on sound research to leverage the power of technology (Zheng, Warschauer, Lin, & Chang, 2016). However, with quality professional learning experiences teachers can embed technology in teaching, learning, and assessment for improved results (Kivunja, 2014). Global Competition As the students’ world continues to shrink and global competitiveness dominates the workplace, curriculum leaders should consider the changing learning environment that technology can create along with the rate of change in technology itself. Technology innovations turn over every five or so years and are accelerating to turn over even more rapidly. The



Chapter 13  •  Trends in Digital Curriculum and Instruction 263

issue faced by education institutions is that it typically takes 15 years for them to adapt. This rate of adaptation will make any curriculum system an artifact of the past, negatively impacting student learning outcomes before the students have an opportunity to learn and to enter the workforce. According to Eric Teller, Google X research lab CEO, if adaptability is improved even a little, the benefits will be amazing (Friedman, 2016). With large players in the technology industry such as Google researching and developing new systems and products which influence the landscape, expectations for educators to contribute to a workforce able to meet those expectations is very real. Daniel Pink (2008) states that the future is here and that the job market has transformed and is not dominated by traditional jobs such as accountants, lawyers, and software engineers. Further, he argues: To survive in this age, individuals and organizations must examine what they are doing to earn a living and ask themselves three questions: • Can someone overseas do it cheaper? • Can a computer do it faster? • Is what I am offering in demand in an age of abundance? (Pink, 2008, p. 51) Pink’s notions on the changing global workplace can be supported by the rapid emergence of jobs in the Asian markets. The World Bank (2016) reported that China had the ­second largest economy in the world with a population of 1.3 billion people (www.worldbank .org/en/country/china/overview). Mega-corporations such as Caterpillar, General Electric, ­General Motors, and Siemens have transitioned jobs into China to take advantage of this growing market (Borboza, 2010). In 2009, President Barack Obama acknowledged global competiveness in a speech to the National Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. In a 21st-century world where jobs can be shipped wherever there’s an Internet connection, where a child born in Dallas is now competing with a child in New Delhi, where your best job qualification is not what you do, but what you know. Education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity and success, it’s a prerequisite for success. (Obama, 2009)

In response to global competition and the need for a highly skilled workforce to fill jobs, curriculum specialists and instructional leaders should focus curricular efforts to prepare students to compete in the twenty-first century job market. Providing opportunities for students to excel in standards in areas such as science, technology, education, and mathematics (STEM) and College and Careers Readiness Standards (CCRS) is a wise choice for curriculum teams to make. Currently, many schools are making the most out of their limited resources to provide technological opportunities for students in initiatives such as (a) having students bring their own devices (BYOD) to school, (b) full digital implementation, (c) providing each student and instructor a digital device (1:1), (d) using e-textbooks, (e) introducing mobile learning to access instruction, and/or (f) i­ntegrating virtual reality and simulation into instruction. These efforts may increase the pipeline of qualified individuals to meet workforce demands. Keeping in mind the quickly changing landscape of available technology and the future that students will face, instructional leaders should develop their vision for technology and learning within their schools and school districts (Ray, Laufenberg, & Bjerede, 2016). As with any large scale change various stakeholders should be included in collaborative visioning to set the future direction of the institution as it will impact all involved directly and indirectly in the community and beyond.

264 Part VI  •  Looking Forward in Curriculum Development

Literacies As you are aware, the workplace is changing and so should the classroom. Using the same digital tools as business and industry, teachers can reach out to students in nontraditional manners. It is not uncommon for teachers to use websites, social media, blogs, and interactive forums to connect with their students and to connect with the far reaches of the world (Sloan, 2009). An example of using social media as a forum to promote discussion would be when a teacher establishes a “hashtag”, a type of metadata tag used in social media, for students to post comments regarding a movie that was assigned during a lesson. The use of social media can provide new opportunities for student engagement. If you recall, in Chapter 7, the 21st Century Learner was defined by Tony Wagner. You could take Wagner’s rationale one step further by expanding on the 21st Century Learner to include 21st Century Literacies. The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE)(2013) defined 21st Century Literacies by stating groups of people have always shared communicative and cultural practices which have resulted in literacy. Literacy changes as society and technology change. The demands that accompany these changes make it essential that the literate person be proficient in a variety of electronic mediums. Furthermore, NCTE (2013) states, “Because technology has increased the intensity and complexity of literate environments, the twenty-first century demands that a literate person possess a wide range of abilities and competencies, many literacies. These literacies are multiple, dynamic and malleable,” (National Council of Teachers of English, 2013). Twenty-first century readers and writers need proficiency as follows. • Develop proficiency and fluency with the tools of technology. • Build intentional cross-cultural connections and relationships with others to pose and solve problems collaboratively and strengthen independent thought. • Design and share information for global communities to meet a variety of purposes. • Manage, analyze and synthesize multiple streams of simultaneous information. • Create, critique, analyze, and evaluate multi-media texts. • Attend to the ethical responsibilities required by these complex environments. (National Council of Teachers of English, 2013) According to Margaret Weigel and Howard Gardner (2009), the content a student accesses online is very different from that which is found offline. Compared to offline resources provided in a school, students can access almost unlimited information while online that is neither professionally produced nor properly researched or cited by authors or editors. Students and teachers should become critical consumers of information and should be able to scrutinize the content and make appropriate decisions about the worth of the material they are reading or downloading for use. Although this text advocates for preparing students to be college and career ready, perhaps think of future curriculum systems to prepare all graduates to be digitally ready to engage in lifelong learning that will go beyond a traditional postsecondary education at a technical school, college, or university. With the information and learning curve steeper than it ever has been, knowing how to engage in open source dialogues and how to distinguish dependable sources from those that are not dependable are essential and highly complex tasks. Global engagement and development of solutions through online communities takes the professional learning community (PLC) concept from a small group of educators who have a common content responsibility to unlimited numbers with multiple kinds of expertise. The opportunities for educators and students are endless as new technologies emerge.

Chapter 13  •  Trends in Digital Curriculum and Instruction 265



Innovation Online courses, blended learning, personalized learning, and mobile learning are trends in which teachers and administrators may meet the vision of the twenty-first century classroom. Consequently, many educators integrate technology into instruction to enhance learning outcomes through a variety of digital learning tools. In 2016, The Centre for Learning and Performance Technologies (C4LPT), categorized digital learning tools under four areas: (a) instructional, (b) content development, (c) social, and (d) personal. Further, C4LPT (2016) provided examples of tools that were trending in each of four areas: Instructional—Learning Management Systems (LMS), webinar, classroom response, and course authoring; Content Development—Presentation, video mash-up, games editor, and screen capture and casting; Social—Enterprise social platforms, group messaging apps, and public social networks; Personal—Bookmarking and curation, web browsers, search and research, and mind mapping. (http://c4lpt.co.uk/top100tools/best-of-breed) In many education settings across the United States, the examples provided would be considered innovative; however, in some environments the applications of these tools are common place and the next innovative practice is being beta tested and piloted for daily use. The term innovation, as defined in this text, is an idea or concept that others in the education field would deem new. Innovative practice in education is the application of a new idea or concept into your context. In online education, given the rapid pace of changes in technology, it is often difficult to identify what is innovative and what is current practice. Likewise, it can be challenging to discern the innovative ideas, concepts, or practices that are short-lived and without merit. The U.S. Department of Education (2004) warned that the education industry has a long history of promoting fads and schemes that turned out to be, at the least, ineffectual, and at the worst, harmful to children. Leaders are encouraged to examine the research behind innovations and the research on their implementations as decisions for purchase, use, and evaluation are considered. Hype Cycles Hype cycles are used to help those in industry to predict technological fads versus those with potential for a return on investment (ROI). The use of a hype cycle can be a good source of guidance for instructional leaders, curriculum specialists, and curriculum teams when adopting new technologies. One example of a hype cycle that directly relates to the education industry is the Gartner Hype Cycle for education. Gartner (2017), a research and advisory company, states that new technology goes through five phases over time. Innovation trigger—Media creates significant interest around a new technology that is not proven or does not exist. Peak of inflated expectations—Success stories and failures are publicized. Few companies engage with the new technology; however, many do not. Trough of disillusionment—Failure to produce the new technology culls out companies. Investors only continue to support providers if their products satisfy early adopters. The excitement of the new technology dwindles.

266 Part VI  •  Looking Forward in Curriculum Development

Slope of enlightenment—The new technology becomes broadly understood and its benefits are seen by some enterprises as beneficial. Technology providers produce additional generations of the products and some enterprises fund pilots. Plateau of productivity—The new technology is adopted by more enterprises. The feasibility of the product and its producers are defined and its relevance and return on investment is clear. (http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/methodologies/ hype-cycle.jsp) Figure 13.1, the Gartner Hype Cycle shows the four domains in a graphic form which associates expectations with time. New technologies are placed on the graph based on their life cycle. In 2016, Gartner (2017) identified some of the following technologies on their hype cycle for education: Innovation trigger—Blockchain in education, smart machine education applications, virtual reality/augmented reality applications, and MOOC platforms; Peak of inflated expectations—Digital assessment, competency-based education ­platforms, and learning analytics; Trough of disillusionment—Gamification, open microcredentials, and adaptive e-textbooks; Slope of enlightenment—Mobile learning platforms and wireless as a service; and Plateau of productivity—e-textbooks and BYOD strategy. Hype cycles can be important tools if used when making decisions on implementing technologies new to your organization. Take for example school XYZ that was presented in Chapter 4 of this text. The curriculum team was tasked with determining how to implement a 1:1 initiative and a BYOD initiative, which included a mobile learning platform and wireless as a service component. In analyzing Figure 13.1, you will note that BYOD and the use of mobile learning platform strategies are in the plateau of productivity which would indicate to the team that there are multiple implementations from many vendors that could be examined to refine their plan. However, wireless as a service is becoming more understood across the industry. By using a hype cycle, the curriculum team can determine the risk associated with implementing these technology related projects by reflecting on industry trends. Therefore, curriculum teams can evaluate potential initiatives and determine risk when making key decisions related to adoptions, adaptations, and purchases.

DIGITAL LEARNING (ONLINE LEARNING) The term digital learning is used synonymously with eLearning, online learning, virtual learning, distance learning, and a variety of other terms. However, for the purposes of this text, the term digital learning is defined as the use of digital tools, content, and instruction concurrently to give students the ability to learn without barriers of time, place, path, and/or pace. As technology continues to improve, teacher, parent, and student interest continues to increase in online courses. In 2010, The International Association for K–12 Online Learning (iNACOL) produced a study, A National Primer on K–12 Online Learning: Version 2 (Wicks, 2010), on how online learning experiences are being used through a variety of providers such as public school districts, charter schools, university systems, state virtual schools, consortium

Peak of inflated expectations

less than 2 years

2 to 5 years

5 to 10 years

time more than 10 years

Plateau of productivity

As of July 2016

Obsolete before plateau

Slope of enlightenment

Gartner’s Hype Cycle for ­Education 2016

FIGURE 13.1

Saas administration applications Virtual worlds Mobile learning smartphones Integration brokerage

BYOD strategy E-textbook Cloud HPC/CaaS

Wireless as a service Digital preservation of research data Learning stack Gamification Adaptive learning platforms Open-source SIS

Trough of disillusionment

Master data management

Adaptive E-textbooks Big data in education Student retention CRM IDaaS

Citizen developers Alumni CRM

SIS international data interoperability standards Institutional analytics DevOps Hosted virtual desktop services Open microcredentials

Years to mainstream adoption:

Innovation trigger

Robotic telepresence Bluetooth beacons Virtual reality/augmented reality applications in education Smart machine education applications Li-Fi Tin can API Blockchain in education

SaaS SIS Digital assessment Affective computing Classroom 3D printing MOOC platforms Exostructure strategy

Competency-based education platforms

Learning Analytics

expectations

Chapter 13  •  Trends in Digital Curriculum and Instruction 267

268 Part VI  •  Looking Forward in Curriculum Development

based schools, blended programs, and private schools. In general, the findings showed that online courses: • allow rural and urban students access to expanded educational opportunities beyond those that brick-and-mortar schools can provide; • provide access to highly qualified teachers in areas where highly qualified teachers are not available; • allow students with challenging schedules access to flexible scheduling; • accommodate at-risk students, elite athletes and performers, dropouts, migrant youth, pregnant or incarcerated students, and students who are homebound due to illness or injury, allowing them to continue their education outside the classroom; • provide credit recovery programs for failing students and/or those who have dropped out of school, allowing them to graduate; • help struggling students performing below grade level to begin catching up through blended learning, tailoring lessons to the student, and providing on-demand online tutoring; • facilitate the teaching of technology skills by requiring technology literacy through academic content; and • provide professional development opportunities for teachers, including mentoring and learning communities, which expand the base of knowledge beyond that available within the brick-and-mortar school. (Wicks, 2010, p. 10) Organizations that enter the online arena should determine which type (or types) of online program(s) they will provide. Greg Vanourek (2006) reported that there are 10 common dimensions present in all online programs. The five most important dimensions are comprehensiveness, reach, location, type of instruction, and delivery. By defining common dimensions of online courses, one might see a variety of models that can be established; however, iNACOL states that four of the five dimensions presented by Vanourek are noteworthy when considering the type of program to provide. • Comprehensiveness—Whether a school offers a full set of courses or if it provides courses to supplement those of other schools • Reach—Whether policy implications related to transferability are offered at a school district • Delivery—Whether students and teachers are working in an asynchronous (i.e., not working in real time) manner or in a synchronous (working in real time) environment • Type of Instruction—whether the instruction is provided face-to-face or in a blended or hybrid environment. (Wicks, 2010, p. 19) Learning Management System A widely followed organizational practice is to use a software package, or Learning Management System (LMS), to provide the framework for the teacher to manage the course and deliver the content. This software package is usually developed by a third party due to its complexity and application; however, some of the larger online schools have their own proprietary systems. In 2009, Ryann Ellis (2009) stated that a robust LMS can: • centralize and automate administration; • use self-service and self-guided services; • assemble and deliver learning content rapidly;

Chapter 13  •  Trends in Digital Curriculum and Instruction 269



• consolidate training initiatives on a scalable web-based platform; • support portability and standards; and • personalize content and enable knowledge reuse. (Ellis, 2009, p. 2) An LMS allows teachers to distribute and collect completed assignments, post classroom schedules, provide tests and quizzes, and track student progress and learning outcomes, as well as other essential tasks. In addition, an LMS should integrate with school district and school human resource functions, such as teacher professional learning which can be prescriptive based on individual or group needs and applied automatically through the LMS to the end user (Ellis, 2009, p. 3). Content access, integration, development, and the ability for the LMS to adhere to educational standards should be analyzed closely by stakeholders before purchasing or developing an LMS program (Ellis, 2009, p. 4). The LMS is front facing to students for it provides the look and feel of the content and instruction. For teachers, it is the backbone of comprehensive digital learning. Time and effort should be given by organization leaders in determining which LMS application fits the organization’s curriculum system data-informed needs. Instructor Roles in Digital Learning The instructor’s role in the online environment is in many ways similar to that of the traditional classroom teacher. As with any classroom, providing support and building relationships with the students are critical aspects for student success. Teachers are expected to communicate regularly, give feedback, grade assignments, provide interventions, and take attendance, as well as other traditional teacher functions (Watson, et al., 2010, p. 17). Online teachers face unique challenges related to their instructional environment. In some online environments teachers are expected to push the information out and become managers of student learning by focusing on the student’s time-management skills or by becoming facilitators of coursework. In others, teachers use blended learning practices as the delivery model. Content or courses may be designed by individual teachers. However, due to the highly technical aspect of creating an online course, teams of highly specialized professionals in the areas of instructional design, graphic arts, and teaching provide a stronger approach than individuals working alone (Watson, et al., 2010). If teachers develop content or courses, an application of a model such as the Gordon Taylor Model of Curriculum System Development, should be applied. The Gordon Taylor Model is a deductive model which demonstrates a systems approach to standards based practice, with a feedback loop, which is recommended in this time of accountability. Even with the most advanced technological tools the curriculum and instruction matter. As noted throughout this text, the curriculum system is the main vehicle that creates student engagement and is at the core of student learning.

PERSONALIZED LEARNING In Chapter 10 of this text, differentiated instruction was presented as an instructional practice that meets the individual needs of the learner. Additionally, differentiated education was discussed as multiple pathways for student learning in a classroom environment which promote thinking and learning to produce student work that demonstrates knowledge and understanding (Tomlinson, 2001). In digital learning the term personalized learning has become widely popular among educators and providers as it encompasses both differentiated instruction and differentiated education. In this text, personalized learning, is defined as allowing students access at any time or place to

270 Part VI  •  Looking Forward in Curriculum Development

high quality instruction, curriculum, and support by focusing on the individual student’s learning, engagement, and mastery of content. The Center for Digital Education (www.centerdigitaled.com) found that 90 percent of the school districts surveyed reported that digital resources were already being used or were planned to be used for personalized learning (Ray, Laufenberg, & Bjerede, 2016). While clearly digital and technological advancements are a priority for school districts in the USA and readily available, guidance continues to be developed to assist educators in adopting, adapting, and implementing effective digital learning. In 2014, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded a study which reported that the concept of personalized learning is still evolving. Practices included: • • • • •

creating learner profiles and personalized learning paths; developing flexible learning environments that demonstrate knowledge and skills; focusing college and career ready skills and Common Core State Standards; providing new opportunities for teachers; and the use of technology to complement teacher lead instruction. (Rand Corporation, 2014, p. 5)

Digital Promise Global (n.d.) in Making Learning Personal for All: Research and the Promise of Personalized Learning recommends that regardless of the definition used for personalized learning, the underpinnings are the learner’s point of view and connection to his or her unique experiences; learning objectives, experiences, and tools adapt to the learner’s needs; and learner’s voice and ownership of the work needs (p. 2). Advocacy for the learning sciences or science of learning (as noted in Chapter 10) needs to be explicit in personalized learning. Learning needs of the expansive variability of students can be efficiently provided for with the learning sciences or science of learning. Such learning sciences based tools adapt to variability in the learner and learner’s progress in four categories of factors: background, environment, and experiences; cognitive skills; content skills; and social and emotional skills. Digital designers of content and curriculum are advised to take advantage of the present and ongoing development of research in this area to ascertain which approaches, learning science principles, and tools are most efficient and effective for particular students under individual circumstances. Those interested in investigating research supported findings and promising practices may find that in addition to Digital Promise, EDUCAUSE, another non-profit organization, has a personalized learning framework that may be helpful in digital decision making related to curricular and instructional resources. Race to the Top funded The District Reform Support Network on personalized learning which is helpful for scaling up efforts (rttd.grads360.org). The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also has resources on the foundation’s website. There are many promising opportunities for personalized learning; however, instructional leaders and curriculum specialists must be cognizant of challenges associated with its implementation. In 2014, Sean Cavanaugh (2014) reported that schools and school districts struggle with the holistic approach to personalized learning, student data collection and security, and determining its true impact on learning. Blended Learning The practice of combining online instruction with traditional classroom instruction (blended learning) as a form of personalized learning is increasing in school districts across the country. Instructional leaders seeking to initiate a blended learning environment should consider its nuances and implications prior to application. Heather Staker and Michael Horn (2012), from the Innosight



Chapter 13  •  Trends in Digital Curriculum and Instruction 271

Institute, defined blended learning as a formal education program in which a student participates in part in a supervised brick and mortar program away from home and through online content and instruction with some element of control over pace, place and path (p. 3). A key aspect of the Staker and Horn definition is the specificity in the definition which distinguishes programs such as online learning and virtual learning from a true blended learning environment. Furthermore, this definition establishes student control over pace, place, and path as an integral part of establishing a blended learning environment. Understanding what blended learning is not, can provide further clarity for curriculum leaders. Blended learning is not putting content or packets online for students to consume, nor is it providing access to digital skills based programs for students to access after school hours. Additionally, blended learning is not full-time virtual instruction; yet, it is a model that can be provided in a full-time virtual environment. Blended learning requires a shift in a teacher’s instructional practice to allow students to demonstrate mastery of content at their own pace and path in a more personalized and flexible environment (Patrick, Kennedy, & Powell, 2013). There are multiple models associated with blended learning; however, Staker and Horn (2012) identify four as practical to implement in common school system organizational structures. • Rotation.  While in a traditional classroom environment, students rotate on a set schedule to a one-to-one self-paced online program that is accessed on computers in the classroom. The teacher oversees both the online instruction and the classroom instruction. • Flex.  Teachers support students, in small groups or in tutoring sessions, using an online platform that delivers the curricula on a flexible as needed basis. • Self-blend.  Students choose to take online courses to supplement their traditional school’s course offerings. The online classes are always remote, but the traditional classes are taken in a brick-and-mortar environment. This is the most common blended approach used in high schools in the USA. • Enriched-virtual model.  Students are in a full-time school environment that divides their time between learning remotely via online instruction and content and a brick and mortar school. (Staker & Horn, 2012, pp. 8–15) Staker and Horn (2012) further identify four sub-models in the Rotation model that deserve important consideration. • Station-rotation.  In a specific course, digital learning is conducted on a fixed schedule or at teacher discretion as a part of a rotation through other academic learning stations. • Lab-rotation.  In a specific course, digital learning is conducted on a fixed schedule or at teacher discretion in another location (learning lab) on campus. • Flipped-classroom.  In a specific course, the primary content of the course is furnished digitally, beyond the school day, where a student can access it remotely. Practice and support is provided in the brick and mortar environment during traditional class time. • Individual-rotation.  In a specific course, students rotate on a fixed schedule on an individual basis due to their individual learning needs. In this case students rotate based on needs and not to all stations. (Staker & Horn, 2012, pp. 8–11) It is not uncommon for multiple teachers in a school to use different delivery models. However, it is important as with any instructional model that it be used with integrity, that student outcomes are measured, and these outcomes quickly inform instruction otherwise it is not personalized. The use of a delivery model is significant for it engages the teacher and student in

272 Part VI  •  Looking Forward in Curriculum Development

the learning process. To make the best use of the blended learning environment, Ruth Reynard (2007) points out that technology should be: integrated into the actual course design and used for instruction, rather than simply used to deliver and distribute content. It is vital that teachers are given time to explore the different pedagogical implications of both environments, and think through how the two environments can be brought together for students. (Reynard, 2007, p. 1)

Blended learning provides more opportunities for increased flexibility, access and convenience, and student engagement, but it also presents challenges. It not only requires teachers to have a thorough understanding of the content, but it also requires them to have the necessary pedagogy to allow student learning to take place in combined environments. A challenge for teachers in blended learning environments is to use technology to enhance instruction instead of using it to inform instruction. Furthermore, students can perceive assignments as not meaningful if the technology is used as supplemental to content and instruction and not as a part of the course. Both concerns can diminish the benefits of blended learning. Mobile Learning Anyone would be challenged to find an industry that has not incorporated some form of mobile technology into its business plan. Likewise, in the education arena, hand held digital tools (wireless mobile devices) that can access the Internet 24/7 have opened new avenues for learning. With greater wireless access and faster broadband speeds, mobile learning is on its way to becoming omnipresent. For definition purposes of this text, mobile learning can be defined as using wireless digital tools to afford individuals learning opportunities at their own pace, place, and path. Wireless mobile devices such as smart phones, tablets, personal media players, laptops, and cell phones serve as conduits to the curricula. Furthermore, the advent of social media and the use of Web 2.0 user-generated or cloud computing applications have made mobile learning a viable option for educators to capture educational opportunities for students (Park, 2011). Web 2.0 tools are conceptualized as those that allow nonprogrammers to contribute content (O’Reilly, 2005). Consequently, as demand grows from students and parents to implement mobile technology into classrooms, administrators and teachers are taxed with finding ways to incorporate them in a safe and meaningful manner to result in improved or more efficient learning. In 2005, a report from the National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts (NESTA) described key factors that educators, technology developers, and curriculum developers should consider when facilitating the successful implementation of mobile technologies into classroom settings. • Context.  Many users wish to remain anonymous. Surfing the web to gather and utilize contextual information may clash with their desire. Secure access to the Internet must be considered to prevent exposure to third parties. • Mobility.  The ability for the student to access the Internet anytime during class time may compete with the teacher’s lesson or the curriculum. • Learner over time.  Tools must be developed for the recording and organization of mobile learning experiences. • Informality.  Students may choose to abandon certain technologies if their social networks are attacked. • Ownership.  Students want to use their own personal devices, which creates standardization issues and control issues for the institution. (Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples, 2004, p. 4)



Chapter 13  •  Trends in Digital Curriculum and Instruction 273

A reader may wonder if there are practical applications (apps) that support improvement in student learning and that are accessible to teachers and students on their mobile devices. The app design industry is booming so the purchase or download of apps to be used should be vetted by a knowledgeable source, such as a professional organization. Higher level disciplinary literacy has become more essential with the implementation of CCSS and rigorous standardized assessments. By using apps teachers find that students develop greater self efficacy in student science learning through their confidence in using the device and the app (Castek & Beach, 2013). The researchers found that apps can afford students opportunities within their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1962) making learning new content and academic language more accessible. Students used apps for collaboration, multimodal learning, and shared productivity with improvement in student science learning (Castek & Beach, 2013, p. 555). With the rapidly increasing use of Web 2.0 students are creating and contributing to wikis and blogs. In 2009, it was estimated that 38 percent of teachers use blogs and wikis for preparation or instruction and 21 percent reported that they required students to contribute to blogs or wikis (Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010). Every time a change is made in these environments data are collected, allowing researchers to have data to analyze in a number of ways, including sustained time use, quality, and participation. Anderson and Shattuck analyzed such warehoused data and found that students in non-Title I schools had wikis that were active longer than in Title I schools. They also found that the level of critical thinking in the wikis was higher in non-Title I schools than in Title I schools (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012). You can see that there remains much to learn to leverage the knowledge on learning and apply it to digital tools to improve student learning and decrease the digital divide between affluent and economically disadvantaged students. Engaging students in mobile learning opportunities may better facilitate learning and promote various twenty-first century literacies, such as collaboration, composition in multiple or global environments, and increased information literacy. Challenges do exist that include how to manipulate learning to be applied in a mobile setting for a seamless experience for the learner. Developers, designers, and content producers are to consider all implications including time, costs, and ROI associated with providing mobile learning for students using mobile devices. Computer Based Assessments As discussed in Chapter 9, the expectation for instruction has become that it is standards and evidence based with accountability for student learning outcomes. Assessment was discussed in Chapters 11 and 12, therefore in this section the assessment application is within a digital environment or using digital tools. Computer based assessments can play an important role in providing educators student performance data to inform instructional practices with monitoring and formative assessments. By using technology to assess formatively and gather data on individual performance quickly, educators are better positioned to provide meaningful adjusted instruction. Of course, as noted in previous chapters the caveat is that the curriculum system is aligned (standards, instruction, learning tasks, student work outcomes, and assessments). School districts may develop formative assessments aligned to standards taught at particular times in the school year (pacing calendar) which are administered to all students in the same course or grade at the same time. Progress towards mastery expected at that particular time can be determined quickly with appropriate results provided to teachers and administrators. Teachers can see how each student is performing according to school district standards based expectations and then reteach, regroup to differentiate, personalize with digital tools, and accelerate based on results.

274 Part VI  •  Looking Forward in Curriculum Development

In addition to school district developed formative and monitoring assessments, teams of teachers who have the same teaching responsibility may create common assessments administered via technology (Ray, Laufenberg, & Bjerede, 2016). These common assessments are only valid if in fact they are aligned to target standards, and using the academic language of those standards and target content. Valid teacher made assessments can quickly provide teachers with feedback for making adjustments to their instruction and to differentiate and/or personalize just as with school district assessment data. One consideration in using computer based assessments is the students’ familiarity with the technology itself. If students are not proficient in using technology for learning and assessment, then the assessment may measure the facility students have with the device, rather than progress towards mastery on target standards. In other words, if students are learning without technological tools and then move to a testing location where devices are provided for assessment, student lack of comfort and expertise in using the devices may negatively impact results, making results invalid for the intended purpose. With the flow of knowledge speeding up, the design and implementation of curricular innovations has to speed up similarly. Feedback is rapid, even overnight, requiring agility to make curriculum system adjustments immediately, or sooner. A current challenge is that many digital systems gather data on daily student performance, but few teachers or instructional leaders continually analyze these data at the same rate to make the immediate changes that these data suggest would improve learning and prepare students for the work life they may experience. Open Education Resource Opportunities are present for educators to access openly licensed content and media in digital formats via the Internet. The concept of Open Education Resource (OER) resonates well with educators because it provides a free, non-copyrighted, resource for teachers and students to build upon, while increasing equity in access to instructional plans, tools, and content. What makes OERs attractive is that the resources are free from copyright restrictions, so resources can be remixed or redistributed by anyone. The legal aspects of using OER content is directly related to how the creator deems the content available. OER serves another substantial purpose because it increases access to materials for educators from all over the world. According to the Hewlett Foundation (2017), OER can play an important role in education, especially in developing countries, because it is free and can be accessed digitally from all parts of the world. Challenges do exist if OER content and media are used by teachers and students. Teachers’ skill level to determine the integrity of material and whether its application will align with the expectations of the standards of their course should be considered. Additionally, OER material should not be used by curriculum developers in the for-profit arena due to potential integrity issues and other propriety considerations related to the publishing industry.

NETIQUETTE Providing opportunities for teachers and students to engage, learn, and function both ethically and safely should be a key driver in all aspects of digital learning. In 2010, Digital Citizenship or Netiquette was defined in the National Education Technology Plan (NETP) as:



Chapter 13  •  Trends in Digital Curriculum and Instruction 275 the ability to evaluate and use technologies appropriately, behave in socially acceptable ways within online communities, and develop a healthy understanding of issues surrounding online privacy and safety. (U.S. Department of Education, 2010)

Further, in 2017, the NETP recommended that Responsible Use Policies (RUPs), which are agreements among parents, students, and schools, should be developed and integrated into digital learning practices. RUPs should include topics such as: • how students will engage with each other in digital environments; • resources and access a district or school will provide using a network; and • standards and academic integrity in digital learning opportunities. (Office of Educational Technology, 2017, pp. 78–79) Care should be given in establishing RUPs. It is prudent for school district and school level personnel to consider unintended consequences of policies that are too strict or not thoroughly vetted through a variety of stakeholders. Furthermore, responsible use, consequences, and policies and procedures should be identified and written clearly in stakeholder’s primary home language (U.S. Department of Education, 2017, p. 79). The federal government plays a role in funding infrastructure and curriculum initiatives which promote safe access to the Internet. Several federal laws have been designed to ensure student privacy and safety on the Internet. For example, the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requires schools that receive federal funds to implement filters that block students’ access to content that may be harmful to minors. CIPA also requires schools to teach online safety to students and to monitor their online activities (Federal Communications Commission, 2017). Further, schools and school districts must be acutely aware of federal laws such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) in which a school is required to provide certain privacy protections for those education records that it maintains. In addition to federal laws, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) commissioned the Online Safety and Technology Working Group (OSTWG), in June 2010, to report on youth safety on the Internet. In the study, the complexity of Internet safety is pointed out and recommendations for stakeholders are provided. • Establish an electronic clearinghouse for stakeholders to access research regarding online safety. • Create a national campaign for school-age children to promote safe responsible use of the Internet. • Develop industry benchmarks and standards. • Involve young people in developing Internet safety policies and programs. (Online Safety and Technology Working Group, 2010, pp. 6–7) The recommendations provide insights for instructional leaders and curriculum specialists to consider. Promoting Netiquette through digital media literacy and Internet safety, education can play an important role in safeguarding the use of digital media in schools and warrants consideration. By creating a positive digital footprint, students can enjoy the benefits of digital curriculum and instruction without facing potential negative repercussions throughout their lives. Accepted educational practices, coupled with safe Internet practices and professional ethics, can prompt students to make choices that will allow them to enjoy the educational advantages and benefits of the digital learning.

276 Part VI  •  Looking Forward in Curriculum Development

Summary It is widely recognized that access to technology in the education environment has increased exponentially in recent years. The increased role of technology in the workplace, school environment, and society makes it imperative that people function in a variety of literacies. In defining new literacies, the content delivered online is very different from content which is presented in print. These differences create demand for educators and students to become critical consumers of information. In this chapter, innovation and the use of hype cycles to determine which education technology is applicable in the user’s context were introduced. Components of personalized learning including blended and mobile learning were investigated. How online experiences are being made available by a variety of providers, including school districts, charter schools, university systems, state virtual schools, consortium based schools, blended programs, and private schools were acknowledged. Key factors

instructional leaders and curriculum teams should consider when facilitating blended and mobile learning in the classroom setting were discussed. Common dimensions that are present in online programs were examined. Of the common dimensions, four critical aspects should be considered when deciding on which online program to offer. Implications of online learning are both positive and negative; however, a robust LMS using strong instructional practices with quality content aligned to standards and learning outcomes was recommended. Online assessments using technology in this time of accountability were recognized. Additionally, the importance of providing opportunities for educators and students to learn how to function both ethically and safely in the digital world was presented. Resources available to assist educators in creating safe learning environments, and key components stakeholders should consider when creating online opportunities for students were provided.

Application 1. Consider the technology resources in your context. Use Figure 13.1, the Gartner Hype Cycle for Education to determine its current status in the education arena. Create a potential roadmap to present to decision makers in your context on suggestions to move your organization forward. Include potential costs and ROI if available.

2. Review multiple OER resources for integrity and alignment to standards in your context. Present findings and discuss with colleagues in your context to develop capacity in discerning what is good content.

Reflection and Inquiry 1. Choose three technology tools in your context. Hypothesize the future development, implementation, and impact these tools will have on education.

2. Investigate the technology plan of a school district in which you are familiar. Use material presented in this chapter to determine its viability and make suggestions for improvement.

Websites Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: ascd.org International Association for K-12 Online Learning: inacol.org

Creative Commons: creativecommons.org Freereading: freereading.org



Chapter 13  •  Trends in Digital Curriculum and Instruction 277

Suggested Reading Reason, C., Reason, L., & Guiler C. (2017). Creating the anywhere, anytime classroom: A blueprint for

learning online in grades K–12. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

References Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in educational research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. Borboza, D. (2010). China passes Japan as the second largest economy. Retrieved from www.nytimes. com/2010/08/16/business/global/16yuan.html Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn (Expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Castek, J., & Beach, R. (2013). Using apps to support disciplinary literacy and science learning. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56(7), 554–564. Cavanaugh, S. (2014). What is “personalized learning?” Educators seek clarity. Retrieved from http://www. edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/10/22/09pl-overview.h34. html?r=334378228 Digital Promise Global. (n.d.) Making learning personal for all: Research and the promise of personalized learning. Retrieved from www.digitalpromise.org Ellis, R. (2009). A field guide to learning management systems. Retrieved from www.astd.org/~/media/Files/ Publications/LMS_fieldguide_2009 Federal Communications Commission. (2017). The children’s protection act (CIPA). Retrieved from https://www.fcc .gov/consumers/guides/childrens-internet-protection-act Friedman, T. L. (2016). Thank you for being late: An optimist’s guide to thriving in the age of accelerations. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux. Gartner. (2017). The Gartner hype cycle. Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/methodologies/hype-cycle.jsp Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Technology in U.S. public schools: 2009. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Hewlett Foundation. (2017). Retrieved from http://www. hewlett.org/strategy/open-educational-resources/ Kivunja, C. (2014). Theoretical perspectives on how digital natives learn. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(1), 94–109. Naismith L., Lonsdale P., Vavoula G., & Sharples, M. (2004). Literature review in mobile technologies and learning. Retrieved from https://www.nfer.ac.uk/­ publications/FUTL15/FUTL15.pdf

National Council of Teachers of English. (2013). A position statement, the definition of 21st century literacies. Retrieved from www.ncte.org/positions-statements/ 21stcentdefinition Obama, B. (2009). Remarks by the president to the Hispanic chamber of commerce on a complete and competitive American education. Retrieved from www.whitehouse. gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-the-President-to-theUnited-States-Hispanic-Chamber-of-Commerce Office of Educational Technology. (2017). Reimaging the role of technology in education: The national education technology plan. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/ netp/. 78–79. Online Safety and Technology Working Group. (2010). The national telecommunications and information administration, youth safety on a living internet: Report of the online safety and technology working group. Retrieved from https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/reports/2010/ OSTWG_Final_Report_060410.pdf O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/ news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-2.0.html Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. Retrieved from http:// www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/791/1699 Patrick, S., Kennedy, K., & Powell, A. (2013). Mean what you say: Defining and integrating personalized, blended and competency education. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/resource/mean-what-you-saydefining-and-integrating-personalized-blended-andcompetency-education Pink, D. (2008). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. New York, NY: Penguin Group. Rand Corporation (2014). Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation early progress, interim research on personalized learning. Retrieved from http://k12education. gatesfoundation.org/resource/early-progress-interimresearch-on-personalized-learning/ Ray, K., Laufenberg, D., & Bjerede, M. (2016). Guide to choosing digital content and curriculum. Center for Digital Education. Retrieved from www.centerdigital.com

278 Part VI  •  Looking Forward in Curriculum Development Reynard, R. (2007). Hybrid learning: Challenges for teachers. Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/Articles/2007/05/17/Hybrid-Learning-Challenges-forTeachers.aspx Sloan, W. (2009). Creating global classrooms. Retrieved from www.ascd.org/publications/newsletters/education-update/jan09/vol51/num01/Creating-GlobalClassrooms.aspx Staker, H., & Horn, M. (2012). Classifying K–12 blended learning the rise of K–12 blended learning: Profiles of emerging models. Retrieved from www.innosightinstitute.org/blended_learning_models The Centre for Learning & Performance Technologies (C4LPT). (2016). Four main headings. Retrieved from http://c4lpt.co.uk/top100tools/best-of-breed The Centre for Learning & Performance Technologies. (2016). Best of breed 2016. Retrieved from http://c4lpt. co.uk/top100tools/best-of-breed/ The World Bank. (2016). China overview. Retrieved from www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. U.S. Department of Education. (2017). The national education technology plan, transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010 U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 national education technology plan update. Retrieved from https:// tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). What do we mean by innovation? Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/ about/offices/list/oii/about/definition.html Vanourek, G. (2006). A primer on virtual charter schools: Mapping the electronic frontier. Retrieved from www.qualitycharters.org/images/stories/publications/ Issue_Briefs/IssueBriefNo10. Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Watson, J., Gemin, B., Evergreen Education Group, & ­Coffey, M. (2010). The international association for K–12 online learning (iNACOL), Promising practices in online learning: A parent’s guide to choosing the right online program. Retrieved from http://www .inacol.org/resource/promising-practices-in-onlinelearning-a-parents-guide-to-choosing-the-right-onlineprogram Weigel, M., & Gardner, H. (2009). The best of both literacies. Retrieved from www.ascd.org/publications/ educational-leadership/mar09/vol66/num06/The-Bestof-Both-Literacies.aspx. Wicks, M. (2010). The international association for K–12 online learning (iNACOL), A national primer on K–12 online learning: Version 2. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ iNCL_NationalPrimerv22010-web1.pdf Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C.-H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A metaanalysis and research ­synthesis. Review of ­Educational Research, 86(4), 1052–1084.

Credits From Curriculum Planning for Better Teaching and Learning, 4e by J Galen Saylor, William M ­Alexander, and Arthur J Lewis. Published by Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, © 1981. From Developing the Curriculum by Peter F Oliva. Published by HarperCollins Publishers, © 1992. From The Planning of Change, 4e by W Bennis, K Benne, & R Chin. Published by Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, © 1985. Marsh, C. J., & Willis, G. (2003). Curriculum: Alternative Approaches, Ongoing Issues (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. From Florida retrieved from 2014-2015 Legislative Report. Published by Florida Virtual School. From Patterns of Educational Philosophy: Divergence and Convergence in Culturological Perspective by T Brameld. Published by Holt, Rinehart, and ­Winston, © 1971. From Contemporary Curriculum in Thought and Action, 6e. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc, © 2016. From The First Seven . . . and the Eighth: A Conversation with Howard Gardner. Educational Leadership, vol.55, no.1. Published by Educational Leadership, © 1997. From Revolutionizing America’s Schools. Published by Jossey-Bass. From Leadership for Learning: How to Help Teachers Succeed. Published by The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. From Qualities of Effective Teachers. Published by The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. From How People Learn (expanded ed.). Published by National Academy Press. From The Deep-level Reasoning Effect: The Role of Dialogue and Deep-level-reasoning Questions During Vicarious Learning. Published by Taylor & Francis Group. From Applying the Science of Learning: Evidencebased Principles for the Design of Multi-media Instruction. Published by American Psychologist.

From When Does Feedback Facilitate Learning of Words? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition. Published by American Psychological Association (APA). From The Power of Testing Memory: Basic Research and Implications for Education Practice. Published by American Psychologist. From Applying the Science of Learning: Evidencebased Principles for the Design of Multi-media Instruction. Published by Elsevier Inc. From Learner and Information Characteristics in the Design of Powerful Environments. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. From Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. Published by Taylor & Francis Group. From Learning Science & Literacy: Useful Background for Learning Designers. Published by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. From Learning Styles/Teaching Styles Should they . . . can they . . . be Matched? ­Published by Educational Leadership. From Classroom Instruction that Works: Research Based Strategies for Increasing Student ­Achievement. Published by The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. From Handbook on Formative and Aummative ­Evaluation of Student Learning by B S Bloom, J T Hastings, G F Madaus. Published by McGraw Hill, © 1981. Spencer, H. (1963). What Knowledge is of Moth  Wroth. In H. Spencer, Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physical. Patterson, NJ: Littlefield, Adams. From Michigan K-12 Standards Mathematics. ­Published by Michigan Department of Education, © 2017. From NGA & CCSSO. Published by Common Core State Standards Initiative. From cpalms.org. Published by Florida State University.

279

280 Credits

Reprinted with permission of Phi Delta Kappa International, www.pdkintl.org., All rights reserved. From The Human Side of Enterprise by McGregor, D. Copyright © 1960 by McGraw Hill. Reprinted by the permission of McGraw Hill. From Establishing Instructional Goals by J W Popham & E L Baker, Based on Basic Principals of Curriculum and Instruction by R. W Tyler. Copyright © 1970 by University of Chicago Press. Reprinted by the permission of University of Chicago Press. From National Education Goals and Standards: The Unpredictable Evolution of National Policy for All Students. Published by U.S. Department of Education. From Educational Evaluation and Decision Making by Daniel L. Stufflebeam et al. Copyright © 1971 by Phi Delta Kappa International. Michigan Department of Education (2015). State Board Adopts Strategic Goals to Make Michigan a Top 10 Education State in 10 Years. From http://www.michigan .gov/som/0,4669,7-192-29939-370853--,00.html. From Gartner, Hype Cycle for Education. Published by Gartner, Inc. Reprinted by the permission of Gartner, Inc. From Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education: Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. Published by United States Office of Education. U.S. Department of Education. From The Child and the Curriculum by J Dewey.  Published by Dewey, John. From Race to the Top Program Executive Summary. Published by United States Department of Education. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). Occupational Outlook Handbook. Retrieved January 15, 2011, from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ oco2003.html. From “Structures in Learning” by J S Bruner in Today's Education, Vol. 52, Issue 3. Published by Vintage Books, © 1963.

Sallie Zetterower Elementary School, Statesboro, Georgia, Mission Statement and Our Beliefs, website: szes-bcss-ga.schoolloop.com/cms/page_view?d =x8pid=8vpid=1283580802403, accessed February 7, 2011. Reprinted by permission. McMillan, James., Classroom Assessment: Principles and Practice for Effective Standards-Based Instruction, 4th ed. © 2007. Reprinted by permisssion of Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Suddle River, NJ. From Transforming Classroom Grading by R J ­Marzano. Published by The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, © 2000. Reprinted by permission of McRel. 21st Century Schools, 20th Century Classroom vs. the 21st Century Classroom. Website: 21stcenturyschools.com, accessed May 3, 2011. From Guide to Curriculum Building, Bulletin No. 8. Copyright © 1950 by Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, WI. Reprinted with permission. Based on Hilda Taba, Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1962), pp. 456–459. Based on Des Moines Public Schools, Educational Philosophy, website: old.dmps.k12.ia.us/schoolboard/ 6philosophy.htm, accessed November 5, 2011. Public domain. Based on Scaffolded Instruction Model in Taylor, Watson & Nutta (2014). Leading, Teaching and Learning the common core standards: Rigorous Expectations for all students. Rowman Littlefield. © 2017 William R. Gordon, II and Rosemarye T. Taylor. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without express written permission from the authors. Based on William R. Gordon, II and Rosemarye T. Taylor.

NAME INDEX A Adler, Mortimer J., 23, 113 Aikin, Wilford M., 126 Alexander, Lawrence T., 191, 193 Alexander, William M., 5, 32, 251 Alfonso, Robert J., 80 Anctil, Eric J., 21 Anderson, Lorin W., 187 Anderson, T., 273 Anyon, Jean, 128 Apple, Michael W., 20, 128, 204 Aquinas, Thomas (saint), 118 Aristotle, 113, 118 Armstrong, Robert J., 185

B Bagley, William C., 120 Bahrami, Homa, 79 Baker, Eva L., 6, 97, 98 Benne, Kenneth D., 79, 83 Bennis, Warren G., 79, 84 Bestor, Arthur, 120 Bloom, Benjamin S., 64, 185–188, 223, 232 Blum, Robert E., 152 Bobbitt, Franklin, 4, 19 Bode, Boyd, 23, 121 Bondi, Joseph C., 5, 154 Boyer, Ernest L., 23 Bracey, Gerald W., 238 Brameld, Theodore, 118, 122, 123 Britzman, Deborah P., 212 Brookhart, Susan, 235 Broudy, Harry S., 35 Bruner, Jerome S., 34, 64, 151 Burton, William H., 206 Bush, George H. W., 65, 114 Bush, George W., 66, 115 Butler, J. Donald, 117

C Caine, Geoffrey, 198, 205 Caine, Renate Nummela, 198, 205

Calhoun, Emily, 197, 198 Campbell, Doak S., 4, 33 Carey, Lou, 222 Carver, Fred D., 74 Caswell, Hollis L., 4, 33 Cavanaugh, Sean, 270 Childs, John, 121 Chin, Robert, 84 Christian, L., 248, 251 Clandinin, D. Jean, 5 Clinton, Bill, 66 Combs, Arthur W., 19, 34, 123–125, 188 Conant, James B., 23, 64, 112, 120 Connelly, F. Michael, 5 Corbett, A. T., 200 Counts, George S., 118

D Daniel L., 244 Darling-Hammond, Linda, 127, 233 Davies, I. K., 182 Davis, Robert H., 191, 193 Dean, C. B., 212 Deming, W. Edwards, 87 Dewey, John, 23, 99, 112, 118, 119, 121, 122, 127 Dick, Walter, 222 Dillman, D., 248, 251 Doll, Ronald C., 5, 36–37 Drake, Thelbert L., 73 Dufour, Rebecca, 250 Dufour, Richard, 250 Dunn, Kenneth J., 205 Dunn, Rita S., 205

E Eaker, Robert, 250 Ebel, Robert L., 34 Eisner, Elliot W., 212 Ellis, Ryann, 268 Ellis, Susan S., 198 Ellsworth, Elizabeth A., 198

English, Fenwick W., 153, 156, 250, 251 Estes, Thomas H., 198

F Farquear, Lucile J., 149 Fiedler, Fred E., 84, 86 Firth, Gerald R., 80, 88 Fischer, Barbara Bree, 206 Fischer, Louis, 206 Flanders, Ned A., 83 Forkner, Hamden L., 150, 151 Foshay, Arthur W., 2 Franklin, Benjamin, 22, 25 Frederick, O. I., 149 Freire, Paulo, 204 Froebel, Friedrich, 120, 185 Frymier, Jack R., 55 Fullan, Michael G., 55

G Gagné, Robert M., 4 Gaius Julius Caesar, 2 Gardner, Howard, 183, 264 Gay, Geneva, 5 Gesell, Arnold, 40 Giles, H. H., 99, 126 Giroux, Henry A., 114, 212 Glasser, William, 35, 87, 211, 233 Glickman, Carl D., 28, 198 Goodlad, John I., 23, 33, 36, 64, 113 Graham, Steve, 126 Greene, Maxine, 115, 117 Gronlund, Norman E., 180 Gross, Martin, 221 Grumet, Madeleine R., 2 Gunter, Mary Alice, 198

H Hall, Gene E., 84 Halverson, P. M., 36 Harris, Karen H., 125–126 Harrow, Anita J., 189

281

282 Name Index Hartley, J., 182 Hass, Glen T., 21 Hastings, J. Thomas, 188, 223 Hattie, J., 191, 201 Havighurst, Robert J., 143, 144 Hawn, Horace C., 55 Henson, Kenneth T., 125 Hirsch, E. D., Jr., 65, 172 Hlebowitsh, Peter S., 5, 128 Hocevar, M., 77 Hoffman, Banesh, 221 Horn, Michael, 270, 271 House, Ernest R., 198 Hubbell, E. R., 212 Huebner, Dwayne, 2 Hunkins, Francis P., 5, 118, 130 Hunter, Madeline, 199, 212, 213 Hutchins, Robert M., 119

I Ilg, Frances L., 40

J Jacobs, Heidi Hayes, 250 James, William, 123 Jensen, Eric, 205 Johns, Roe L., 85 Johnson, David W., 211 Johnson, Mauritz, Jr., 4, 96 Johnson, Roger T., 211 Joyce, Bruce, 197, 198

K Kaufman, Roger A., 153, 156 Keats, John, 120 Kelley, Earl C., 64, 123 Kendall, John S., 187 Kilpatrick, William H., 23, 121 Kimbrough, Ralph B., 84 Kliebard, Herbert K., 2 Kliebard, Herbert M., 2, 98, 113 Knezevich, Stephen J., 86 Koedinger, K. R., 200 Koffka, Kurt, 123 Köhler, Wolfgang, 123 Krathwohl, David R., 185, 187, 188, 232

L

O

Leavitt, Harold J., 79 Leeper, Robert R., 8 Lehr, Fran, 211 Levin, Dave, 65 Levine, David, 212 Lewin, Kurt, 80, 123 Lewis, Arthur J., 5, 251 Likert, Rensis, 83 Lippitt, Ronald, 83, 86 Loucks, Susan, 84 Lucretius, 119 Lynd, Albert, 120

Obama, Barack, 66, 116, 117, 263 O’Hair, Mary John, 212 Oliver, Albert I., 5, 42, 243 Orlosky, Donald E., 40 Ornstein, Allan C., 5, 118, 130 Ouchi, William G., 74

M Macdonald, James B., 8, 24 Madaus, George F., 188, 223 Mager, Robert F., 190–191 Mann, Horace, 22 Marzano, Robert J., 26, 187, 201, 212, 231, 233 Masia, Bertram B., 185, 188, 232 Maslow, Abraham H., 74, 123, 124 Mayer, John D., 183 McCutchen, S. P., 99, 126 McCutcheon, Gail, 79 McGregor, Douglas, 74 McIntyre, D. John, 212 McKiernan, James, 5 McKim, Margaret G., 150, 151 McMillan, James H., 226 McNeil, John D., 42, 182, 248, 254 Miel, Alice, 27 Montessori, Maria, 23 Moon, T. R., 222, 224, 234 Morphet, Edgar L., 85 Morrison, George S., 144 Mullen, Carol A., 25

N Neill, A. S., 185 Neill, Monty, 221 Neville, Richard F., 80, 88 Noddings, Nell, 125, 128, 129 Nunnery, Michael Y., 85 Nutta, J., 200

P Parkay, Forrest W., 21 Passow, A. Harry, 150, 151 Pavlov, Ivan, 121 Peacock, F. E., 255 Peirce, Charles S., 123 Perfetti, C., 200 Pestalozzi, Johann, 120, 185 Phenix, Philip H., 34 Piaget, Jean, 23, 40 Pickering, Debra J., 212 Pinar, William F., 5, 128 Pink, Daniel, 263 Pitler, H., 212 Plato, 118 Pollock, Jane E., 212 Popham, W. James, 6, 97, 98, 181, 182, 223, 225, 226, 233 Posner, George J., 27

R Rafferty, Max, 120 Raths, James D., 181 Reller, Theodore L., 85 Reynolds, William M., 5, 128 Rickover, Hyman G., 113 Roe, William H., 73 Rogers, Carl, 123 Roosevelt, Franklin D., 140 Rosenshine, Barak V., 199 Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 120, 121, 185 Rudnitsky, Alan N., 28 Rugg, Harold, 122

S Salovey, Peter, 183 Sanders, James R., 256 Saylor, J. Galen, 5, 32, 251

Name Index 283

Schwab, Jan, 198 Schwab, Joseph J., 19 Scopes, John Thomas, 59 Scriven, Michael, 253 Sergiovanni, Thomas J., 74 Shattuck, J., 273 Sheats, Paul, 83 Shores, J. Harlan, 40 Simpson, Elizabeth Jane, 189, 228 Sirotnik, Kenneth A., 125 Sizer, Theodore R., 23, 64, 113, 167, 233 Skinner, B. F., 23, 121 Slattery, Patrick, 5, 98, 128 Slavin, Robert E., 211 Smith, B. Othanel, 35, 36, 40 Smith, Mortimer, 120 Smyth, J., 248, 251 Snygg, Donald, 123 Soltis, Jonas F., 98, 109, 119 Soto, Mario Leyton, 98 Sousa, David A., 205 Spencer, Herbert, 149 Sprenger, Merilee, 205 Staker, Heather, 270, 271 Stanley, William O., 40

Stone, B. J., 212 Stratemeyer, Florence B., 150, 151 Stronge, James H., 198 Stufflebeam, Daniel L., 81, 248, 252–255, 257

T Taba, Hilda, 4, 31, 38, 95, 100, 101, 105, 118, 123, 151 Tanner, Daniel, 5, 43, 98, 99 Tanner, Laurel N., 5, 43, 98, 99 Taubman, Peter M., 5, 128 Taylor, R. T., 77, 200 Teller, Eric, 263 Tennyson, 230 Thayer, V. T., 120 Thorndike, Edward L., 121, 183, 221 Tomlinson, C. A., 222, 224, 234 Touchton, D., 77 Tyler, Ralph W., 4, 6, 33, 38, 41, 64, 95–100, 105, 106, 126, 151, 153, 180, 181, 235

V Vanourek, Greg, 268

W Wagner, Tony, 138, 264 Walker, Decker F., 98, 109, 119 Watson, John B., 121 Watson, R., 200 Webb, Norman L., 185 Weigel, Margaret, 264 Weil, Marsha, 197, 198 Wertheimer, Max, 123 White, Ralph K., 83 Whyte, William H., Jr., 221 Wiles, Jon W., 5, 154 Wiles, Kimball, 84 Wolfe, Patricia, 205 Wood, George H., 77, 127 Wright, H. K., 2

Y Yelon, Stephen L., 191, 193

Z Zais, Robert S., 56, 149 Zechiel, A. N., 99, 126

SUBJECT INDEX A Additional Resources (AR) document, 171–172 Affective domain behaviorally oriented verbs for, 192 classification systems for, 188–189 evaluation of, 231–232 explanation of, 185, 186 Agree/disagree attitude inventory, 232 Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, 65 America 2000, 66, 114–115 American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies, 66 American College Testing Program (ACT), 235, 249 American Community International Schools, 66 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), 116 Anderson-Krathwohl Taxonomy, 187 The Art and Science of Teaching and Classroom Instruction that Works, 212 Articulation, 41–43 Assessment. See also Instructional evaluation alternative, 233–234 authentic, 233 computer based, 273–274 historical background of, 221 international, 236–239 national, 235–236 performance-based, 232–235 qualitative, 233 Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), 64, 153 Authentic assessment, 233 Authoritarian leadership, 86 284

Autocratic leaders, 86 Axioms change in people, 27 collaborative endeavor, 27–29 comprehensive process, 30–31 concurrent changes, 25–26 continuous process, 30 curriculum as product of its time, 22–25 decision-making process, 29–30 explanation of, 21 inevitability of change, 21–22 starting from existing curriculum, 32 systematic development, 31–32

B Balance, in curriculum, 36–37 Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (Tyler), 95, 98 Behavioral objectives explanation of, 180 problems with, 182–183 use of, 181–182 Behaviorism, 120–121 Bill & Melinda Gates Education Foundation, 65 Biological needs, 142–143 Blended learning, 270–272 Bloom taxonomy, 186–187, 229 Boston Latin School, 119 Brain based instruction, 205 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 145, 146

C Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education (Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education), 64 Career clustering, 146 Career needs, 146

Carl D. Perkins Act of 1984, 146 Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Improvement Act of 2006, 146 Carnegie Corporation, 65 Centre for Learning and Performance Technologies (C4LPT), 265 Change barriers to, 80, 81 concurrent, 25–26 homeostatic, 254 incremental, 254 inevitability of, 21–22 metamorphic, 254 neomobilistic, 254 in people, 27 Change process decision making and, 81–82 explanation of, 79 innovative individuals and small teams, 82 variables for, 79–81 Change theory, 80 Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), 275 CIPP Model, 252–255 Classification systems affective, 188–189 cognitive, 186–187 psychomotor, 189–190 Classroom level curriculum development examples of, 52–53 function of, 52 teacher tasks and, 53 Coalition of Essential Schools, 113 Cognitive domain behaviorally oriented verbs for, 192 classification systems for, 186–187 evaluation in, 229–231 explanation of, 185, 186 Collaborative curriculum team, function of, 166–167

Subject Index 285

Collaborative learning, 211–212 Commission on Life Adjustment Education, 146 Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education (National Education Association), 64 Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce (1991), 114 Common Core State Standards (CCSS), 66, 208–209 Communication face-to-face, 89–90 leader skills in, 87–90 misunderstandings about, 88–90 nonverbal, 90 oral, 88–89 written, 89–90 Communities needs of, 147–148 student needs based on, 141–142 Computer based assessment, 273–274 Concentric curriculum–instruction model, 9–10 Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM), 84 Congress, United States, 62–63 Constructivist psychology, 125–126 Context evaluation, 253 Continuity, in curriculum, 41 Cooperative learning, 211, 212 Corporations, curriculum development and, 65 Council for International Exchange of Scholars, 66 Course of study, 169 Creationism, 59 Criterion-referenced measurement explanation of, 225 norm-referenced vs., 225–227 Critical inquiry, 125 Critical theory, 128–129 Cultural Literacy, 65 Curriculum conceptions of, 2–6 contexts for, 6 definitions of, 2–6 as discipline, 11–14 forces affecting, 23–24 goals, 244, 245

historical conceptions of, 4–5 vs. instruction and, 8–11 interpretations of, 3–4 objectives/standards, 6–7 as product of its time, 22–25 professional licensure and, 3 purpose of, 6 spiral, 41 Curriculum committees/councils, educational philosophy and, 129 Curriculum construction. See also Curriculum development; Curriculum planning articulation, 41–43 assessment of guiding principles, 249 balance in, 36–37 concepts of, 32–44 continuity in, 41 integration in, 37–39 relevance of, 35–36 sequence of, 39–40 transferability in, 43–44 Curriculum development, 19. See also Curriculum construction; Curriculum planning articulation, 41–43 axioms as guide to, 21–32 balance, 36–37 classroom level, 52–54 community role in, 77–78 concepts of, 32–44 continuity, 41 curriculum specialists’and team process, 79–90 as decision-making process, 29–30 explanation of, 18, 79 instructional leaders’ role in, 73 integration, 37–39 interest and wants of students and, 140 levels of, 50–60 professional books, 64–65 relevance, 35–36 school district level, 57 school level, 55–57 schools as unique blend and, 71–72 scope, 32–34 sectors of, 60–61

sequence, 39–40 specialists’ role in, 75–76 state level, 57–59 students’ role in, 78–79 systematic, 31–32 talent variables, 71–72 teachers role in, 76–77 team, grade and department level, 54 transferability, 43–44 United States Department of Education, 63 Curriculum development models Gordon Taylor Model, 103–105, 108–109 linear, 95 Oliva, 95, 100–103, 108–109 prescriptive, 95 similarities and differences among, 105–106 Taba, 95, 100 Tyler, 95–99 variations in, 94–95 Curriculum documents and artifacts, 169 Curriculum evaluation, 19, 243 explanation of, 53 instructional evaluation vs., 246 models of, 244–246, 249–255 at national level, 63 problems related to, 243–246 research vs., 247 standards for, 256 Curriculum goals, 179 characteristics of, 164 constructing statements of, 164 explanation of, 161 historical perspective, 167–169 individual school, 163–164 instructional goals and, 184 validating and determining priority of, 165–167 Curriculum guides components in, 172 examination of, 170–171 explanation of, 169–170 Florida Standard LAFS.1.L. 1.2, 170, 171 sequencing format for, 172 specificity of, 172 test-coding format for, 173

286 Subject Index Curriculum implementation, 18–19, 53 Curriculum improvement, 19 Curriculum integration, 37–39 Curriculum leaders bureaucratic/autocratic approach, 85–86 collegial/democratic approach, 85–86 communication skills for, 87–90 task and relationship oriented leaders, 86 Curriculum mapping, 250 Curriculum models, comprehensive, 249–255 Curriculum objectives, 244, 246 assessment of, 248–249 constructing, 164–165 explanation of, 162 historical perspective, 167–169 individual school, 163–164 instructional objectives and, 184 validating and determining priority of, 165–167 Curriculum planning. See also Curriculum construction; Curriculum development as comprehensive process, 31 decision making for, 29–30, 48–50 explanation of, 18 hierarchical structure model, 59–60 international sector, 66–67 national sector, 62–66 regional sector, 62 Curriculum principles sources of, 19–20 types of, 20–21 Curriculum revision, 19 Curriculum specialists, 28 change process and, 79–81 communication skills for, 79 explanation of, 14 function of, 56–57 interpersonal skills and, 79 leadership skills and, 79 role of, 75–76 role variations and, 15 supervisors and, 14–15 team process and, 79–90

Curriculum team, function of, 166–167 Cyclical curriculum–instruction model, 10

D Dare the School Build a New Social Order (Counts), 118 Decision making categories of needs and, 138–139 in curriculum development, 29–30 in curriculum planning, 48–50 needs derived from subject matter, 151–155 needs of society and, 144–151 needs of students and, 140–144 participatory model of, 56 sequence of, 49–50 skills for, 81–82 teachers’ role in, 76–77 Democratic leadership, 86 Department level planning, 54 Department of Defense Schools, U.S., 66 Department of Education, United States, 63 Des Moines Public Schools, 131–132 Developmental tasks, 143–144 Differentiated instruction, 209–211 Digital learning, 266, 268–269 instructor roles in, 269 Discipline characteristics of, 11–13 curriculum as, 11–14 theoreticians and practitioners, 13–14 Discrimination, 226 Domains of learning behaviorally oriented verbs for, 192 explanation of, 184 instructional goals and objectives and, 184–186 types of, 184 Dualistic curriculum–instruction model, 8, 10

E East Lansing Public Schools (ELPS) Strategic Plan, 161–162

Edgewood v. Kirby, 148 Educational aims derivation of, 111–112 explanation of, 109–110, 160 of federal government, 113–117 global, 110–111 historical perspective, 112–113 statements of, 111 Educational associations. See Professional associations The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs, 212 Educational needs, 143 Educational philosophies essentialism as, 117, 119–121 examples of, 131–133 formulation of, 129–130 overview of, 117–118 perennialism as, 117–119 progressivism as, 117, 121–129 reconceptualists and, 128 reconstructionism as, 117, 118 Educational Policies Commission (National Education Association), 112–113 Eight-Year Study (Progressive Education Association), 126 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), 63, 117 Elementary schools, foreign language instruction in, 26 Emotional intelligence, 183 Empowerment, of teachers, 27, 76, 77 English Classical School (Boston), 25 English High School (Boston, Massachusetts), 25, 119–120 Entry-behaviors test, 222 Essentialism explanation of, 117, 119–121 progressivism vs., 121–122 Evaluation. See also Curriculum evaluation; Instructional evaluation context, 253 curriculum, 243 formative, 223–224, 251

Subject Index 287

Evaluation. See also Curriculum evaluation; Instructional evaluation (Continued) input, 253 problems related to, 243–246 process, 253 product, 254 research vs., 247 standards for, 256 summative, 224, 251 types of, 253–254 Evaluation models basic approach, 248–249 explanation of, 247–248 Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), 117 Exceptional Student Education (ESE), 52 Experimentalist psychology, 123

F Face-to-face communication, 89–90 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 275 Federal government, on aims of education, 113–117 Florida Virtual School, 133 Ford Foundation, 65 Formative evaluation, 223–224, 251 Foundations, curriculum development and, 65 Fulbright funds, 66

G Gartner’s Hype cycle, for education, 265–267 George-Dean Act of 1936, 146 George-Reed Act of 1929, 146 Gestalt psychology, 123–124 Goals. See Curriculum goals; Educational aims; Instructional goals Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 66 Goals 2000: The Educate America Act, 115 Goldilocks principle, 203 Gordon Taylor Model, 103–105, 269 Grass-roots model, 56

Guide to Curriculum Building (Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction), 149–150

H Hawthorne Effect, 13 Hierarchical structure model, 59–60 High-stakes testing, 221 Homeostatic change, 254 Horace’s School, 233 Horizontal articulation, 42 Human needs, 145 Hype cycles, 265–267 Hypotheses, 20–21

I Incremental change, 254 Innovation, 265 Innovative practice, in education, 265 Input evaluation, 253 Institute of International Education, 66 Instruction brain based, 205 vs. curriculum and, 8–11 definition, 8, 197 differentiated, 209–211 forces affecting, 23–24 learning style based, 205–206 models of, 197–201 organizing, 206–212 planning for, 178–179 Instructional evaluation. See also Assessment for affective domain, 231–232 for cognitive domain, 229–231 curriculum evaluation vs., 246 objectives and, 227 phases of, 222–224 for psychomotor domain, 227–229 Instructional goals, 179 curriculum goals and objectives and, 184 domains of learning, 184–186 guidelines for writing, 190 validating and determining priority of, 193 Instructional leadership, 87 Instructional leaders, principals as, 73

Instructional objectives, 161, 179 classification of, 186–190 curriculum goals and objectives and, 184 domains of learning, 184–186 elements of, 190–193 explanation of, 180 guidelines for writing, 190 learning targets, 163 validating and determining ­priority of, 193 Instructional strategies, sources of, 204 Instructional unit plan, 206 Instructor roles, in digital learning, 269 Integration, curriculum, 37–39 Interlocking curriculum–instruction model, 9 International Assessment of Educational Progress (IAEP), 67 International assessments, 236–239 International Association for Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), 67 International Association for K–12 Online Learning (iNACOL), 66–67, 266, 268 International Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies, 66 International professional associations, 66–67 International sector curriculum development in, 66–67 curriculum planning in, 66–67 educational aims and, 110–111 needs related to, 145 professional associations, 66–67 technology use and, 262–263 Internet safety, 275

J John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, 114

K Kalamazoo, Michigan, 59 Kellogg Foundation, 73

288 Subject Index KIPP private foundation, 65 Knowledge is Power Program, 65

L Laissez-faire leadership, 86 Latin Grammar School, 25 Leadership, 84–85. See also Curriculum leaders historical perspective on, 85–87 instructional, 87 situational, 86–87 skills for, 79 style, 86 Learning anchored, 202 blended, 270–272 collaborative, 211–212 cooperative, 211, 212 definition, 197 domains of, 184–186, 192 mobile, 272–273 online, 266, 268–269 personalized, 269–274 Learning communities, 250–251 Learning Management System (LMS), 268–269 Learning style based instruction, 205–206 Life adjustment education, 146

M Marzano-Kendall Taxonomy, 187 Measurement criterion-referenced, 225–227 explanation of, 221 norm-referenced, 225–227 Measurement Topic Plan (MTP), 171 Metamorphic change, 254 Michigan Department of Education (MDE), 161 Middle schools, foreign language instruction in, 26 Mobile learning, 272–273 Multiple intelligences, 183

N National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 63, 114, 235–236

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 236 National Center on Education and the Economy, 114 National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), 264 National Council on Education Standards and Testing, 114 National Defense Funds, 151 National Education Association (NEA) curriculum development and, 64 on role of education, 112–113 National Education Technology Plan (NETP), 274, 275 National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts (NESTA), 272 National Governors Association, 114 National needs, 145–146 National Science Foundation, 65 National sector, curriculum planning in, 62–66 National Study of School Evaluation (NSSE), 155, 250 National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), 275 A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education), 22 The Nation’s Report Card, 236 Needs categories of, 138–139 classification of, 139–140 derived from subject matter, 151–155 of society, 144–151 of students, 140–144 Needs assessment data collection and, 155 implementation of, 163–164 perceived needs approach, 154–155 steps for, 156 Neighborhoods, 148. See also Communities Neomobilistic change, 254 Netiquette, 274–275 New Standards Project (University of Pittsburgh), 114

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), 66, 115–116, 147 Nonverbal communication, 90. See also Communication Norm-referenced measurement criterion-referenced vs., 225–227 explanation of, 225

O Objectives. See also Curriculum objectives; Instructional objectives behavioral, 181–183 curriculum, 152–154 Oliva model components of, 100–101, 103 explanation of, 95, 100, 102 submodels of, 103 use of, 103 Online learning, 266, 268–269 Online Safety and Technology Working Group (OSTWG), 275 Open Education Resource (OER), 274 Oral communication, 88–89. See also Communication Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 67, 238 Outcomes hierarchy, 180

P Partial truths, 20 Perceptual psychology, 124–125 Perennialism, 117–119 Performance-based assessment, 232–235 Personal articulation, 42 Pew Charitable Trusts, 114 Phi Delta Kappa Committee, 253 Phi Delta Kappa National Study Committee on Evaluation, 81 Physical needs, of students, 142–143 Physical Science Study Committee (PSSC) physics, 65 Planning. See Curriculum planning Portfolios, 233 Practitioners, 13–14 Preassessment, 222–223 Pretest, 223

Subject Index 289

Pretest and posttest technique, 223 Principals, 73 Process evaluation, 253 Product evaluation, 254 Professional associations international, 66–67 national, 64 state, 58 Professional learning communities, 250–251 Professional licensure, 3 Progress in International Reading Literacy Studies (PIRLS), 237–238 Progressive Education Association, 120, 126 Progressivism constructivist psychology and, 125, 126 critical thinking and, 125 decline of, 126–128 Eight-Year Study and, 126 essentialism vs., 121–122 experimentalist psychology and, 123 explanation of, 117, 121–129 gestalt psychology and, 123–124 perceptual psychology and, 124–125 scientific method and, 123 split in, 123 Psychomotor domain behaviorally oriented verbs for, 192 evaluation in, 227–229 explanation of, 185–186

Q Qualitative assessment, 233

R Race to the Top (RTTT) Fund, 66, 116, 147 Reconceptualists, 128 Reconstructionism, 117, 118 Reflective thinking, 123 Regional sector, curriculum planning in, 62 Relationship-oriented leaders, 86 Relevance, of curriculum, 35–36

Research, evaluation vs., 247 Responsible Use Policies (RUPs), 275

S Sallie Zetterower Elementary School, 132 Scaffolded instruction model, 198–201 Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT), 235 Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT), 221, 249 School districts curriculum development in, 57 curriculum objectives/standards, 152–154 Schools assessment initiatives beyond, 235–236 curriculum development in, 55–57 curriculum goals and objectives of, 163–164 differences among faculty in, 71 historical background of, 23–26 student needs based on specific, 142 twentieth-century vs. twenty-first century, 138 as unique blend and, 71–72 School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, 146 Science of Instruction (SOI), 201 Science of learning (SOL), 201 anchored learning, 202 brain based instruction, 205 deep questions, 202 dual mode and multi-media effects, 202 feedback effects, 202 generation effect, 203 Goldilocks principle, 203 instructional strategies, sources of, 204 learning style based instruction, 205–206 manageable cognitive load, 203 organization effects, 203 principles, 202–203

segmentation principle, 203 Scientific creationism, 59 Scientific method, 123 Scope, of curriculum construction, 32–34 Segmentation principle, 203 Self-actualization, 124 Self-concept, 124 Sequence, in curriculum, 39–40 Serrano v. Priest, 148 Seven Cardinal Principles, 168 Seven Cardinal Principles (Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education), 64 Site-based management, 55 Situational leadership, 86–87 SmartBrief, 64 SmartBrief on EdTech, 64 Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, 146 Social intelligence, 183 Social processes, 149–151 Societal needs community, 147–148 explanation of, 144 human, 145 international, 145 national, 145–146 neighborhood, 148 social processes and, 149–151 state, 147 Socio-psychological needs, 143 Southern States Cooperative Program in Education, 73 Standardized tests, background of, 221 State Departments of Education (SDOE) curriculum development in, 57–59 function of, 58 State Educational Agencies (SEAs) curriculum development in, 57–59 function of, 58 State education departments curriculum development in, 57–59 curriculum objectives/standards, 152, 153 function of, 58

290 Subject Index State governments education departments in, 57–59 legislative curriculum making in, 58–59 needs for, 147 State professional associations, 58 Statesboro Public Schools, 132 Student-centered approach, 120 Students curriculum development role of, 78–79 needs of, 140–144 Subject matter needs derived from, 151–155 as source, in Tyler model, 96 Summative evaluation, 224, 251 Supervisors, 14–15 Supreme Court, U.S., 63–64 Systematic curriculum development, 31–32

T Taba model explanation of, 95, 100 use of, 105 Task-oriented leaders, 86 Teacher effectiveness, defined, 199 Teachers curriculum development by, 53, 76–77 empowerment of, 27, 76, 77 technology use by, 268, 269 Teaching, as art or science, 212–213 Team curriculum planning in, 54 dynamics, 82–83 informal, 82 members, role played by, 83 productive team characteristics, 83–84 task-oriented, 83

Team process curriculum specialists’ and, 79–90 knowledge and skills about, 79 Technology blended learning with, 270–272 computer based assessment, 273–274 educational, 262–266 global competition and, 262–263 learning opportunities through, 266, 268–269 mobile learning with, 272–273 Open Education Resource and, 274 Ten Imperative Needs of Youth, 168 Tennessee, 59 Tenth Amendment, 65 Tests/testing explanation of, 221 high-stakes, 221 standardized, 221 Theorems. See Axioms Theoreticians, 13–14 Theory X, 74–75, 85 Theory Y, 74–75, 85 Theory Z, 85 Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 236–237, 250 Total Quality Management (TQM), 87 Traditional vs. standards based academic language, 7 Transferability, 43–44 Tyler model expanded, 99 explanation of, 95 philosophical screen in, 96–97 psychological screen in, 97–99 society as source in, 96 student as source in, 96 subject matter as source in, 96 use of, 105

U United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 66, 119 United States Department of Education, function of, 63 United States Office of Education. See Department of Education, United States Unit plans, 206 University of Illinois Committee on School Mathematics (UICSM), 65

V Validation, 166 Vertical articulation, 42 Virginia State Curriculum Program, 149 Vocational education, 146 Vocational Education Act of 1963, 146

W Waiting for Superman, 22 Webb’s Depth-of-Knowledge (DOK), 187 Western Electric Company, 13, 83 Whole truths, 20 Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction, 149–150 World Council for Curriculum and Instruction, 66 World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, 66 World language study, 145 as sequenced structure, 152 Written communication, 89–90. See also Communication